Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 19 Feb 1970

Vol. 244 No. 8

Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Department of Defence Promotion.

128.

asked the Minister for Defence if he will issue a statement concerning the allegation by the branch committee Department of Defence of the Executive and Higher Officers' Association in the January, 1970Civil Service Review that his predecessor's private secretary has been promoted over the heads of a number of very capable and efficient higher executive officers to the position of APO; and if he will comment on the allegation of the committee that the circumstances of his promotion were politically motivated.

129.

asked the Minister for Defence if he will make a statement in regard to promotion in the Civil Service of the private secretary of his predecessor on 4th December, 1969; if it is a fact that he was number ten on the seniority list; if so, why promotion on merit could not be made from the list in rotation; if he has received any protests from Civil Service Officers' Association on this matter; if discussions have taken place; with what results; and if he will make a detailed statement in regard to this promotion.

With your permission, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 128 and 129 together.

The officer referred to in the questions was selected for promotion on the grounds that he was not only qualified but the best qualified of all the eligible officers serving in the Department for promotion to the higher post.

The officer concerned was No. 10 on the seniority list of officers of his grade. Experience, as reflected by seniority, is, however, only one of the factors taken into account in assessing qualifications for promotion. The fact that the officer in question had served as Private Secretary to the Minister for Defence did not influence his selection for promotion. Representations regarding this promotion were made to me by the Civil Service Executive and Higher Officers' Association. I have declined to receive a deputation from the association on the matter. As the normal practice governing promotion has been followed in this case, no useful purpose would be served by discussing the matter with representatives of the association.

Deputy Desmond's question refers to an article which appeared in the January, 1970Civil Service Review. That article included, in addition to offensive references to politicians, the statement that “one of those passed over has been performing APO duties in Finance for almost two years”. I would like to point out that at the time the Finance assignment arose the officer who is the subject of these questions was Private Secretary to the Minister and was in receipt of an allowance of £149 a year. The Finance assignment was expressed to be for less than a year and to carry a gratuity at the rate of £150 a year.

Having put down a question that I felt in the public interest should have been answered, may I ask the Minister a supplemtary question? He says that this officer was selected for promotion. Would he say by whom he was selected? Secondly, could I ask the Minister to give a very brief outline of the system of promotion? The Minister has already mentioned the question of seniority and experience and said there were other criteria but did not say what they were. Would the Minister agree —I think it ought to be agreed—that his refusal to meet the branch committee concerned of the Civil Service Executive and Higher Officers' Association caused public disquiet and, to say the least, is not in the best interests of the morale of the civil servants concerned, and that such discussion should take place, and should not be debarred from taking place, between the Minister and the officers of that association?

The important thing in this affair is the fact that the appointment had been made, the selection had been made, by the permanent head of the Department in collaboration with me. I am sure the House will accept that seniority in the matter of promotion is only one of the factors that have to be taken into consideration. Ability to do the job should be the main consideration and this procedure has been followed. The suggestion in the Civil Service Review for last month that there was some political implication in this promotion was a grave reflection on the Civil Service itself and for that reason was disgraceful. The offensive reference to politicians is not worthy of comment. If it had any effect at all it was of injuring the Civil Service in general.

Politicians should not be too worried about offensive references.

No, but there is a new element, a scurrilous suggestion by the Civil Service Review that there was some political implication in this, that it was for a political reason that this promotion was made. This is totally unfounded. It has been shown to be untrue.

I am not imputing that there were any particular motives on the part of the Minister but will he not agree that when a promotion made by his permanent head and himself, jointly I presume, is so openly, so strongly and so publicly criticised, the Minister should meet the officers of the trade union who made this criticism rather than to tell them to get lost?

On the contrary, when a scurrilous, unfounded attack is made it is all the more reason why it should be treated as being unworthy of attention.

That is the Minister's opinion. We can have ours.

This pose of sensitivity is puzzling. I am not sure from the Minister's reply—I may not have followed him closely enough—that he has answered Deputy Desmond's question. He spoke about the decision. Is not the Minister's reply to the effect that he and the permanent head of the Department took the decision jointly?

I took the decision; I am responsible.

Where did the initiative come from? Normally, promotions are carried out within the Service and the Minister's personal intervention is limited to the appointment of secretaries. He is responsible but he does not intervene in appointments below that of secretary.

The Deputy is not correct.

Is the Minister saying that the process goes further down the ranks than secretary? What does the Minister mean by political intervention?

The decision of the Minister has to come from a decision made within the Service.

Is the Minister responsible for appointments of all principal officers in the Department?

Promotions are referred to me and the question on the Order Paper today referred to a particular promotion.

Is the Minister saying that the normal practice has now been departed from of having the Minister intervene in appointments below that of secretary—that there is now a situation in which Ministers will intervene and modify appointments?

The Deputy is trying to distort.

Does the Minister agree that the purpose of these supplementary questions is that when certain people are disgruntled——

Let me speak. I do not often get up. The more disgruntled they appear, perhaps, the easier it would be for the Minister to meet deputations.

I was attempting to say that Deputy FitzGerald's choice of words, his phraseology, was in my opinion predisposed to creating a certain picture. He uses the expression "political interference".

I said "intervention".

This can be interpreted in a number of ways. In so far as I am the head of the Department of Defence I am responsible for all appointments, but to suggest as the Civil Service Review did that there is something sinister, some party political implications, in this is a contemptible suggestion.

Deliberately, I have not got myself involved in that. What I am concerned with is whether, in the light of the Minister's reply, there has been a departure from the normal practice in which, in appointments other than those of secretary, the Minister just rubberstamps appointments already made. In this case I do not know who the person is.

I am satisfied Deputy FitzGerald is doing this unintentionally but if he is suggesting that I should act merely as a rubber-stamp and not interest myself in any way in anything I sign my name to——

In view of the fact that the Minister is not a rubber-stamp would he tell us if he considered the credentials of the other people concerned in this promotion?

And he is satisfied this was the proper person?

Absolutely.

Did he convey that to the trade union concerned?

As a result of examination of all the candidates for this promotion, I made a selection.

The Minister should have told the Higher Officers' Association.

Can the Deputy give me any decent grounds as to why they should be suspicious?

Of course there are.

What are they? Why should I discuss action I had already taken? The Deputy is getting his priorities wrong. I feel no obligation to explain actions I have already taken. This was a scurrilous attack.

It has been a revealing exchange.

I am glad you enjoyed it.

Top
Share