asked the Minister for Defence whether he will state if a colonel of the Army has been relieved of all military duty from the 29th February, 1940, and put on the half pay list as from 12th March, 1940; if this punishment is expressed to be to mark the Minister's dissatisfaction with the conduct of the said officer; if any military court of inquiry made any finding affecting the character or military reputation of the said officer; if under Defence Forces Regulations (A.5) (Courts of Inquiry, etc.), an officer is entitled to be present throughout any inquiry which affects or when it appears probable that such inquiry may affect the character or military reputation of such officer and to produce witnesses in defence of himself; if it is a fact that the officer in question was not afforded such opportunity of being present throughout the said inquiry or of producing any witness in his own defence; if the said officer was afforded any opportunity of making representations against the said punishment; if under the aforesaid Defence Forces Regulations an officer whose character or military reputation is in the opinion of the Minister affected by anything in the evidence before or in the report of a court of inquiry is entitled to a copy of the proceedings of the court, including any report made by the court; if the said officer has applied for the proceedings and findings of the said court, and has been given them subject to any conditions, and, if so, what these conditions are; and under what section, if any, of the Defence Forces Act or of any other Act the officer in question was relieved of duty and put on half pay.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Army Officer's Position.
The answers to the first two parts of the Deputy's question are in the affirmative. The findings of the court of inquiry referred to are confidential, and I do not propose to disclose them. Under Defence Forces Regulations, an officer or soldier is entitled to be present throughout an inquiry which is likely to affect his character or military reputation. In view of the urgent military situation created by the raid, and the large number of officers and men involved or likely to be involved in the inquiry, it was impracticable to relieve them all from duty for attendance throughout the inquiry. Furthermore, it was essential that the Government should get at the facts as early as possible; and I am satisfied that had the court adopted any other procedure the delay would have been such as would have created justifiable public concern and be highly prejudicial to the public service. In view of this, no action has been taken by me on the findings of the court. The action in this case is based solely on this officer's own evidence.
This officer has, in fact, submitted a lengthy written defence which has been given due consideration. This officer has no absolute right under regulations to a copy of the proceedings of the court of inquiry, but he has been issued gratis with a full copy thereof, with a reminder of the provisions of the Official Secrets Act as they affect the proceedings. This officer was relieved of his duties and placed on the half-pay list under the terms of Section 20 of the Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1923, which is as follows:—
20.—The Minister may place any officer of the forces on a half-pay list for a period not exceeding one year.
Any officer who is not re-employed before the end of that period may at his own request be placed on the unattached list and await re-employment. An officer so placed on the unattached list shall cease to draw the pay and allowances of his rank, but if he be subsequently re-employed, his services on the unattached list may be reckoned to count as service in the forces on such conditions as may be prescribed.
I take it that Section 20 is in the organisation part of the Act and not in the disciplinary section?
I beg your pardon?
Am I right in saying that Section 20 is in the organisation part of that Act and not in the disciplinary section? Am I right further in saying that there is no such thing known to the Army code as a half-pay punishment?
Is the Deputy suggesting that such a decision was never taken in the former Government's time?
I am asking two questions: Is it a fact that Section 20 is in the organisation section of that Act and not in the punitive section, and is it a further fact that there is no such thing known to the Army as a half-pay punishment?
What I have read out is——
Section 20.
A provision of the Defence Forces Act.
Is it in the organisation part of the Act or is it not?
I am not certain but if the Deputy suggests that no such action was taken in the former Government's time, he is not correct.
I do not care about that. I am talking about whether it is legal. I may also add that I understand from the Minister that it is agreed now that the Defence Forces Regulations were not carried out in connection with the trial of this officer. I think the Minister said that it was impracticable to carry them out?
Yes.
May I ask him as a further supplementary, if the court were asked to report why they did not carry out the regulations?
I am satisfied.
I am asking the Minister to tell me if the court were asked to report as to why the regulations were not carried out?
No, I did not ask them.
The Minister has the findings before him. Is it not included in the findings that the court were asked to report upon why they did not carry out the regulations and that one of the answers they gave was that the room was too small. A man's character may be taken away but the room is too small to conduct his own defence.
I have stated very clearly that the military exigencies at the moment made it impracticable to have these officers present. That is the only reason that I know.
The Minister does agree that the regulations were not carried out?
In the circumstances, no.
And I ask the Minister, further, were the court asked to report upon whether or not the regulations were carried out and what explanation they gave? The Minister has the findings before him. Is there not an endorsement on the findings to that effect?
I did not ask the court.
Do not quibble about it. Was there a question asked?
I can only answer for what I know.
Has the Minister seen the findings?
Yes.
Am I right in saying that on the findings there is a statement to the effect that the court were asked to report on whether or not they carried out the regulations?
The court was reconvened for the purpose of——
For the purpose of stating why they did not carry out the regulations?
Yes.
And would the Minister tell me what the answer was?
I am not certain.
Will the Minister agree that part of the answer was that the room provided for them was too small to enable the witnesses to be there together?
I have no information to that effect.
Has the Minister read what is on the findings?
The only reason I can give is the reason I have already given in the answer.
Does not the Minister think it a scandalous matter that as the result of an inquiry a man should be deprived of his career as an Army officer and that the court which was set up to inquire into the matter stated that the room was too small? Is there not a big enough room to enable justice to be carried out in the Army?