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 William Thornberry, of Waterford; (c) his character in the Army; and (d) 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. Thornberry was discharged from the Reserve on the 16th July, 1934; and if he will state the reasons for such discharge.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Discharge from Army Reserve
Mr. Thornberry had five years Army and one year 266 days Reserve service. His character in the Army was assessed as "Very Good." He would normally have been due for discharge from the Reserve on the 23rd October, 1936. He was discharged on the 16th July last for the reason that his services were no longer required.
Will the Minister say why a man whose character was very good, and who had five years' service, was discharged from the Reserve more than two years before due to be discharged from the reserve, without being told the reason why he was being so discharged? Is the Minister aware that it is definitely prejudicial to Army men, who can be asked to produce their Army discharge papers; that it is apparent that they were discharged from the Army at a date prior to that on which they were due for discharge? Is he aware that a number of men discharged in this particular way complain that their position in seeking employment is prejudiced by the fact that they were discharged from the Reserve before their time and that no explanation was given?
It is stated on their discharge papers that they are discharged because their services are no longer required.
Surely, the Minister is aware that the normal employer will read all kinds of undesirable things into that when he finds that a man has been put out of the Army Reserve two years or, at any rate, some period before the date on which he was due for discharge?
The Deputy should have considered that when he was firing General O'Duffy.
Will the Minister say whether he realises the position of men looking for employment in the country at the present time? Will he not consider whether he is not further prejudicing those men in getting employment by discharging them from the Army without any adequate reason? Will he say, plainly, as he said on certain occasions in the House, that they were discharged from the Army for political reasons? The employers will then know where they stand.
I have already explained the matter to the Deputy on several occasions, and given him a return of the number of men discharged for the reason that their services were no longer required. The Deputy will remember that only a few out of the 14,000 men in the Army were so discharged. I am not going to keep in the Army people whose services are no longer required.
Will the Minister also recollect that he said generally in his statement on those persons discharged that they were discharged because they were members of a political organisation of which he did not approve, and will he say that those men who have got their discharges before their time were discharged solely on those grounds and not for any other reasons? It would be fairer to the men, fairer to the Minister himself, if you like, and, at any rate, the Army and the Army Reserve would know where they stand.
A Deputy
Were they members of such organisations?