asked the Minister for Justice if he will state with reference to the recent appointment of an Assistant Commissioner of the Garda Síochána the number of officers in the Garda Síochána senior to the member appointed who were passed over in the making of the appointment; and if he is aware of the grave discontent which has been caused in the Force.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Appointment of Garda Officers.
29.
Appointments as Assistant Commissioner of the Garda Síochána are made by the Government under section 7 of the Police Forces Amalgamation Act, 1925.
Two such appointments were made on 2nd April last to fill vacancies due to occur on 30th July and 15th September.
The officers appointed ranked 1st and 3rd in the order of seniority in Chief Superintendent rank of whom there were 26.
I should mention that, while seniority is taken into account by the Government in making appointments in the Garda Síochána, and elsewhere in the public service, the determining factor is merit.
The Commissioner, Garda Síochána has assured me that there is no discontent in the Force as a result of these or any other appointments made by Government.
Would the Minister accept that there must be very cogent reasons before passing over a senior officer in the making of appointments and that there is always the likelihood of discontent wherever senior officers with exemplary service and experience are passed over?
There is utterly no foundation for this suggestion. In fact, there are only five months between the men concerned in a period of 40 years' service in the matter of seniority. There is unanimous agreement on the ability of the man promoted to Assistant Commissioner.
There is no doubt about that at all but there is no doubt about the ability of the man passed over either.
30.
asked the Minister for Justice why he recently appointed a Chief Superintendent in the Garda Síochána who was not on the list of officers recommended to him by the Board of which the Commissioner was chairman; and if he is aware of the grave discontent which this action has caused in the Force.
Appointments to the rank of Chief Superintendent or, indeed, to any other officer rank in the Garda Síochána are not made by the Minister for Justice: they are made by the Government pursuant to section 6, 7 and 10 of the Police Forces Amalgamation Act, 1925. The statute gives the Government an absolute discretion in the making of appointments. The Commissioner has informed me that he is not aware of any discontent in the Force as a result of recent appointments, apart from the natural disappointment of some individuals who, because of seniority in service, had hoped for promotion.
Does the Minister agree that the practice is for the Government to receive a list of officers recommended by the senior officers in the Garda Síochána for promotions of this kind? Would he agree with me that it is desirable that a Government should pay proper attention to recommendations so received? Could the Minister say why, in this particular case, the names on the recommended list were ignored and an officer who was 39th on the seniority list was appointed over the 38 men who were senior to him?
The recommendations of the ad hoc committee set up from time to time by the Commissioner to advise him are naturally considered by the Government and always have been. Sometimes the Commissioner ignores the advice given to him by the ad hoc committee. Sometimes the Minister ignores the recommendation of the Commissioner for good reason, as the Deputy should well known. In this particular case the man in question who was acting as Assistant Barrack Master for a number of years — it is a very specialised post — when the position became available was regarded by those concerned in the Government and the officers consulted as the man most suitable for this specialised job.
Is the Minister seriously asking the House to accept that the 38 officers who were passed over are not discontented——
I know that the Deputy is trying to create discontent.
——and will the Minister not admit that it is a strange coincidence that the man, who was 39th in the seniority list and appointed over the heads of the 38 men above him, happens to be a man from the Minister's own constituency which is something that could not be equalled by the 38 men who were above him?
Now that we have the usual charge that we expect from the Deputy out in the open I can say that I never saw this man until I went on my first official visit as Minister for Justice to the Depot. It just happened that he was born in my county. Since the Deputy has asked about this matter let me say this: I have a file in front of me dated 22/2/55——
That has nothing to do with this appointment.
It has everything to do with it — when a recommendation came from the then Commissioner of the Garda to the Minister for Justice and written on the file is a note from Mr. R. Ryan: "That a memo making no reference to the Commissioner's recommendation be submitted to the Government." This "R. Ryan" is little Deputy Richie Ryan who was then Private Secretary to the Minister for Justice. This is the man who complains about the recommendation of the Commissioner being ignored on a particular occasion.
That conveys absolutely nothing. What about the Official Secrets Act? Would the Minister like to make the file available?
(Interruptions.)