asked the Minister for Defence whether recruiting to the Defence Forces has ceased; and, if not, if he will state why members are being discharged without any known cause.
17.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Defence Forces Personnel.
16.
asked the Minister for Defence the number of members of the Defence Forces discharged in the past two years on the grounds of services being no longer required; and if he will state the exact meaning of the term.
18.
asked the Minister for Defence the number of natives of the Six Counties discharged from the Defence Forces on the grounds of services being no longer required; and if he will state why one particular member (name supplied) in County Derry was given an honourable discharge at a time when he had only a few months of his three-year term to serve.
I propose, with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, to take Questions Nos. 16, 17 and 18 together.
Recruiting to the Permanent Defence Force is continuing.
Defence Force regulations prescribe the reasons for which members of the force may be discharged and the reason is specified in every case. One of the prescribed reasons is "His services being no longer required".
During the period of two years ended 30 April, 1976, 247 members of the force were discharged for the reason "His services being no longer required". Ten of these members, including the man referred to by the Deputy, had home addresses in the Six Counties.
Would the Minister, perhaps, answer one of the questions he has lumped together, the question where I specifically asked whether he would explain what the term "His services being no longer required" means? Secondly, would he answer the first part of the first question, that is, is recruiting still going on?
Perhaps I may dispose of the last question first. Yes, it is still going on and, at the point in time when we feel that further advertising is necessary, we will have that further advertising. But we have, very satisfactorily I think, passed the figure of 14,000. On the 30th April, 1976 we had, including 137 cadets, 14,108 in the Defence Forces, the highest figure for 25 years.
In relation to the second supplementary question, the position is that under Defence Forces regulations the question of a discharge of a soldier is one for the military authorities. They specify reasons for discharge. They give that reason on the discharge given to the soldier. That is the position.
Would the Minister still try to explain to me what is meant by the phrase "His services being no longer required" if, in fact, public money is being spent recruiting replacements for such people let go?
At this point in time no public money is being spent on advertising recruiting but, in respect of our successful recruiting, the money already spent is having its effect. The position is that if the military authorities feel that a person's services are no longer required, then that is the position. Under the Defence Forces regulations they have the power, in law, and that is what was done.
Might I ask the Minister whether he would cease to waffle in regard to a specific question as to what the phrase means which has been given to the discharge of a number of ex-members of the Defence Forces, namely "His services being no longer required" in cases in which I feel the Minister must be aware that the services rendered by those same members of the Defence Forces were exemplary for two years and 10 months, in one case—with only two months to go? Secondly, might I ask the Minister why those members of the Defence Forces are given no opportunity whatsoever to answer any allegations that may have been made against them; why, while giving this waffle about "His services being no longer required" new recruits are being taken in daily? Thirdly, would the Minister please bear in mind that the blackening of the name of an ex-member of the Defence Forces whose home is in the Six Counties can be a very dangerous thing so far as that member is concerned? Fourthly——
Deputy Blaney, please. The Deputy ought not to pose his questions in omnibus from in this fashion. They ought to be put singly.
I have three questions down and I got damn little information on them.
The Deputy is also repeating questions, which is not in order.
I am entitled to get that information and the Chair should protect my rights in this House. Naturally, I am repeating the questions because I got no answers.
That is not in order, Deputy. The Chair has no control over questions or answers.
Surely it is in order to seek answers to the questions on the Order Paper?
Repetition is not in order.
It may be a fault of mine but, if it is, it is a fault of many others here. At least when I repeat myself I am usually saying something rather than merely waffling. Fourthly, might I ask the Minister particularly will he ensure and insist, by a thorough personal investigation, that ex-members from the Six Counties have not been discharged on information laid by informers in the Six Counties through their Special Intelligence Branch?
As I have informed the Deputy, the position is that ten members only—during the two years ended 30th April, 1976—whose home addresses were in the Six Counties were discharged from our Defence Forces. The position is covered by military discipline and by Defence Forces regulations. I am satisfied that the persons discharged knew very well why they were discharged at the time of their discharge.
A final supplementary, if I may. Will the Minister please look into this matter in a serious manner and ensure that, even if it involved only one ex-member of our Defence Forces, his life is not endangered by being discharged on the say so of the touts of the SIB in the Six Counties, and cannot return to his home because of being blackened by the army he served well and honourably here and carrying an honourable discharge in his hand?
I have looked into the matter.
If the Minister has, he must be blind.
Question No. 19.