Vol. 487 No. 7
14 Mr. Stanton asked the Minister for Defence the number of NCOs and other rank personnel in the Naval Service who have been promoted to officer rank for each of the years from 1988; the requirements that must be met by naval personnel in order to qualify for promotion; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5264/98]
A total of six non-commissioned personnel have been appointed to commissioned officer rank in the Naval Service since 1988. Five non-commissioned personnel were appointed in 1992 on successful completion of a potential officers course and one in 1990 having been awarded a cadetship through the annual cadetship competition for 1988.
Non-commissioned personnel serving in technical appointments who attain the required educational standard may be appointed to commissioned rank to fill a vacancy for technical officer, provided that they satisfy an interview board as to their suitability. Non-commissioned personnel may also be appointed to be officers on successful completion of a potential officers course. Serving members of the Defence Forces may also compete in the annual cadetship competitions, provided that they meet the criteria with regard to age, educational and medical standards.
In recent years there have been very few commissions from the non-commissioned officer rank to officer. Is the Department considering advertising in the British press in the near future for commissioned officers in the Naval Service? Why is that being done? Why can the Department not organise advancement from within the ranks? Is it true that in 1994 there were about 6,000 applicants for 70 places, and would the Minister agree that the applicants had a very high standard of education? Would he further agree that the lack of a proper career path in the Naval Service for highly motivated and highly trained personnel is leading to a drop in morale? What encouragement can the Department offer to young sailors to become officers?
Quite a number of questions have been raised. One of the commitments I gave as Opposition spokesperson on Defence was to see to what extent I could put in place a better career structure for the Defence Forces. One necessary ingredient in doing that is constant recruitment. All Administrations in the past made the mistake of stopping recruitment for long periods of time, resulting in humps and gaps. We should never go back to such practices which led to some of the present problems.
A reply to the second part of the Deputy's question relies on the Price Waterhouse review which will be published in early March. When a reorganisation drive is in progress, some problems tend to be left until the new organisation is in place. I have no knowledge of advertisements being placed in papers abroad. My information is that the main problem in terms of the promotion ladder had to do with the watch keepers and that new efforts are being made to encourage NCOs in the Naval Service to undertake a two to three-year training programme to qualify for this arduous position. As soon as I have the report I will be looking at the possibility of establishing a different promotional regime in every branch of the Defence Forces because unless ambitious people who want to improve have a ladder of promotion onto which they can step, we will be presiding over many problems. I want to be open to suggestions that have been made in this House as to how to achieve those aims. In the meantime I will undertake to look at some of the matters the Deputy has raised about which I do not have precise information at the moment.
Is the Minister saying that recent reports in the press were incorrect? Regarding reports in today's press, when does the Minister intend to advertise with a view to recruiting the 500 mentioned by the Department today?
With regard to recruitment, my announcement to this House in the latter stages of last year was that we would advertise in March. I intend to stick to that, and to come forward with the second tranche in June or July this year. I do not have precise information in relation to any advertisement. I will check it out. I do not want to make any further comment because, in relation to the Air Corps, we may have to advertise for experienced pilots because of the number of pilots who want to retire. We do not have adequate numbers to replace them on the Gulfstream and other aircraft.
The Minister referred to the shortage of watch keepers. The two coastal patrol boats, the LE Orla and Ciara, should be manned by a captain, engineer and three watch keepers. There is no difficulty with the technical or administration officers but there are only two watch keepers on each of these boats. Does the Minister agree that this undermines the operational ability of those boats?
I have previously raised with the Minister the height requirements for recruits. While the Minister has reduced the requirement by one inch, there is a four inch difference between the height requirement for male and female recruits to the Garda. I have been unable to establish the average height for male and female recruits and cannot throw statistics at the Minister. However, I ask him to look again at this matter.
Following the raising of this matter during a previous Question Time, I sought figures on which to make my assessment. However, there is not much scientific evidence available.
A difference of three or four inches is too much and reflects badly on the female population. Like the Deputy, I am not prepared to accept this difference and have introduced an interim measure. We must wait and see how this measure works. I do not want to make comparisons between the Garda and Defence Forces in terms of the height requirements for recruits but one matter does arise. When I visited the Glen of Imaal I picked up the equipment which is carried by personnel. I am not a judge of strength or the relationship between it and size but I would prefer to have as much assistance as possible in carrying the equipment. I would not like people to be injured because of their size, and this is a matter which must be taken into account.
