asked the Minister for Defence the prospects, if any, of an ex-private, (details supplied) in Dublin being re-admitted in the future to the permanent Defence Forces from which he was discharged, and if he would be willing to reconsider the decision in this case in view of the impeccable Army record of this person, the fact that this was his first occasion ever being in trouble and that he was discharged with a glowing reference attesting to his suitability and character for the purpose of employment in the private sector.

As the former member of the Permanent Defence Force in question was convicted of a serious offence by a civil court he is ineligible in accordance with Defence Force Regulations for re-enlistment in that Force.

Would the Minister review sympathetically the regulations to which he has referred? None of us would suggest that people with serious criminal or security risks attaching to their employment should be enlisted in the Defence Forces. Is the Minister aware that the gentleman involved in this case was discharged with an impeccable reference, presumably commending his employment in the private sector, and lauding his character under so many headings that I found the reference almost unique in my experience. Yet the bottom line refers to the conviction, the seriousness of which we can disagree on, and he is now barred for all time from re-enlisting in the Defence Forces, if I interpret the Minister correctly.

The man in question has been discharged according to the Defence Force Regulations on the grounds of unsatisfactory conduct. The Deputy was informed on 16 March 1979 that while conduct rating on discharge was governed by Defence Force Regulations every effort is made by the military authorities to differentiate between a man's military conduct and his worth to a civilian employer. It is wrong of the Deputy to hold out the hope to this young man of obtaining re-enlistment. He is debarred by the Defence Force Regulations, and it is not proposed to make any change in the regulations in regard to this type of case.

Two final questions. This Government, like all Governments, have made numerous appeals——

The question relates to a specific person.

Is the Minister aware that in this case we have an example of the appeals made regularly by various Governments for the re-employment of people with criminal records? Presumably the Minister is now saying that in this case the sentence which was served is not the end of the matter, and that for the rest of his life this individual is to be deprived of what one could argue is his constitutional right to apply for a job in the security forces, on the basis of a charge which was related to disorderly conduct, not a criminal charge, not one involving a weapon or the security of the State.

We cannot argue about it.

Will the Minister be good enough to reconsider the regulations involved here which are totally at odds with the kind of hypocritical appeals we hear regularly from some of his colleagues about the re-employment of people with criminal records? The Department gave this man an impeccable reference. It was almost misleading if the Minister's other words are correct. He is good enough to be employed anywhere but not by the State. Would the Minister reconsider those regulations.

Would the Deputy permit the Chair to say something? When he is permitted to ask a question he should not avail of the opportunity to make a speech.

I do not like hypocrisy.

All I can say in reply to the Deputy is that Defence Force Regulation A.10, paragraph 12, describes among other things, the persons who shall not be enlisted and includes a person who has been convicted of a serious offence by a civil court. The military authorities have confirmed that the offence committed by the said person is deemed to be a serious one and his re-enlistment will not be considered.

When was that regulation introduced?

That is a separate question.

If the Minister reads a regulation controlling enlistment to the Army, surely he should be able to tell us when that regulation was made.

I am calling the next question.

Who introduced that regulation?

Has the Deputy any idea of the number of regulations made under the Defence Acts?

I am talking about one regulation.

The Deputy cannot ask about all the regulations here.

The Minister must appreciate that a person who cannot join the Army as a simple private will not have much chance of getting employment elsewhere. Was this regulation introduced by a Minister since the foundation of the State or is the Minister defending a British regulation? Is the regulation more important than the future of a person seeking employment?

Unfortunately, the person involved has committed a serious offence.

People should not have to pay for their sins for the rest of their lives.

His offence was judged by the courts not by me.

He was judged according to a British regulation which the Minister is defending. Where is the Minister's republicanism?

On a point of order, did I hear the Minister saying that the seriousness of the offence was quantified by the courts in relation to his discharge.

No.

A moment ago the Minister said that the seriousness of the offence was judged by the man's military superiors and that that was the reason for his discharge.

Who decided the degree of seriousness?

The civil courts.

If the man was convicted in a civil court and discharged his offence by whatever punishment he got, why should he not then be considered eligible for employment by the State if he is considered eligible for civil employment? Why should there be a difference between civil employment and the Army?

If I have to explain that to Deputy Browne who has spent many years in this House, then it is a sad state of affairs. He must be aware that there are many reasons why persons are not accepted for enlistment in the Defence Forces. There are many reasons why they may not be considered suitable to serve in the Defence Forces and there are many reasons why persons might even be deemed to be some form of a security risk. The regulations drawn up by my predecessors are based on sound reasons to ensure the continuation of a viable Defence Force that will give loyalty to the officers and to the Government of the day. I support all the regulations that have been made and I support their implementation.

Including one which was handed down to the Minister by the British?

Order.

Deputy Harte is not interested in treating the subject seriously.

Is the Minister slandering this man by implying that he is a security risk?

No, I am not. The Deputy is not doing this man a favour by pursuing his re-enlistment.

We have spent ten minutes asking questions about a private soldier.