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.