asked the Minister for Defence whether he will state the period of service given (a) in the Army and (b) in the Army reserve by Mr. Michael Nagle, No. 63034, of Charleville, County Cork; his character in the Army; and the date upon which he would normally be due for discharge from the Reserve; and whether he will state if he is aware that Mr. Nagle was discharged from the Reserve on the 5th March last; and if he will state the reasons for such discharge.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Discharge of Army Reservist.
Michael Nagle had 3 years, 237 days Army and 5 years, 236 days Reserve service. His character in the Army was "very good." He was normally due for discharge on the 12th January, 1935. He was discharged from the Reserve on the 5th March, 1934, for the reason that his services were no longer required.
Is the position that this man, after eight years' service, and with a very good character in the Army, was discharged from the Reserve and simply told that his services were no longer required?
Yes.
Is the Minister prepared to say what is the policy behind this action of his of discharging men who have had a good character in the Army from the Army reserve without any notice and without giving them any reason?
If the Deputy would talk to Deputy Fitzgerald, who is sitting beside him, he would find that there is an Army regulation which empowers the Minister to discharge reservists for the reason that their services are no longer required. The last Minister took that power for very good reason. I want to see every soldier who gives good service and whose services are required retained in the Army, but I am not going to retain men in the Army whose services are no longer required.
Will the Minister state what are the reasons which make the services of those men of very good character who have had very long service in the Army no longer required? Will he say if it is on the recommendation of the military authorities that he has discharged these men from the Army?
Each man's case is examined on its merits.
By whom?
By the Department of Defence. The only question asked is whether such a soldier's services are required. If they are required, he is continued in the service; if they are no longer required, he is discharged.
When the Minister says the Department of Defence, does he mean the Minister or the military authorities?
I mean the legal body known as the Ministry of Defence.
The Minister comes to the House and hides behind a term like that. He takes a man of long service, and with very good character, and he puts him out of the Army and out of the Army reserve without giving any explanation beyond saying that the man's services are no longer required.
That is not so. The Minister for Defence has legal powers and duties to carry out, and for everything that happens in the Army he takes full responsibility.
Where did the legal duties of the Minister come in in treating that man in that manner? He takes a man of long service and good character and puts him out of the Army without any explanation except that he does not want him any more.
The Minister for Defence has his duties to perform. He has to arrange for the defence of the country, for the enlistment and continued service of men who are likely to make good soldiers.
What change has taken place in the Department of Defence which makes it necessary for the Minister to discharge from the Army a man of good character and who has had long service?
I will not use public money in keeping men on, and paying them when their services are no longer required.
The Minister was quite right in referring to that regulation about dispensing with men who have served in the Army when the number is too great, or when, for matters of economy it may be necessary to reduce the number. Then comes the question of where one man is selected rather than another. In this case the man is of good character and long service. When the Minister makes a choice between one person and another there should be some principle guiding him.
Does the Deputy desire to ask a question?
Yes. Why was a choice made in the case of this man? What is the principle behind it?
May I move that the Question be now put?
The Minister has shirked answering the question why this man was selected for discharge. The Minister gave no indication except the blank answer that the man's services were no longer required.
I have given a full and complete answer.
The Minister has not satisfied the House as to why a man of good character and long service should be put out of the Army without any reason given.