asked the Minister for Defence why boys from Borstal schools, who have been recommended by the governors of such institutions, are not admitted to the Defence Forces.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Admission of Borstal Boys to Army.
We accept in the Defence Forces boys from industrial or approved schools. It is not the policy to accept for enlistment boys who had been tried by the civil courts and found guilty of serious offences. The military authorities are responsible for the moral welfare of youths who join the forces, and it would be an evasion of this responsibility if the ranks were thrown open to boys who had been sentenced to a term of detention in a Borstal institute.
Is the Minister aware that these are boys aged from 17 to 20 or 21 and that the governors of the Borstals can get them accepted by the British Army and into the British Forces? Is it to be the position that we have one section of the State maintaining these boys and trying to fit them to live in society while another section will not accept them and give them a chance?
If it has reached the stage that the State is not prepared to help these boys after a period in these institutions, how can we expect the ordinary civilian outside to help them?
There is no analogy between civilians outside and bringing a large number of boys into the Army and putting them all into the same building. The most any employer would get would be one or two, but where there are 1,000 boys together in one building there would be a danger. Not all, but boys convicted of certain offences are excluded. I cannot take the responsibility, nor can the Army authorities, who also refuse to take responsibility, of bringing in boys who may on the face of things have a damaging influence on the other youths there. We want to get the best types of young fellows in the Army and we hope to get them and there is a danger that if we open the door too wide the parents of boys coming in would feel very loath to let them come in and, in fact, would rather that they went somewhere else.
Is it not a fact that there is no need for all these boys to be put together in one unit? What is to prevent a distribution of, say, one per company if necessary, because the power is there in the Army Acts to transfer or remove an individual private, an N.C.O. or officer from one division to another or from one barrack to another? There is no reason to have all those boys admitted from institutions in the one company.
The Deputy knows very well that on the reception of recruits they are all brought in the initial stages to a centre for training and are not distributed. When they are trained they can be distributed but then the harm can be done in the three to six months during which they are in residence in the training depôt.
Is the Minister aware that the total number of boys that would be recommended by the governors for the Army would not be more than two in any one year? Surely there would not be any great danger to the morale of the Army, or the morals of the Army, in giving these people a chance of a decent livelihood?
I have a letter which I can show to the Deputy and it is clear that there are always more than two—and considerably more than two.