Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 20 May 1924

Vol. 7 No. 10

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE. - POSITION OF EX-SERVICE MEN.

I gave notice that I would raise this question of the treatment of ex-Service men by the Government on the motion for the adjournment. I am not raising it in order to make a personal attack on the Minister for Defence or any of the other Ministers, but simply because of the amount of distress that prevails amongst demobilised officers and men. Long ago some voice should have been raised here in order to try and get from the Minister some kind of satisfactory answer as to what the intentions of the Government are concerning these men who have sacrificed so much in the interests of the country. Demobilisation was started in the end of 1922 or the beginning of 1923, and at that time hundreds of officers were sent to the Curragh for supposed training. These officers were paid for twelve months at the Curragh, and at the end of that period they were demobilised. Personally, I think, it was a waste of money to pay these officers during that time, and what I think should have been done was to put the amount of money they received at the Curragh into their hands at the outset, because that would have enabled them to start some kind of business. If that had been done, it would have saved many of them from the brink of starvation, on which they are at present. A re-attesting scheme was started in the Army at rates varying from 12s. 6d. to 14s. 6d. per week, with 17s. 6d. to men who were in the Army and who reattested, and with an extra 2s. for tradesmen. There was no provision made for paying dependents' allowances. I wonder did the Government think that they were going to get men to continue serving in the Army for 17s. 6d. a week, and 19s. 6d. in the case of tradesmen. In my opinion, the Minister for Defence should have a little more thought for men who had served the country so well and so faithfully, and should not have expected them to continue their service in the Army at rates up to 19s. 6d. per week. In the case of wounded men—and there was a large number wounded—gratuities of ten, fifteen and twenty pounds were paid to them, but they were given no pension.

In 1923, when the Army Pension Act was going through the Dáil, we were told that justice was going to be done to these people who went out and sacrificed everything they had in order that Deputies might meet in this Dáil, and that the Government would be put in a position to govern. What is the position to-day? You have an Army pension scheme, but as far as the great majority of these men are concerned, it is not an Army pension at all, but only a farcical sketch of a pension, something like the Old Age Pensions Act. To give a sum of £15 to a man disabled because of his Army service is not, I say, a proper thing. Some of the dependents of deceased Army men are not in receipt of anything, as their claims were rejected. I want to find out from the Minister for Defence whether it is the intention of the Government to amend the Army Pension Act so as to give better terms, better gratuities and better pensions to the men who were disabled during their service in the Army. I also want to know from the Minister whether it is his intention to have inserted in that Act a provision that gratuities will be given to men who were disabled, not through getting wounded, but because they contracted disease while serving in the Army, and as a result of which they are at the present moment unfit to take up their usual occupations in civilian life. It is quite true that we have not the whole of Ireland in the Saorstát at the present moment, but men from every part of Ireland served in the National Army. You have in the Six Counties at the present moment men who served in the National Army. Many of these are disabled, not because of wounds they received, but because of disease that they contracted. Some of them are tubercular, due in some case to pure neglect on the part of their superior officers in not looking after the men properly. In some cases they got bad food; in others they were provided with bad clothes, and got hardship when out during the day and the night. I think these people are entitled to some recognition from the Government. I find that something like 40,000 men were demobilised. Of that number, I understand that about 5,000 are in some kind of employment under the Government.

What, I ask, has the Government done for the men who left their regular employment, whether it was in the workshop, on the roads or on the land, to join the National Army, to see that they obtained reinstatement in their former positions? The President, of course, sent out a letter to practically every employer in the Saorstát asking them to reinstate ex-Army men who had been in their employment prior to joining the Army. Naturally, the employers' reply was: "His place is filled, and I have as good a man, and if I dismiss the man I have there will be one more added on the Labour Exchange list, and you might as well have a national soldier on it as a civilian." I think the Government should see that artisans who joined the Army are reinstated in their former positions. I know it is hard for the Government to look after the large number of men who were demobilised within a very short period, but surely it was not all planned in the one night. I am sure the Army Council did not decide in one night that they were going to demobilise 40,000 men inside of six months. They took more than one night to plan it, and when they planned and plotted, because it was a plot, they should have made some provision for these men. But what happened was that 40,000 men were thrown out on the streets to starve with their families. These men were discharged on 28 days' leave. They were at home for these 28 days, for which they got paid, and then the Government was finished with them for ever, at least, until the country called them again, if they are fools enough to come back and answer the call. I would also like the Minister to say why men who have served two years in the Army are not entitled to unemployment benefit. Under the Unemployment Insurance Act before a person is entitled to benefit he must have at least 12 weeks' contributions on his card, and the demobilised soldier who has not 12 stamps on his card prior to attesting is not entitled to benefit, notwithstanding the fact that if he served for two years in the Army he would have 24 stamps on his card, one for each month. The Government did not stamp the cards each week, but only each month. I presume that was for economy purposes.

Men who were interned for twelve months before the Truce and who afterwards joined the National Army are also debarred from getting the unemployment benefit. Surely, these cases should be taken into account. In some parts of the country men have to walk six and eight miles to the Labour Exchanges. When they get there they are told to come back on the following Friday. That goes on for seven or eight weeks. In the end, they are told that their cards have not come from the Government, that apparently they were not employed before they joined the Army, and were, therefore, not entitled to benefit. A large number of demobilised men are under notice of eviction. In Dublin I know of 30 such cases. Throughout the country the same thing is happening. Naturally, the landlord must get his rent, but the tenants are not able to pay. If such a case comes before a magistrate it will not do for a man to say that he has served in the National Army and has received nothing. That will not be taken as an excuse. He must pay the rent. How is he going to get it if those whom he has served do not assist him? This is a sample of letters I have been receiving. I am sure Deputies have received hundreds of such letters from all parts of the country. This is from a man in Athlone. He says:—

I have not paid rent for the past four weeks. I am now noticed to quit. My wife and two children have been sick for the past ten days. I have no money to pay medical expenses, and the only chance I have of saving their lives is to send them to the County Home to be an incumbrance upon the ratepayers. We are, at the present moment, in semi-starvation. This is what I have achieved for fighting for the National Army.

Surely, it is time for the Government to do something for these men. I have written to several Ministers with regard to cases throughout the country where men are not allowed to work because they have served in the National Army. The employers who engaged the men receive threatening letters, and if they do not dismiss the men they are approached at night time or in the early hours of the morning, and told that if they do not dismiss them they will have to suffer the consequences. I have given the facts regarding one such case. That man wants nothing from the Government only what they owe him, so that he can leave the country and take his wife and two children with him. Otherwise his life may be forfeited at any moment. We have other cases of men who had to arrest some of their own chums, who were not in agreement with the Government. National soldiers in some country districts had to go out and arrest their own school chums. As a result, I know of several men who dare not go near their own native place, and they are living like rats under a ditch. Deputy Gorey would not laugh in 1922 when these men were out risking their lives in order to see that Deputy Gorey's and other Deputies lives were saved.

On a point of order. why is the Deputy bringing in my name into this?

It is easy to explain why I mentioned the Deputy's name.

Better not explain it.

I see nothing to laugh at in the phrase "living like rats under a ditch." Some of them are living in hovels because they cannot go back to their homes. If they attempt to go home they are met by a body of men and told to clear out. I can produce proofs and bring these men forward if the Minister doubts what I have said as to the way in which their lives are threatened. It would have been much better for the Government when they demobilised those men to have given them their passage money and a few pounds for expenses, and told them to go to another country, as there was no room for them here. I do not say that the Government have not tried to do justice. I am sure that every Minister realises the services that these men have rendered to the country. I do say, however, that something better could have been done for them. I do not ask charity on behalf of these men, but I do not want them to be going to the Labour Exchange with their hands out for alms. They do not want that themselves. If seven hundred men are demobilised in one town, and if they are eligible for a dole of £1 each, in seven weeks that would amount to nearly £5,000. Would it not be better if that £5,000 was put into some industry?

As far as I see a large number of the people of the Saorstát do not want progress. We are not a progressive race at present. No, we like to go back to the "Paddy-go-easy times at the lazy corner." The demobilised men do not want to be going to the Labour Exchange. All that the ex-Service men of the National Army want is work and a satisfactory wage. We are told, "We will reduce the wages in this county and that county as there are any amount of ex-Service men glad to take 30s. a week." It is a wrong system to try and make strike-breakers or "red-legs" of ex-National Service men by forcing them into positions at a wage below the existing rate. I can send the Minister the names of the thirty people that I speak of who are to be evicted in the City of Dublin, and also the names of the landlords. In addition, I can send the receipts for rent that has been paid by the Association of ex-officers and men of the National Army. I want to criticise the provisions of the Pensions Act, of 1923. Will the Minister for Defence allow an independent referee with a panel of civilian doctors? If he does, the men will have some chance of getting justice. The British Government, bad as it was, treated their ex-Service men who are now living in the Saorstát, well. There are Boards of Referees to which the men can make application. I like tradesmen to get tradesmen's wages, but it would be something to go on with if handicraft schools were established here. Any man who had served twelve months or two years to a trade before joining the Army, might be assisted by the Government in that way, so that he could serve the remainder of his time, and come out as an improver until qualified as a tradesman. The Minister for Defence will no doubt tell us that there are no finances, and that the country cannot afford the expenditure to relieve distress amongst ex-officers and men of the National Army. If the Government even started a subscription list and headed it with £5,000, surely every person in the Saorstát who could afford a £5 note, would be only too glad to send it in to relieve the distress amongst men who, at the risk of their lives, had saved property. What has the Government done for the relief of distress amongst these men? To my mind they have done nothing. If trouble started again to-morrow there would be a cry for volunteers. Recruiting would be started and men would be got together like a flock of sheep and sent to the danger point. When the trouble is over the men would again be told that there was no further use for them.

I do not think I can quite follow Deputy Lyons through the labyrinth he has sketched out, as I have not been primed by the Association for which he is speaking——

On a point of order, I am not speaking for the Association. I am speaking on behalf of every demobilised man, whether he is a member of the Association or not.

There is only half-an-hour left for the debate, and some time must be left for the Minister's reply.

I do not know any member of the organisation of which Deputy Lyons has spoken. At the present moment I do not think any man in the Dáil knows as many demobilised officers and men as I do. I do not know one of them who is a member of this Association. I think demobilised men can be divided into two classes, men who were in the Volunteers and in the I.R.A. previous to the Truce, and men who joined subsequently. I will deal with the men who served previous to the Truce first. These are the men to whom the present Government owes its existence. As this is the first opportunity I have had since these men have been demobilised, I want to say now that these men have been shamefully treated. It would seem that those responsible for demobilisation deliberately set out to cut these men off from the Army. Without the work of these men in the troubled times these people could never have reached the positions they hold. It would seem to the onlooker as if they sat down deliberately, calmly and coolly to knock these men out of the Army. These men were transferred from the I.R.A. to the Army when the Saorstát was formed; some of them had been for six, five, or four years without payment. They fought all the time and bore the brunt of the struggle, and they are thrown out, most shamefully, I say. With regard to the 40,000, we did not hear much about the 40,000 prior to the Truce. There are, I suppose, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 30,000 men demobilised. They came in mostly because they were unemployed, the Army gave them a job, a risky job, if you like, they carried out the work in the Army as well as they would have carried out their work in any other job, they took risks appertaining to the Army, and some of them suffered, and they are entitled to consideration. But a number of these men would never have been in the Army if they had not been unemployed. The unemployment was not caused by the present Government, and I do not want to blame them. I have a lot of things to blame them for, but I do not want to blame them for anything they are not responsible for. They were not responsible for the unemployment that caused these men to join the Army, and the absolute fact of the matter is that instead of their being unemployed for two years they got employment from the Army for two years, and then went back to where they were in the beginning. That is exactly the position. I want to be fair to the Government.

I do not know whether the Government have received complaints from ex-Army men who could not get back to their positions under local government bodies, because they served in the Army; in some instances they were requested to come into the Army. But I do know, and the President knows, that men were taken from positions, men who had been working with us from 1914 to the time of the Truce, who were willing to carry on in the civilian positions in which they work for us and their employers as well. These men were taken out of their employment; they were used as long as they were useful, and then they were thrown on the streets in such a condition that it was impossible for them to get back to their former positions, even if their employers were ready to take them. I am sending the President the names of these men; I spoke to him about them before. I believe that apart from special cases, wounded men and men with special distinctions and service, that the demobilised men should be dealt with under a general scheme for unemployment, and I am very, very sorry to say that in the feeble attempt the Government made to tackle the unemployment question, they never got further than what I heard described as "charity roads." I believe that the first time we heard of that kind of thing was in 1847, and it was a policy in augurated by the British Government The British Government, in 1846 and 1847, made respectable, upright, hardworking, honest men into paupers, and we are following in their footsteps. Every man who goes out to work on your unemployment scheme, on your charity roads, believes that he is going out with the stigma of charity on him. Are we going to balance our Budget in two years and make paupers of our population?

And have poor roads as well.

If that is the way you are going to balance your Budget I hope I will never see the Budget balanced. I think it is nearly time for the Government to sit down and give a little thought to the fact that we are faced with an unemployment problem. The same thing is happening now as happened when the Army crisis was coming on; so long as the Government cannot see danger, the danger does not exist. But let them knock about; let them mix with the people; they are all in dug-outs here; you have got to pass an army before you can get at them. Let them knock around the streets, go through the country, hear what is being said, and see what the distress is like. There is not a man in Government Buildings who has the faintest idea of the distress, and the only thing we are offered is charity roads. I would not mind if the people that we are putting on the roads had the slightest idea of how to make them. People are working on the roads who worked in offices, who never handled a pick or a shovel in their lives, blistering their hands, and doing about an hour's work in a week, because their people are starving. Read the papers for the last few days. You have robberies all over the place. You have robberies in Drumcondra and in Grafton Street yesterday, the principal street in the city of Dublin, the capital of the Free State. If the unemployment problem is not tackled, I am afraid you will have more than robberies.

Deputy Lyons on Friday expressed the hope that every Deputy in the Dáil would express his views on this question. If every Deputy does so at the same length as Deputy Lyons, the Government had better give up any idea of progress with their business this week. I wish to deprecate, first of all, the methods by which this question has been brought before the Dáil. I, in common with others, have received what might almost be described as a threatening letter from an association saying: "We shall remember those who support us and we shall remember those who do not," and, in addition, I believe there was a demonstration of some kind in Kildare Street to-day. I have the greatest distaste for methods of that kind, and I am not influenced by them; I do not believe that the Dáil, as a whole, is influenced by them, and they would almost have prevented me from supporting Deputy Lyons to-night if I had not been convinced that the claim of these men is so strong. What has the Government done? As Deputy Lyons said, they have sent out circulars, not merely to those who had National Army men in their employment before, but to those who had not. If sending out circulars was all that was needed to meet the situation, they have done admirably; I have got more circulars than I employ men. If Deputy Hewat got them on the same scale Deputy Hewat must have felt himself under a snowstorm. The Government has given road grants; I will say no more about that. They have suggested that money voted for compensation for malicious injuries should be used on reconstruction work, but they have not set an example in using such money themselves. Government buildings have been destroyed as well as private property. The Customs House is a ruin; the Four Courts are in ruins, and the G.P.O. is a ruin since 1916. Presumably we shall need law courts in the future; presumably we shall need a Post Office. If the Government think that things are so unsettled that it is not safe to rebuild, how can they expect a private individual to do so? Then, again, they have set up a Resettlement Branch of the Ministry of Industry and Commerce; that Resettlement Branch succeeded in finding jobs for one man out of every ten demobilised, according to the Minister's statement to me. If he wishes to correct me——

It is scarcely a fair presentation, unless all that is implicit is realised. It is quite true that only one out of every ten demobilised secured appointments, but one out of every four who applied to the Resettlement Branch did.

The facts remain that 30,000 men have been demobilised, and jobs have been found for 3,000. I do not want to blame the Resettlement Branch, but I think the reason that such a comparatively small proportion applied was that they had such little confidence in it. Then a great many men thought, as the British soldiers after the Great War thought, that they were entitled to unemployment benefit. I have many letters from men who thought they were going to get unemployment benefit, but because their cards were not stamped they could not get it. Then when men have been entitled to money there have been serious delays in payment. I have heard of cases where demobilised officers had to wait for weeks, before getting the three months gratuity, and civilian clothes. That grant for civilian clothes ought to be paid before the man leaves the Army at all, because most of those officers have neither credit nor capital. They have to wear old clothes, and everybody who knows anything, knows what a handicap old clothes are to a man who is looking for a job. A man wants to look his best and smartest if he wants to get a job. The whole thing has been handled unimaginatively. I am not going to differentiate between men as Deputy McGarry has done. Once the Government employed a man, once they put him in uniform, they undertook a responsibility towards him. There has been no adequate expression of appreciation of the services that these men rendered to the State. I am not aware that men demobilised received any message of thanks from the President, or the Minister for Defence, or from any quarter. It might have been a very good thing to have had a parade of the demobilised men in the Phoenix Park, or the Curragh, and to have the President address them and thank them. All these things strike the public imagination, and would have made it easier for the men to get work.

I want to make a few practical suggestions: the first is, that the Government itself should set the example in undertaking reconstruction work, and the second is that an independent Pensions Appeal Board should be set up at once, and not to wait until another 1,700 cases have been disposed of, when there will be a glut of appeals to be heard and the proceedings will stretch out almost to the end of time. It should be started at once with an independent referee and civilian doctors, not under the control of the Minister for Defence, for rightly or wrongly, probably wrongly, the men have no confidence in doctors still in the Army, as they think that they have to obey orders. The Resettlement Branch should have its scope extended, and something like a Soldiers' Friend appointed, who could advise men on all matters, not merely in obtaining jobs, but in obtaining unemployment benefit, difficulties with landlords, and all the difficulties that confront these men in returning to civil life. Army life does unfit men for civil life, and they do need help over the transition period. I believe that to be absolutely necessary—I will not follow Deputy Lyons, who is always generous with figures—but there are 30,000 or so, demobilised, and they are demobilised with a sense of grievance, and it is dangerous to the State to have in it a body of men who feel they served it well, and feel they are not properly treated.

I will not occupy the Dáil too long in this matter, but I want to say in respect of that portion of Deputy Lyons' statement, followed as he was by Deputy Bryan Cooper, regarding pensions and the treatment of these demobilised men, with wounds, dependents, disease, and so on, that I think the Ministry is bound to take notice of the representations that have been made in that respect. I think a very fair case is made on behalf of the men in respect of the pensions, and the review of pensions by the Appeals Tribunal. We have been promised that the Ministry will bring forward an amendment to the Pensions Act. We look forward to that with interest and hope, and with the expectation that it will remedy some of the grievances. There are some grievances that may be amended without a new Act. I think the question of the Appeals Tribunal is one, and also the provision for civilian doctors, but in respect of the employment of demobilised soldiers, I agree with Deputy Cooper about the not merely injudicious but very wrong circular which was sent out to members of the Dáil.

I would hope that that kind of solicitation will not be repeated by any organisation of any kind which requires sympathy, assistance, or notice. But behind the distasteful and undesirable method of the presentation of the case, there is something to be said, and I think that the Ministry must take warning of the rising tide of agitation and discontent that is showing itself, and that not only amongst demobilised soldiers. I would very much prefer that the question of employment would be treated as a problem of unemployment, whether the men were soldiers or not. The man who worked in the Army had pay in the Army, while his brother outside was still hungry. If there is any preference to be given in that respect, I say that it is for the man who has been unemployed for the longest time and has the greatest number of dependents, but I say this problem of unemployment must be dealt with in as far as respects the demobilised soldier, and in so far as respects the civilian, who is unemployed, in a much bigger way than has been thought of or at least attempted by the Government up to now; otherwise you are going to see very grievous trouble, and I put it to the Government and to the members of the Dáil, supposing that the trouble you faced two years ago arose again, what would you do? Would you endeavour to organise a new Army to save the country? This evil of unemployment requires just as much attention, just as earnest consideration, and ought to be dealt with in the same way—to organise a civilian army to do productive work—and if you have to call on the future, then call on the future for peace service just as you would call on the future for war service.

I do not want to occupy too much time, or to delay the Minister for Defence in replying, but this discussion is of such vital importance that I do not think it is absolutely necessary that we should be confined in the discussion to 9.30. There are only a few points which I think are of considerable importance that I want to draw attention to, and in doing so I will be as brief as possible. I believe that one of the main grounds for complaint of the ex-service men is the provisions of the Army Pensions Act of 1923. A Committee of the Dáil should be set up to inquire into its defects, and report on them, and, so far as I have been able to ascertain, there are very considerable defects.

For instance, a man is entitled to a pension if a limb is so injured that it has to be amputated, but there is no provision for the loss of the power of that limb if the injury is not sufficient to necessitate amputation. There is also lacking a provision for what is known as body wounds, unless these lead to total disablement. These in themselves are serious defects, and I think call for some inquiry. Further, there is no provision for treatment of wounds after demobilisation if the wounded soldier requires such treatment—no provision for medical attendance. Paragraph 2 of Section 5 says:—

"The Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, provide, for any officer or soldier to whom a wound pension, whether temporary or permanent, has been granted under this Act, such vocational training, either free of charge or at a reduced charge, as such officer or soldier shall apply for, and the Minister shall consider suitable to his case."

I understand that not in one case has that particular part of that section been put into operation. The men who would come under that section and who have been demobilised have not been circularised by the Government Department concerned, that such provision is available for them, and it would be interesting to know if the Government proposes to so inform them. I do not wish, as I say to occupy the time to such an extent as to prevent the President or the Minister for Defence replying to the comments, but I do think there are sufficient grounds for a Committee of Inquiry, such as has been suggested by these men.

There is one other point I would like to make. I believe that some time ago £10,000 was allocated to the Dublin Corporation for work that would employ such men, and that it was refused. I understand that the Dublin Corporation is going to suffer a well-earned rest, and that certain Commissioners have been appointed to discharge its functions. I do hope that these Commissioners will not treat that proffered grant in the same way as the Dublin Corporation, and that that £10,000 be made available for relief of unemployment of this kind. I do not want to take up time further. There are, I think, sufficient grounds to warrant an inquiry to ascertain what other defects of the Pensions Act there are; and so furnish the data for an amending Act that will remedy those defects.

I have six minutes to answer what has been said in fifty-four minutes.

The President may speak after 9.30 p.m.

The position is this: that the Deputy, who I am sorry to see, has left his accustomed place, will be afforded now an opportunity of telling the Deputies how it was when he was on these Benches, he did not discover all the defects of that particular Act twelve months ago.

On a point of explanation, I was depending on the intelligent guidance of Deputies I followed at that time.

The pity is you did not extend your confidence a little longer. We are attacked on various grounds over a very large field, embracing everything which affects, or might affect, men who rendered good service in a dangerous time, and we are attacked in language which I would not commend outside a lunatic asylum, from some members, which, I think, will not effect any useful purpose, and which in itself is responsible a good deal for the present unemployment. Deputies must realise their sense of responsibility when they get up here in a despairing and doleful tone, seeing before them every danger, seeing despair on every hand, pointing out all the infirmities that are in the national character, and then saying nothing can be done, and nothing will be done. That is not the way to give a lead to anybody who has any respect for a lead at all, and that is one of the things which is, perhaps, our principal trouble at the present moment, those doleful, disastrous, despairing stories which Deputies themselves do not believe when they are speaking.

Question.

Complaint was made that we had put out clerks on roads, and no indication was given to us as to what the particular critic would have done himself. Would he start them building houses? Would he start them making ships? Would he start them on the Shannon scheme? Would he start them draining the Barrow, or something else of that sort? Would not the clerk be as much out of place in any of these occupations as he would be on the roads? The strange thing about the roads is that anybody who has been consulted usually took refuge behind them, and said it was the best method of employing men, and £2,000,000 have been set apart for them. I would not have mentioned that, but that the Deputy interrupted me. We spent £480,000 in one particular area handed it out under the Damage to Property Act, or through the Shaw Commission. Only £80,000 of that £480,000 has been spent up to date. What is the Government to do? To go down and show them how to spend it, or to try and give them some confidence in the country. Deputies say, why do we not borrow money. What is the National Loan standing at? 93, when it should be 97.

Settle the boundary question.

Deputies ought to have a little bit of common sense. One cannot have the experiments we have had for the past two or three months and maintain national credit. One cannot go out on the market with the National Loan at 93 and borrow ten more millions. There is a shaking there in public confidence, and that shaking will not be benefited by the nature of the discussion that has taken place here to-night.

Why did you not borrow when it was at 99?

Because it was not wanted at that particular time.

We borrowed for what we required, and we borrowed a sufficient sum only. We obtained all the possible information that we could upon the matter, and we banked upon the sound common sense of the people, and it responded. It is not going to respond to what has taken place here to-night. I have not seen the circular. I have heard of it. It is not going to respond to a matter of that sort. Complaints were made about the Pensions Act. Well, Deputies were here just as we were this time twelve months, and the strange thing about the Pensions Act is that no specific cases were mentioned. They have not been brought to my notice. Deputy Milroy states that some soldiers did not know that they could get treatment. At the present moment there are ex-soldiers in St. Brican's Hospital who are getting treatment.

I am sure no one could accuse me of attacking the Government on this question. I simply pointed out certain defects in this Act which could only be ascertained in the operation. There were certain species of wounds for which there was no provision made in the Act. It is like a pair of boots. You do not know how they fit until you try them on.

At any rate, I understood the Deputy to say that there was no provision for soldiers who require certain operations or medical attention, or that they did not know anything about it. Well, there they are. Only this week I had representation from the Finance Officer that those men had no money and he wanted to know if he could supply them with cigarettes and tobacco. That is evidence that they are there, but they are not getting paid. I have not heard regarding the complaints concerning men in Local Government positions, but if there are such complaints I will undertake to do what is possible to get the men restored. Eleven thousand and fourteen men were on the register, and there were placed to date 3,127 by the Re-Settlement Branch. I do not know whether there is included in that figure a couple of thousand men who, since this time twelve months, have been taken into the Civic Guard, quite a considerable number of men who are employed in clerical positions in the Government service, and a number who have been taken into the D.M.P. We propose to open recruiting on Monday next for some thousands of soldiers—three or four thousand, or possibly more. We have paid over five million pounds for compensation within the last two years, and a very small amount of that has been put into bricks and mortar. We have paid two million pounds on roads. We have paid between £3,000,000 and £4,000,000 in soldiers' pay and dependents' allowances. We have provided £300,000 for housing. We gave £100,000 early in 1922 for unemployment. We gave £1,000,000 for housing generally over the country during those two years. I want to know what Government there is in Europe, with the same revenue as we have, who have spent so much money in one way or other relieving unemployment.

What Government in Europe would demobilise such a large number of soldiers?

There is no Government in Europe in which I believe you would be taken as a member, because of your lack of information regarding existing conditions. Forty thousand men demobilised in twelve months! That was a fairly long time to demobilise 40,000 men. It took us more than twelve months to build that up. Twelve months building it up and twelve months letting it down is not a bad proposition.

You build up in twelve months and let it down in a week.

If the Deputy had spoken less, and if he had spoken more to the point we would have been out of this before now.

I am prepared to stop all night.

You are welcome. It has been suggested that we should rebuild the Four Courts, the Custom House and other places like that. I have had some association with housing, and I am informed that any such activity on our part would militate against building houses for the working classes. The Minister for Local Government is not present at the moment, but I understand there will shortly be accepted, on behalf of the Dublin Corporation, a tender for the construction of a couple of hundred houses. I understand the Minister for Industry and Commerce will be in conference with the Minister for Local Government in connection with a scheme for building something like four hundred or five hundred houses in the city during the next twelve months. If we start on those other buildings there is no great advantage derived by the ordinary public. There is only the employment. In the other case there is real advantage. In the first place there is employment, and in the second place there is the enjoyment of some sort of decent life on the part of those people. There is a Committee at present sitting which has been considering, I believe, for a fortnight, certain amendments to the Pensions Act. I have not received a report from them yet. I expect it, and I hope it will be possible to persuade the Minister for Finance to agree to such an amendment as I intend to move or as they will recommend.

I have not heard cases of complaint as to the amount that was awarded by the Medical Board, and I do think that it is scarcely just to say that because an Army doctor does not make a recommendation, an outside doctor would make it. If there is one class of people I know who are soft-hearted, and who must be soft-hearted by reason of their peculiar profession, it is doctors. I have never heard of a case where a doctor, seeing suffering or anything of that sort, did not do everything that was possible to alleviate it.

Except he was employed by an insurance company under the Workmen's Compensation Acts.

I have not any experience of those cases. But in our case is it to be thought for a moment that a doctor, who would derive no benefit, good, bad or indifferent would not seek to get for a man everything he would be entitled to. It might be supposed that the Minister for Finance would frown on him. But the Minister for Finance does not come into it; it is the Minister for Defence. And surely the Minister for Defence would not raise any objection to expenditure on foot of a really sound case such as that.

On a point of explanation, I said that this was the belief on the part of those men, that it was probably wrong, but that as it existed it should be dealt with.

I know that. There may be also complaints regarding the demobilisation of officers. A large number of them were demobilised on one day. In consequence there was some congestion in dealing with their cases. But I think that is rapidly clearing away and that there is a good deal less cause for complaint now. On Sunday last, and on the Sunday previous, I was engaged for four hours dealing with those cases—simply signing a number of documents that came up before me, dealing with pensions arising out of the Army Pensions Act, wound pensions and demobilisation grants. One can form some idea of the number that comes up when it takes four hours on Sunday to sign them, and that does not mean the whole of the week's work.

Many times it has been mentioned here that there should be an Appeal Board in connection with these pensions. That is a matter, I think, it is fair should be considered, and I shall consider it. About the Resettlement Branch, it was recommended that its scope should be extended. I think that is a fair case. I am prepared to consider that also. I am not disposed to agree with Deputy Milroy regarding the necessity for amputation of a limb before getting a pension. But if that be the case—and it is disputed by one of the officers of the Army—I will undertake that that also will be brought to the notice of the Committee dealing with pensions. Somebody mentioned tubercular trouble. I believe there were some cases of men suffering from tuberculosis. There was no question of disease being mentioned in the Army Pensions Act. That ought to have been mentioned last year. One of the difficulties of dealing with a case of that sort is to trace its origin. If it occurred in the army, if it was as a result of army service, if its ravages were seriously increased by reason of army service, then a case should lie against us. But if a man brought it in, it is not our liability. There was no medical inspection coming in. It can, of course, be claimed that a man would not be taken in unless he were medically fit, but one can understand that if disease is brought in—the question is at present under consideration by the Committee I mention—it must not be inferred. that the State is to accept liability for all the disorders.

I think when the Bill was going through the Dáil last year that the matter of disease contracted in the army was mentioned, and I think the Minister for Defence promised that provision for it would be made in the Bill.

It may have been mentioned here last year, but it was not embodied in the Act, and one can see at once how wide or extensive the Act might become if we included disease. We are, however, considering two diseases, and probably three. The most dangerous of all diseases was not in the Act, namely, insanity.

Would the Minister say if the £10,000 grant to the Dublin Corporation will be handed over?

I have stated that the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Local Government were to be in conference as to the housing scheme, and I take it that would be the best method of giving employment in the city. The roads in the city do not require an expenditure which would give any sort of reasonable employment, but the development of a site for building might take in the same class of man and be much more useful. That £10,000 would be now available for the consideration of the Commissioners, and I should say a considerable sum in addition. If there are cases where it is alleged that injustice has been done by the Pensions Committee, I am open to receive any communications on the subject and to go into them personally. I should say that the Pensions Act has been criticised in a way that is scarcely just to the Government. I mentioned here on more than one occasion within the last week or a fortnight that 1,700 cases had still to be considered. A large number of people applied who had got no equitable claim and in consequence considerable delay was occasioned. People may think that they have a claim, but the fact that there is a large number of claims such as that naturally leads to congestion. Two or three months ago I approached the late Minister for Defence with a view to speeding up the machinery of that particular Act, and he agreed. A short time ago the former secretary became ill and another secretary was appointed. They are now speeding up the cases so much so that they come in piles of six or eight inches to be signed. I think there is now no unreasonable delay, and I have endeavoured to expedite the hearing of the 1,700 cases. I hope, before the Army Vote comes up, to be in a position to give a more favourable record of the proceedings.

Is it the intention of the Minister for Finance to extend the Unemployment Benefit?

That was a matter considered here last year and put into the Bill dealing with the Defence Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act. Deputies had an opportunity to raise the point at that time. I do not know anything about that item, and it would be useless for me to try and give the Deputy an explanation. I understood from the Minister for Defence at the time that he dealt with the matter fairly and justly. If that is not the case I am open to receive representations on the subject.

The Dáil adjourned at 9.45 until Wednesday, the 21st, at 3 p.m.

Top
Share