Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 13 Mar 1947

Vol. 104 No. 15

Adjournment Debate. - Retirement of Army Corporal.

In reply to a question of mine this afternoon I was told, on behalf of the Minister for Defence, in relation to Corporal Samuel Gallowey, that he was 49 years of age, that he had served for 24 years and 259 days in the Army, that he had been discharged on the 30th January this year after a quarter of a century's service, that his record during his time in the Army was very good, that he had been employed as a barrack policeman immediately before the date of his discharge and that although he was desirous of remaining on in the Army he could not be kept on, as no suitable appointment existed, under the peace-time establishment, in which Corporal Gallowey could be employed; that his pension was likely to be 17/6 a week, but that the Army had not yet gone through whatever process was necessary to make that pension available; that when he was serving as a soldier he occupied married quarters, and that the cost of rent, light and water of these married quarters was 5/2½ a week; that no moneys had been with-held from him since 30th January, 1947, but that, on the other hand, no moneys had been paid and, if he continued to occupy married quarters when money was available to him—that is, when the Army authorities had made up their minds what his pension would be—that in respect of the house that was valued at 5/2½ a week when he was in the Army they proposed to charge him 2/- a day, plus 2/2½ for light and water. That was what they were going to deduct, out of 17/6 a week, 16/2½ a week for the house that was valued at 5/2½ before.

We were talking a day or two ago— at least the Taoiseach was—about appointing a joint committee of the Dáil and Seanad to consider the privileges of both Houses and what steps, if necessary, could be taken against criticism from outside or subversive influence or attacks, whether from persons or the Press, that would undermine institutions of State. Here we have what would be called a Northern Nationalist, a young man who, from the year 1916, served in the Volunteers, joined the National Army when it was founded, served in the National Army ever since, continued beyond his normal service because there was an emergency and he wanted to serve, wanted to continue further on but would not be allowed. He has given a quarter of a century's good service in which, for not one hour, was he ever absent from duty, for not one hour was he ever, for any offence even of the smallest kind, detained by way of punishment.

He was discharged with a good character. Now he finds himself pushed out of the Army into a situation in which 76,000 men are looking for employment. There is an attempt to push him out of the house he occupied for many years into a situation in Dublin where nobody can get a house of any particular kind. The Minister informed us he was setting up a committee at General Headquarters, Parkgate Street, to deal with soldiers' difficulties. This man has made two visits to General Headquarters, Parkgate Street, to be told they are trying to get employment for him. This man wanted to stay on in the Army. He has had a quarter of a century's experience and has a good character. He is a comparatively young man, under 50 years of age, and the Army at the present moment, according to the Minister for Defence, want 3,243 more men as non-commissioned officers and men.

The Estimates that have been presented to us show that the Minister wants—and he explained that he wants them very badly—10,973 non-commissioned officers and men in the Army. He had 7,567 on the 1st of this month and he was short 3,406 non-commissioned officers and men. In September last the Minister set out on a campaign for recruits. He then wanted 5,363 additional recruits. He has got only 2,120, leaving him with a deficiency of 3,243. He got 2,120 accepable recruits; there were 4,600 offering their services, the majority of whom he refused to accept.

Here we have an Army that ought to be standing still, waiting to see what kind of new world we will have that will indicate what type of army we ought to have. This man to whom I am referring is a man with a good record; he is perfectly healthy, perfectly sound; he is disciplined and experienced and still he cannot be kept at work.

How old is he?

Less than 50 years and he has had 25 years' experience in the Army.

There are thousands like him out of the Army——

He has been fired out of the Army.

——because they are over age.

All the more shame.

You did not keep them on.

If the Irish Repubblican Army representative recently sent in from the City of Cork wants to say that this man should be thrown out into the streets and should be treated in the way in which the military authorities are treating him, let him stand on his feet and let us hear him, uninterruptedly; but first hear my story uninterruptedly.

We are not going to have exceptions.

He is not an exception, and that is the case I make. He is not an exception and I challenge the Deputy to get up here and say he is. Here is a man who, having given a quarter of a century's service in the Irish Army, who helped to free this country, to defend this country, who helped to build up the Army, a small Army, that enabled us in 1939 to train the untrained youths of our country to do their work during the emergency. He is a man of 49 years of age, with a wife and seven children, only one of whom is in a position to earn in a small capacity—a young girl. In this State, that has been presented with a bill of £52,000,000, the men who were the foundations of our State institutions of to-day, who are our citizens to-day and who have wives and families and can do work if they get an opportunity, are isolated in a military dwellinghouse in Portobello Barracks. Why?

I want to know why they are isolated from employment, why they are isolated from housing, because the citizens of Dublin or indeed of any other part of the country cannot get housing under present conditions? This man is expected to live on nothing except what he can get through our social services—our home assistance, our vouchers and our children's allowances. He is expected to keep himself, his wife and seven children on 24/- a week while the staff of the Department of Defence scratch their heads to know whether he is going to get 17/6 or 17/8 pension. He occupied premises for the greater part of his Army career, the cost of which was reckoned at 5/2½ per week and they are now going to withhold 16/2½ out of the 17/6 of his allowance. He has to stay there, they knowing through every limb and every feeler of their Government machine, that he cannot get a house to house his family and that he cannot get employment here even with the assistance of the great machinery about which the Minister for Defence boasted so much.

Is the Deputy dealing with the grievances of ex-servicemen in general or is he dealing with a particular case?

Deputy McGrath should not interrupt the Deputy.

I am dealing with a particular case, but I am putting it to Deputy McGrath that it is no exception. I challenge him to meet the men and to speak to the men who, as well as Gallowey, are suffering under these conditions. I take an individual case so that the Deputy can see with his mind's eye the disabilities under which these men suffer. This man came from the Nationalist fraternity in the North of Ireland about 1916. He worked as a volunteer to bring about the free State that we have here. He joined our Army and served all through the various crises through which we have since passed. He is a comparatively young man of about 50 years of age now, with a wife and seven children, one of whom is just about able to earn. I want the Deputy to picture that man in the home where he lived and worked honourably, and fairly comfortably, as a soldier on the modest pay that an Irish soldier can get.

I want the Deputy to picture him with his wife and children knowing that there is not a halfpenny coming into his house except what he can get in unemployment assistance while the whole machinery of State in the Department of Defence has not yet figured out whether he is going to get 17/6 or 17/8. When they have figured that out, he is going to get only what is left out of his pension after 16/2½ has been deducted from it.

Since the 30th January he has been visited by the Army bailiff on two occasions and told to clear out. When one realises what our soldiers are and what they stand for in this community, that they have willingly given the full service that they were asked to give in an Irish Army, I want to know, what kind of State we have here if assuming there is no work for a man leaving that Army, and these are the circumstances in which he terminates an honourable Army career of a quarter of a century—a period during which he has helped to create the circumstances in which we were able to build up an increased Army to face the emergency— I want to know if these are the conditions under which such men are to be sent out into civil life in this expensive State, with its cosmic outlook, with all the great principles of its glorious Constitution?

I want to know if our Army is 3,243 men short, if we are scrounging the country to get men whom we can inveigle into the Army, with all the attractions of new uniforms and increased pay, what is wrong with the Army and its administration, if a man such as I have described is forced into the conditions in which he has been forced with no provision afforded by the authorities to meet these conditions? I should be glad if Deputy McGrath would give any help he can to redress the grievances of these men so that our institutions here and our own personal consciences can be saved the stigma and the stain of leaving them in the conditions which I have described. I want to assure Deputy McGrath that I did not raise this as an individual case except for the purpose of getting Deputies to realise that it is not an isolated case. There are others like it and if we do not speak up and expose individual cases these grievances will remain concealed to our eyes and to the eyes of our people.

I want to assure Deputy Mulcahy that I merely took exception to his bringing forward a special case. When he raises the question of the general treatment of ex-service men I am in agreement with him. I joined the Army during the emergency and, speaking on behalf of ex-service men, I can say that they got a raw deal just as some old I.R.A. men were badly treated by those who came before us. I know of several grievances. Men are waiting for payments because of delay in getting clearances from the quarter-master, although they have been out of the Army for 18 months. I know of one case where a man actually died in the Army, on service, and his widow has got no pension. I could quote a number of other cases but I merely desire to say now that what I did take exception to was the fact that Deputy Mulcahy appeared to raise a special case. I agree that ex-service men are not getting a fair show.

I did not expect, when I came in here to-night to deal with this matter, that so much heat would be introduced into the debate.

It is all to the good that there is some little heat left in the country

The story that we have to tell about ex-Corporal Samuel Gallowey is very simple, so simple indeed that there is no need to refer to cosmic physics, or to the committee that has been established to examine the proper conduct of Deputies in this House or to any of these other extraneous matters which have been mentioned. One would think from the way in which Deputy Mulcahy has spoken that this is a case of victimisation—thorough victimisation. It is no such thing. On the contrary, this man has been treated generously. Ex-Corporal Samuel Gallowey was notified on the 16th November last that he was to be retired from the Army and that the date of his discharge would be the 30th January. According to the ordinary regulations there is a period of grace of 15 days given to married soldiers who occupy married quarters so as to give them an opportunity of finding alternative accommodation. On January 16th this man got 15 days' grace and an additional seven were later added to the 15. Therefore, if you calculate the time from the 16th November to the 20th February, this ex-Corporal had over three months to look for alternative accommodation. I do not know— I am not in a position to know— whether he himself made any serious attempt to get alternative accommodation.

Not only did he do it but I tried to do it for him.

I have no official knowledge of that.

I have evidence of it.

But in any case that is beside the point. I am trying to point out that this outburst of indignation we have had from Deputy Mulcahy to night has no justification. Now, as I said in my reply to-day, this man is almost 50 years of age and the policy of the Minister for Defence and the Government is to get young men into the Army who will form the Army of the future. We cannot confine ourselves to the present. We must look to the future and if, together with getting the appropriate number of young men into the Army, we had to keep all those people to whom Deputy Mulcahy and Deputy McGrath have referred, we would have a very big Army indeed and, no doubt, members opposite would come into the House and complain about the high expenditure that would be involved. As I have said, we want to get young men into the Army, and that is the policy.

They will not touch it. You cannot get them.

We are doing our best to get them and they are coming in. In accordance with the regulations a soldier in occupation of married quarters is allowed the grace that I have referred to. Also, according to the Defence Force Regulations, a soldier who over-holds married quarters is subject to a deduction of 2/- plus the estimated value of light and water for each day of the over-holding. That is the regulation. This sum can be recovered and, in fact, will be recovered, from ex-Corporal Gallowey and the Deputy is right, the amount is 16/2½ a week.

We cannot be expected to make an exception of this man. Regulations are established to govern every case and why should this man be made an exception of? Deputy Mulcahy also seemed to try to create the impression that this man has been let out of the Army penniless, that he was "fired" out of the Army. That was the word the Deputy used. He was not fired out of the Army. He was retired from the Army after he had served the full number of years, plus nearly four emergency years. I should mention that on the 16th September, 1946, he was given a gratuity of £86 8s. 0d. and that was lodged to his credit in the Post Office Savings Bank.

And how long is he expected to live on that?

Wait a minute. In addition he received a total sum of £31 4s. 0d., paid in March, 1945, and March, 1946, in respect of deferred pay which had accumulated since 29th September, 1942. Therefore, he got £117 12s. 0d. in all.

Between March, 1945, and September, 1946?

Yes. It is, as I said, the rule to withhold a pension from a married soldier until such time as he vacates his married quarters and that is exactly what is being done in this case. The moment that he vacates the married quarters and that whatever amounts are due to the Minister for Defence, to the State, are collected, the pension will be paid in the usual way. So there is no question whatever of victimisation in this case.

It would be a grand thing, of course, if we could hold all these people who have served the State in their time, both in the volunteers and in the Army, together in the Army for the next 20 years and bring in young men at the same time to form the nucleus of a new Army. It cannot be done. The old have to go out and yield place to the new always in these cases. For fear it might be gathered from the discussion here that anything derogatory has been said about the person in question, I want to say that I agree with Deputy Mulcahy that this man has given good service to the State. But many other people have given service to the State also but they have come to the end of their service. This man came to the end of his service even before he was retired because, together with the 21 years, he had nearly four more years' service during the emergency. I suggest that there was no need whatsoever, no justification, for this outburst of indignation that came from Deputy Mulcahy in connection with this case.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary say if the young men that are being invited to join the Army to take the place of these men are going to be treated in the same way when they are leaving the Army service, when they are less than 50 years of age and when they have a wife and a young family to look after?

The young men entering the Army——

Are going into the same kind of position.

——are made aware of exactly the conditions under which they are expected to serve. The conditions are as good as they possibly could be.

I wonder are they.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Friday, 14th March, 1947.

Top
Share