Austin Currie
Question:13 Mr. Currie asked the Minister for Defence if the recommendations of the Gleeson report were recently applied in the promotion of commandants to the rank of lieutenant colonel.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Army Promotions.
In the recent competition for promotion from commandant to lieutenant-colonel, a promotion board was established to assess and recommend applicants having regard to detailed criteria which were set out in Defence Forces Regulations. The board, which comprised senior military officers and a civilian member, interviewed participants in the competition.
The arrangements involved in the competition were worked out in the course of lengthy discussions with the Representative Association of Commissioned Officers and were in line with the recommendations of the Gleeson Commission regarding promotion on merit for officers of the Permanent Defence Forces.
Will the Minister agree that the guidelines laid down in regard to this round of promotions varied considerably from those guidelines which governed the previous round of appointments which were the subject of much controversy? Does the Minister agree that the appointments made to the rank of colonel about five or six months ago should now be re-examined?
I am not aware of what the Deputy is referring to. As I stated in my reply, the new system which was set up with the help of the representative body is in place. There seems to be general acceptance of the new arrangements.
That is true in regard to the recent promotions but I put it to the Minister in relation to the promotions which were made five or six months ago, from the rank of lieutenantcolonel to colonel, that different guidelines were put in place, without consultation, which were the cause of major dissatisfaction and discontent within the Defence Forces. Seniority was not taken into account and that is not entirely the case now. In view of this, does the Minister consider that the promotions made following that set of interviews should be re-examined?
No way.
I am not prepared to comment on something I know nothing about. I do not know what the Deputy is talking about. I answered the question in accordance with the way it was set out.
I will talk to the Minister about it again.
Will the Minister agree that the promotions which have been made should remain unaltered and the question of reviewing promotions could not be contemplated? Given that there is talk about guidelines and arrangements and, indeed, a reference at some stage to regulations in the Minister's earlier response, can the Minister tell us if the criteria in relation to all promotions within the commanding ranks of the Defence Forces have been reduced to written signed regulations promulgated from his office and available to all for consideration? If that is so, will the Minister make a copy available to me or anyone who wishes to see them and, if not, will he ensure regulations set out the criteria to be used in making promotions?
I would like to read into the record of the House the blueprint of the new system of promotion which was put together on the basis of what would be fair to the individual. It is based on acceptable criteria of performance and achievement, the impartial judgement of competent assessors and supported by proper personnel management policies, in particular a career development strategy to ensure mobility and experience.
A final question, Deputy.
I accept the Minister may not have the information to hand but I am concerned that regulations be issued to copperfasten the very fine criteria that the Minister has outlined which I understand were used in making the recent and previous promotions.
It is a new departure given that promotions were decided almost exclusively on seniority and it has stood the test of one promotion regime. I expect that it will be laid down, or perhaps refined, as an agreed system for the future.