It is sad, indeed, that the occasion arose when Deputy Dowling had to put down this motion on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party. He had to do it for one reason and one reason only, that is, that the confidence of the Irish Army has been completely undermined and they are greatly disturbed by the fact that political influence has entered into the promotion of Army officers. The Minister, by order on 17th June, saw fit to undo certain regulations made in 1954 by the then Fianna Fáil Minister for Defence. These regulations give to the Chief of Staff the right to promote officers. The Minister had to sign the promotions but it was really the Chief of Staff who made the promotions. The regulations of 1954 took out of the hands of politicians the right to appoint officers within the Army.
From the foundation of the State up to 1954 experience has shown that that was the correct order to make at that time. Now, in 1975, we see a complete reversal and we are back to the pre-1954 situation. That is complete back-tracking. It is bad for the country. It is bad for the morale of the Army and it is bad for young men who are anxious to join the Army and have the brains and the ability to rise to the top. Not only have we seen promotions given through political influence but they are given on the basis of a man's knowledge of horses. This is something to which I will refer in a minute.
It is incumbent on the Minister to withdraw that order, to annual it and to get back to the previous procedure. He came in here last night and told us of his great friendship with the Chief of Staff, of the great discussions they had, how they might have had little disagreements but that it fell on his own broad shoulders to make some decision. Surely if everything were going so well there was no need for him to bring in the order of 17th June, abrogating to himself completely the power to appoint the officers in the Army. Promotion should be on merit and on ability as was the case down through the years.
Men of good education join the Army and wish to make it their career, but they will now ask themselves: "What can I do if I have not got political pull? What Government will be in power when I will be due for promotion?" That is very wrong. It is high time we got rid of the political patronage being exercised at the moment. Many jobs are given out under patronage, ability to do something for a political party. We have it in relation to post offices and other sectors as well and it is bad for the country.
The Army are entrusted with safeguarding the nation in time of war and with the preservation of law and order, working with the Garda. This is a sector into which politics should not enter at all. A young man in school might have thoughts of pursuing an Army career. He may come from a humble cottage on the side of a hill. He may come from an urban area. He may come from a small town. He may never have seen his father owning a brood mare. He may never have seen the little foal at the back door or sold at the local fair. What chance has he of rising to the top, despite whatever ability he may have, if the Minister for Defence is to hold office for some years to come? Please God, he will not. That young man's confidence in the institutions of this State can be completely eroded.
I have seen this happening on committees of agriculture and so on and unless people have some political connections, be they Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or Labour, they have no chance on those bodies. It is quite obvious now that unless a person is affiliated some way or another with or has done something for the Fine Gael Party he or his family are not going to get promotion within the Irish Army whether they deserve it or not.
We have often used the expression "To cherish all the children of the land equally". Surely the order made by the Minister on 17th June cuts completely across this. It is quite obvious that only the selected few will rise to the top. The Minister came in here last night and tried to defend what happened. He did so in a very subtle and cocky way but he did not really dwell on the nub of the whole matter and that is now his right to promote or not to promote officers within the Irish Army. It is his sole right. He does not have to say to the Chief of Staff: "What do you think of this person? What do you think of that person? What kind of career had he?" He does not have to say that any more. He has just to ask for a list of names and having got it, he can promote Mr. A or Mr. B. The Chief of Staff could say to him: "That man is not fit for promotion". The Minister can tell him to mind his own business from now on. What will happen in future is that the Chief of Staff will not say anything to the Minister. He will just place a list of names in front of him and allow him to make his own choice. This is bad.
How is the Minister going to choose? What special knowledge has he that the Chief of Staff has not got? He has none whatsoever, except political knowledge. Why did the Minister state that he knew that some of the men he would be promoting had a Fianna Fáil outlook? Why should the Minister have to know that? I thought there was secrecy of the ballot. Has the Minister that on his records—a man's political outlook, how he votes, how he does not vote? This is a disgrace. It is shocking for a Minister to say to an Irish Parliament or to say to the newspapers: "I know the men I have promoted. I know their political outlook. I know the party they support. I know how they are going to vote in the next election." This is not good enough. It is a very bad thing. It is a bad thing for any Minister, or even a layman, to find out a man's political allegiance before giving him promotion. This is very sad.
It is obvious that if a person was involved in the Army Equitation School—the Army Equitation School are doing a very good job—it would be to his advantage. The Minister has said that they would have to be looked after very well in order to advertise the Irish horse. It is not so long ago since the Minister told me that they were now working in conjunction with Bord na gCapall. They do not seem to exist at all now. They do not get credit for anything. If someone wants to become an aide-de-camp to the present Taoiseach he must have a knowledge of horses; from there on, Bob's your uncle, you fly the course the rest of the way. If there is a Taoiseach who has a liking for a particular pastime, he is entitled to it but he is not entitled to promote people within the Army because they also share the same pastime. Suppose there was another Taoiseach who was a great admirer of soccer players and he promoted some soccer star in the Army, would that not be a ridiculous situation? I will not mention what would happen if we had a Taoiseach who liked camogie players. I suppose if the Minister had his way he would promote people who were interested in yachting. A person's pastime should not be taken into account. If a person's pastime were to be taken into consideration before he could be promoted in the Army, that would be very bad. When this debate is finished I hope the Minister will stand up and say he is reverting to the original position and is giving the power back to the Chief of Staff.
The Minister may say that it is only Fianna Fáil who are complaining. I have newspaper cuttings which quote the views of various people. An article in The Irish Press of 28th June states:
When they were discussing it as one senior officer said last night, there has always been a certain amount of jobs for the boys in the Army but this is the most blatant case of all. From now on it appears that to be a good officer every man will have to pass through the Equitation School.
I quoted that in order to show the Minister that it is not only Fianna Fáil who are complaining; it is also happening within the Force because confidence has been undermined. As Deputy Dowling said yesterday, the Minister is taking on a dangerous mantle of power. Dictatorship is bad and dangerous because everything depends on the whims and fancies of the dictator. We had the example in the last month of General Amin. One day he was sentencing a person to death and the next day commuting the sentence and letting the person go free the day after that. He did not really know what he was doing.
I think the Minister—perhaps he is a very strongwilled person; we all have our own characteristics—has often taken over power at the wrong time to the embarrassment of the Army and the nation. We all know what happened in the case of the Claudia. At that time the Minister took over complete command and he made a right “cod” of the affair. People were allowed to go free out of the country while nationals who were on the same ship had to appear in court. Those nationals are paying dearly for their involvement; they have been deprived of their jobs but non-nationals were let go free on the Minister's instructions. That is something the Minister should not have done. We also have the case of the Border incursions. Application must now be made to the Minister by the British Army if they want to defuse a bomb or fly over the Twenty-six Counties. Why not give that authority to the Army or to the men in the field? The Minister could be away in Cork, Kerry or even yachting. More luck to the Minister to enjoy his spare time, but how would he be contacted? All this adds up to the fact that the Minister appears to be taking over complete control of the Army and has no respect for the Army Council or for the views of the Chief of Staff. It was quite obvious that the Chief of Staff resisted the Minister when he made the recent appointments; especially when a junior commandant was promoted to the rank of lieutenant-colonel. That was a big jump. It has been said that he was one of the most junior officers in the Army and jumped over 100 places in rank. That is bad for Army morale. The Minister has said himself that there are not too many promotions, but the ones given should be seen to be given on merit.
Another point which I want to comment on was the discussion of this matter by the media and the sickening article written by a reporter in The Sunday Independent on 6th July, 1975, entitled: “An Army Row: Fianna Fáil must be joking”. The article quoted the case of people years ago, claiming they got to the top by patronage, by knowing people, by political pull. The impression was given in the article that this was the right thing to do and that the Minister was right in taking precedents from that period. I thought that in the 1954 Act, where we gave the choice of promotion to the Chief of Staff, we had done away with patronage. Imagine a reporter writing an article backing up what the Minister is now doing and saying there was a precedent for it in 1930, 1932, naming people and actually naming them in the wrong as it stated because there was a Bill brought in to give people with 1917-21 service an extension of two years. Deputy Dowling will probably refer to this when he is winding up the debate.
This was a shocking article. My first reaction when reading it was that somebody from the Government Information Bureau had tipped off somebody to write it. We all know that the taxpayer is paying heavily for the public relations job that is being done for the present Government. It seems it was intended to stymie discussion in the House on Tuesday and Wednesday nights. The article also stated on 6th July that the Leader of Fianna Fáil might softpedal his demands for a full debate on the change in the regulations which the Minister for Defence has made. There is no such thing as soft-pedalling at all. What has been done is completely wrong, and if the Minister wants to do the right thing he will stand up and undo the changes; in doing that he will have the best wishes of the House.
How can any of the Deputies opposite vote against this motion? The motion simply says that the action of the Minister has to be deplored because it enables him to ignore the recommendations of the Chief of Staff.
Deputy Esmonde said last night that the Minister was no more than a rubber stamp up to now; that the Minister should do this and the Minister should do that. Does that principle run all through our society? There are key jobs throughout the country; there are such institutions as interview boards; there are such things as appointment commissioners. What about the Civil Service? The Minister does not make the decision there. What about the appointment of a teacher in a primary school? The appointment must be sanctioned by the Department; yet it is not the Department who make the decision but a person at local level. Many Ministers have very heavy responsibility in regard to appointments but they do not actually make the appointments. Therefore, Deputy Esmonde's case falls down completely on that point. His idea if implemented acrossthe-board would be that the Minister would appoint everyone to every type of position. It is a fact that from 1954 until 17th June, 1975, the various Chiefs of Staff—we have had excellent men including the present man—have been able to consult with the Minister for Defence regarding the various promotions. There may have been differences but they were resolved. That is now a thing of the past. The Chief of Staff no longer has the right to say to the Minister: "This is the best man for promotion." Instead of that, we have the position where names will be given to the Minister and he can choose from those names or get other names instead. That adds up to patronage of the highest order.
It is obvious that when vacancies are to be filled the word goes around. It will be more like the appointment of a postmaster or a postmistress in an urban or rural area where the local Dáil Deputies of the governing party are contacted to make representations so that a certain person may be appointed. Even at that level, there is an interview board which will select the candidates. Often two or three names will be sent to the Minister. I thought that was a bad system. What will happen now is that it will be the same system when it comes to appointments in the Army. You will have Deputies of all parties trekking to the Minister's room to make sure that, no matter what comes up in the files, Fine Gael or Labour should be down after that man's name. Is this not very sad? The Minister has stated that quite blatantly and openly. It is very sad indeed, and I will say it again, that he should ever say, even in newspaper interviews, that he knew well the politics of the men who were promoted. That was a wrong thing to mention. That was their own private business, and if they wanted to belong to political parties that was a matter for themselves. Their political outlook should have nothing at all to do with their promotions, if they have the ability and have served their time well, bearing in mind that the Army is there to serve the country as a whole regardless of politics. That is what the Army is there for.
If the Minister goes back he will find someone to back up my views, none other than the late Deputy Seán Collins who in 1951—look up the 1951 Defence Bill—stated that political influence should be completely divorced from Army promotions and should not have anything at all to do with Army life. The late Deputy Seán Collins was a member of the Minister's party; he was a nephew of the late Michael Collins. I could not quote any man who would be more influential within the Minister's party than the late Deputy Seán Collins. That was his view in 1951 and it is something well worth listening to. But now it is backwards we are moving, backwards to the old game of patronage. It is not a case of who you are at all, but who you know. It is not a case of your ability to perform in the field, but a case of your ability to pull the right strings. This is a sad day. We have seen a great deal of patronage from this Government, wicked patronage. We have seen men having each way bets who ran, as they say in the country, right through the judicial system, right up to the top of their each way bet; if they did not win one contest they were sure to win in another. We have seen peace commissioners who are more plentiful now, as somebody said down the country, than warble flies, and they were very plentiful at one time. All these have been promoted on patronage because of what they did for a political party. It would be bad for the country if, when Fianna Fáil get back into power, they were to stick to the Minister's rules and regulations. That would be very bad for the nation. It would be very bad for the morale of the Army. I am thinking mostly of the young men seeking out Army life as a career. What do they think of the Ireland of 1975? Are they not entitled to rise to the top in any walk of life they choose without their political affiliations either advancing or retarding them? How can a Minister who is rarely in his office know men better than the Chief of Staff who has known them for nearly 30 years. He knows the day men joined up. He knows their progress, their characters, how they will suit the different positions. That is all gone now. The names come before the Minister and he can, with the stroke of a pen, appoint whom he likes.
I support this motion. If this country is going to continue on this course of wicked patronage, we are heading for a shock, for dictatorship and the destruction of democracy as we know it.
