asked the Minister for Defence if he will state in what circumstances Temporary Corporal John Nugent (VE/250699) of the 26th Rifle Battalion was discharged; whether any charge was preferred against him, and, if so, what charge; whether such charge arose out of his participation in a trade union demonstration; whether he was given any opportunity of meeting such charge; whether he had been served with a copy of the regulations under which such charge was preferred against him, and whether, having regard to his national record, it is proposed to permit Mr. Nugent to rejoin his battalion.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Army Corporal's Discharge.
250699 Temporary Corporal John Nugent was discharged from the second line of the Volunteer Force because of his refusal to comply with Army regulations when they were brought to his attention by a lawful authority.
No charge was preferred against Temporary Corporal Nugent.
It is not proposed to permit Mr. Nugent to rejoin the Volunteer Force.
Would the Minister say whether the discharge of this non-commissioned officer was due to his participation in a parade to protest against the ill-starred Trade Union Bill? Would he say further the date of the regulations under which it is purported to discharge him from the Army, whether the regulations were ever read to him and whether in fact they were in existence at the time upon which he participated in the demonstration?
I am aware that Mr. Nugent paraded at a political demonstration——
At a trade union demonstration.
A political demonstration—in uniform. He was warned that he must not do so. In spite of the warning he persisted in doing so. He was warned by, as I mentioned in the answer, a lawful authority: he refused to obey the instructions, and I cannot see that any man who refuses to obey the regulations issued by the Army authorities can be of much use to the Army.
This man was of use to the Army in much more difficult times than those through which we are now passing.
We are living in the present.
We are trying to get some information about the present. Would the Minister say what was the date of the regulations which this man is supposed to have infringed and when they were read to him?
I am not quite certain of the date, but I can assure the Deputy that it was fully covered, not by one but by two regulations. I cannot quote them at the moment.
Would the Minister say whether, prior to this non-commissioned officer's participation in the demonstration, he ever saw a copy of the regulations which he is supposed to have infringed?
It is not necessary for him to see them.
Were they ever read to him?
The fact that he was about to commit a breach of the regulations was brought to his attention. I am sure the Deputy will understand as clearly as I do that it would be quite impossible to bring every regulation in the Army to the attention of every serving soldier. It was brought to his attention when it was seen that he was about to commit a breach of the regulations and, in spite of the fact that it was brought to his attention, he persisted in refusing to get out of the ranks.
I think the Minister is completely misinformed on the whole position. Is he aware of the fact that this person was not aware that he committed any breach, when he had read of no regulation which prevented him participating in this procession, until he was called out of the procession by certain military policemen? Is the Minister aware that he did not desire to break the line in which he was parading, that at that stage he knew nothing whatever as to whether it was an offence to participate in that trade union—and not political—demonstration? Is he aware of the fact that, subsequent to his participation in that demonstration, the Army authorities found it necessary to coin and issue a regulation to deal with the circumstances which arose out of Mr. Nugent's case?
I can assure the Deputy that it was not necessary, arising out of this case, to coin any regulation. The regulations were there and were acted upon. It appears extraordinary to me that the Deputy is, at the present moment, advocating—or appears to me to be advocating—the parading of soldiers in uniform at public demonstrations of that kind. It is a political demonstration, and there is no use trying to camouflage it by calling it a labour demonstration.
Would the Minister say why it was necessary to issue in September a military regulation to be read to Mr. Nugent and other persons in the Army if, in fact, a regulation prohibiting participation in the parade was in operation prior to that date? Mr. Nugent has been discharged from the Army by a regulation issued after his discharge.
That is not so.
I am asserting that it is so.
Surely the Deputy will accept a Ministerial statement. I tell him that it is not so.
As one who approaches this with the attitude that a man in uniform should not walk in parades of a political nature, or in parades which, by any stretch of imagination, might be called of a political nature, I would like to ask the Minister if it is a fact that this man—as I gathered from Deputy Norton—was approached by military policemen and asked to leave the parade, the warning upon which is based and operated the particular type of action which is now taken in regard to it? I should like to ask the Minister how many men in National Army uniform, how many men in the Local Defence Force uniform, and how many men in the Marine uniform marched in the same parade? I should also like to know whether any action has been taken generally, or whether action in connection with this parade has been taken in respect of only one man, who was apparently approached on the spot by a military policeman.
All I know about the matter is this, that the military policemen were warned to inform any men they found present in military uniform that they were committing a breach of the regulations. I am not aware whether the military policemen went beyond the members of the force whom they saw in military uniform, but they did warn at least five men who appeared in the uniform of the Army; they warned them that they were about to commit a breach of the regulations and that if they persisted in it, it would be serious for them. They asked them their names and they refused to give their names. It appears Mr. Nugent was very prominent in his appeal to these men not to give their names. I think it was a very serious thing and I think the action taken was quite proper. We were unable to ascertain the names of the other individuals.
Is the Minister aware that soldiers in uniform attend meetings? I have one particular case in mind of a person who is, in fact, a member of the Fianna Fáil Party, and who attends as a member of that Party in uniform at meetings of a local authority. Is that a breach of the regulations to which the Minister refers?
That is a separate question.
Anything of the kind we come across we will deal with it. Any cases that are brought to our attention will be dealt with.
What is the date of the regulation which Mr. Nugent is supposed to have transgressed?
I cannot state that now.
But that is part of the question.
I may assure the Deputy that the regulation is there; it was there away back several years, anyhow.
What is the objection to giving Mr. Nugent an opportunity of meeting whatever charges are brought against him?
If he wantonly and openly commits a breach of the regulations, surely he ought to be made amenable.
Were the regulations in respect to the second line Volunteers issued before September last?
The second line Volunteers are Army reserves, and it is under that title that they are dealt with.
What was the purpose of issuing a regulation in September? Will the Minister deny that the regulation was issued after Mr. Nugent was discharged?
I do not deny anything.
The regulations are there, and they must be observed.
You have been Minister for Local Government for a few weeks, and I suggest you stay quiet. You may be shifted out of that Department, too, and soon we will probably find you all over the place.