Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 6 Jun 1935

Vol. 56 No. 19

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - A Kilkenny Reservist.

asked the Minister for Defence if he will state whether he is aware that Mr. John Gardiner, Coppenagh, Graiguenamanagh, was informed in a letter dated 6th February, 1935, that his engagement as a reservist had been extended to the 28th March, 1940; that he was summoned in March to attend for training at 5 p.m. on the 1st May, at Portobello Barracks; that on his attending in due course at Portobello Barracks he was told that his calling-up notice had been cancelled, and that he had been discharged from the Reserve as from the previous day, the 30th April; and if he will state what is the reason for thus treating a member of the Reserve Forces.

Mr. Gardiner attested on the 15th August, 1922, and was transferred to the Reserve on the 15th April, 1929. He was permitted to extend his service in the Reserve, and his service would normally terminate on the 27th March, 1940. He had been instructed to report for annual training on the 1st May, 1935. That instruction was cancelled by letter issued to him on the 29th April, which should have reached him on the 30th idem. He was discharged from the Reserve on the 30th April, 1935, for the reason that his services were no longer required.

Will the Minister say why this man, having had his period of service extended by a letter dated 6th February, and having been summoned in the first week of March to attend on the 1st May for training, was not required? What exactly happened on the morning of the 29th April that made the Minister send him a letter telling him that he should not come up on the 1st May?

From the time he was summoned until the time he was due— in that period it was found his services were no longer required.

Why was that not definitely ascertained until the 29th April? Did the Minister take any steps to see that the post would reach the reservist in time to stop him taking the train for Dublin, so saving him the expense of travelling?

Surely the Minister must be aware that in order to obey the summons dated in March this man had to leave his home before the letter dated 29th April was delivered by the postman? What is the reason for treating members of the Reserve in this particular way?

It was found that the man's services were no longer required and he was advised of that at the earliest possible moment. If he were on his way to Dublin, I regret any inconvenience caused to him. He was advised at the earliest possible moment after it was found that his services were no longer required.

Will the Minister say in what circumstances it was found that this man's attendance was unnecessary and will he indicate why these circumstances did not disclose themselves until a date on which it was too late to stop the man from coming up?

I have no control over circumstances of that nature.

The Minister is responsible for the administration. Does he propose to repay the expense that this man went to by attending here in town?

I would have to be satisfied that the man did not receive the calling-off notice.

Does the Minister think it likely that a letter posted on a Monday would reach a district far out in the country in Kilkenny on a Wednesday morning in time to stop the man travelling?

Graiguenamanagh is not far out.

The Minister is aware that the residence of this man is far enough out to prevent him receiving a letter issued on 29th April before he would have left his home to attend in Dublin.

The Deputy apparently does not want to understand the position.

Barr
Roinn