asked the Minister for Defence if he is aware that a person (name supplied) was recruited into the Army school of music on 6th May, 1971, and discharged on 23rd July, 1971, as not having been finally approved; and if he will explain why.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Army School of Music Recruit.
76.
I am aware of the facts mentioned in the first part of the Deputy's question.
The relevant Defence Force regulations prescribe that when a recruit is not finally approved for service he will thereupon be discharged with all convenient speed by the military officer authorised for this purpose. It was in pursuance of these regulations that the person referred to in the Deputy's question was discharged.
That does not answer my question. I asked a definite question which the Minister has not answered. Could the Minister say what were the specific reasons for which this boy was dscharged?
I regret to inform the Deputy that it is not the practice to give reasons in a case such as this.
This boy was, in fact, charged with an offence in the civil courts before he was recruited, tried by a jury and discharged. Some tinpot Caesar in the Army decided, after the boy had been recruited and proved to be a satisfactory recruit, that they would impose a sentence on him for the offence of which he was acquitted and discharged him from the Army. Is that not correct?
The Deputy's statement is not in accordance with the facts. All facts were taken into account and I can assure the Deputy that the judgment in that case had nothing whatever to do with the decision of the Army.
I have to delay the House, but as an ex-member of the Defence Forces I very much resent a decision to punish somebody, as this boy has been punished, and ruin his career. Is it not a fact that this boy was recruited with two companions from the same area, that the other two went absent and that he remained in the Army; that he gave satisfactory service and was commended by his immediate commanding officer? Is it not true that the only other reason that could be given was that he had been in court and acquitted by a jury? In fairness to the boy, whose name is not mentioned, will the Minister not say now if there was one good reason why that boy should be discharged.
I can assure the Deputy that there were at least three good reasons for this decision but I shall not go beyond that except to reassure the Deputy that the particular incident had nothing to do with the decision taken at the time. It was taken in the best interests of the service and with full consideration of the recruit's future. I am not prepared to say what the reasons were but I can assure the Deputy they were very good reasons and in fact had nothing to do with the incident to which he referred.
I hate to disagree with what the Minister has said, but I am not prepared to accept that there was any reason. Either the Minister is deliberately misinforming the House or alternatively has been himself misinformed. I propose to take further steps to see that this sort of codology, which is not new with some people in the Army, will not be continued much longer.
I am fully acquainted with the background of this particular case. A decision was taken in the light of the full facts which were available to me and I am quite satisfied the decision was correct and proper.
The decision was taken by some tinpot Caesar. We still have plenty of them in the Army.