Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 8 Jul 1975

Vol. 283 No. 5

Private Members' Business. - Army Promotions: Motion.

Mr. Dowling

I move:

That Dáil Éireann deplores the action of the Minister for Defence in altering the Defence Force regulation so as to enable him to ignore the recommendations of the Chief of Staff in the promotion of Army officers thus undermining the morale of the members of the Defence Forces.

The very fact the matter has got such wide coverage both in the Press, on television and elsewhere is a clear indication of the seriousness of this motion. I would like to quote from a leading article in the Anglo-Celt of 4th July. It states:

One Fine Gael member of the present Government seems to have learnt the lesson of arrogance well. The Minister for Defence, Mr. Patrick Donegan, TD, recently altered the Defence Force regulations in a manner which permitted him as Minister for Defence to make Army promotions without seeking the approval of the Army Command.

The selection of officers for promotion was formerly a function reserved for the Chief of Staff, who submitted recommendations for the Minister's approval after consultation with the Adjutant General and the Quartermaster General. Under his new regulations Mr. Donegan has made appointments without such consultation. Whether the individuals involved were worthy of these promotions is beside the point. The Minister has altered the regulations so as to make challenge to such promotion within the Army tantamount to mutiny.

It goes on to state that:

Any good Minister for Defence would know that a high morale was the sine qua non of an effective Army. His first duty, therefore, must be the establishment and maintenance of morale. Mr. Donegan's altering of the promotion regulations destroys all sense of justice in promotions and robs those promoted of the confidence building knowledge that they have been judged and found worthy by their superior officers.

This is a clear indication of the type of comment that has percolated through the community and the seriousness with which the matter is being examined and analysed. I would like to know why the Minister sought to amend the regulations. I have no desire to reflect on the good name, character or efficiency of any officer promoted in the past or recently by the Minister. Those who served the nation under arms in difficult times over the years have won the respect of people at home and abroad. Many of these men have now been victimised by virtue of the fact that the Minister has taken unto himself dictatorial powers in relation to the promotion of officers and the serious security situation that has developed where confidence has been completely undermined by the irresponsible action of the Minister for Defence.

This action has generated and will generate long term unrest throughout the forces. It has affected the morale of the forces. This is evident in the various comments made in the newspapers and in correspondence received by many Deputies since the Minister took this power on to himself. It has shattered the hopes of career officers who have joined the forces. These are all-important. Why is the Minister taking on these dictatorial powers? It has led to a weakening of the authority of the general staff, an authority that is necessary and desirable among the high ranking officers of the forces. It is necessary that the confidence of the personnel from the bottom to the top is maintained and they are assured that they have at the top men of knowledge and understanding of their problems, men who will make decisions on their behalf, men who will recommend them for promotion. All that is gone.

The effect on the morale of officers who joined the Army as a career is now one of great dimension. I hope that before this debate concludes we may have some indication from the Minister that he is prepared to rectify this grievous wrong which has been done by him in the recent past. I believe it is necessary to restore the confidence of the general staff in the Minister and in the Government. The Minister alone is not to blame for this. I am positive a major decision of this nature could not be made without the consent of the Taoiseach and other members of the Government. Each member of the Government, where there is an area of collective responsibility is equally responsible for this irresponsible act that has been committed by the Minister for Defence.

The primary matter in relation to promotions is ability. Everyone agrees that officers must be promoted on the basis of ability. Nevertheless, all other things being equal, the question of seniority has always been and will always be the deciding factor. Now we have the decisions that have been made by the Minister and his comments to The Irish Independent and other newspapers on record and we will examine them as this debate proceeds. I hoped before this debate took place that we would have had a clear indication from the Taoiseach or the Minister for Defence as to the reason for this extraordinary measure. We know now that the career structure has been demolished. The uncertainty of promotion in the future has caused great dissatisfaction among those who are in line on the basis of seniority and ability and have now been passed over by ministerial order. Their confidence is gone. They now await a clear statement from the Minister and the Government on their future, if they have a future, or if the Minister will in future make all the appointments. How far will the Minister accept in future the word of the Chief of Staff or the word of the general staff, the word of battalion commanders or indeed of other personnel who may report in relation to officers? Will there be a proper assessment in the future or will the Minister make the appointments after horse-trading elsewhere?

In relation to the appointments that have been made, we would like to know if in fact the Chief of Staff's recommendations were over-ruled. The Minister is on record as indicating in The Irish Independent of 29th June, 1975, that it was a personal decision: that there had been consultation with the three most senior officers in regard to recent promotions. He admitted that contrary to their recommendations he promoted two officers to the rank of colonel. He went on to say that these were not the two referred to as being supporters of Fianna Fáil. The Minister said his reason for promoting them was that they were near retirement age and that he wished to give them two additional years service and increase their pension rights. Many people have pension rights in the Army. If we are to disregard the rights of people with efficiency, people with ability and people in line for promotion, we have indeed a fairly serious situation.

Did the Minister consider the problems of the officers who have been passed over, the injustices which have been done to them? Has he considered the question of the remuneration, in incomes and in pensions, of the officers who have been passed over? These are all matters that need consideration. It is obvious that the Minister did not give them consideration. He stated in The Irish Independent of 29th June, 1975, that at least two of the men promoted to the rank of colonel were Fianna Fáil supporters, which is a further indication of the complete irresponsibility of the present Minister, in judging the merits of their promotion on the basis of their politics. We hope that that day has gone and we look forward to the future when men will be judged on their ability and not on their political past. The Minister is on record as indicating that this was done in the case of at least two of the promotions. Why would the Minister inquire into the background and the political beliefs of individuals due for promotion? Was there a special reason or was he satisfied that two posts out of a quota were sufficient for supporters of Fianna Fáil? It is obvious that he has carried out an assessment of the political outlook of officers seeking promotion and that he has, in fact, done a much wider assessment in the entire field of serving Army officers as to their political outlook. Shame on the Minister that he would judge promotions on that basis. There is another question that the Minister must answer. We hope that the Minister will indicate to us clearly the procedure and the method by which the recommendations were made. Did he receive from the Chief of Staff recommendations? Did he, in turn, make additional recommendations, having reviewed the recommendations of the Chief of Staff and did he indulge in horse-trading in relation to promotions by asking that compromises be accepted? There can be no compromise or horse-trading in relation to the promotion of officers over officers who have been recommended on the basis of ability. Taking into consideration the fact that they have the ability, then the question of seniority must be a factor, but the Minister has disregarded this important aspect.

The Minister's record is a very chequered one in his handling of some Defence matters. There was the Claudia and many others. They are typical examples of the irresponsibility of the Minister when important decisions have to be made. His efforts now to take power away from the Chief of Staff in relation to Army promotions is a further indication of his power-crazy ambition. I would say to the Minister that if he wants to become Chief of Staff then he should join the Army.

Deputies

Hear, Hear.

Mr. Dowling

I would like the Minister to know that he cannot be both Minister for Defence and Chief of Staff. It is important that the Minister should know, not how I feel, but how many people feel about his tactics and attitudes in relation to the Armed Forces. I would like to quote from The Irish Times of February 10th, 1975 and from an article by a Dublin barrister-at-law, Brian Doolin, where he said:

One could be forgiven if one thought that the Army was the private plaything of the present Minister for Defence, Mr. Donegan. He is rarely photographed in the media but when he is, he is usually bowler-hatted, inspecting or addressing soldiers or dressed up in an Army tunic with a machinegun in his hand.

That is not my viewpoint but the viewpoint of a barrister-at-law. I have already quoted from the Anglo-Celt, which gave a further indication of the arrogance and the attitude that the Minister has in regard to matters of great importance. Now that the Minister has taken upon himself this dangerous mantle of power politics in political appointments in the armed services, we ask is the Minister ready now? If one quotes further from the barrister-at-law who made that statement, one could very well, at the particular stage when that article appeared, say the man was crazy. But having followed closely the trend of events since, one would say there is much sense in what Mr. Doolin stated at that time. He went on to state that it might be used to seize or abuse power. Is the Minister setting up a military junta? Is the Minister trying to set up an officer corps of his own? What is the idea behind the Minister's actions? Why does he want, at this stage, to take this power upon himself? In our present security situation it should be everybody's aim to boost the morale of and instil confidence into the Defence Forces. With so much discontent and uncertainty existing now within the Defence Forces, one wonders how much irreparable damage has been caused by the Minister.

I hoped that the Taoiseach would have been available to listen to this Motion. He should fully understand how I and many others feel in relation to the attitude of the present Minister for Defence. I do not wish to divert attention from the real reason behind this particular Motion, the change in the regulations by which the Minister has sought to give power to himself.

There has been much comment in the Press and elsewhere on the powers exercised now by the Minister and the promotions which he has made particularly in relation to the Army School of Equitation and the promotions which spring from it. This School has no military value whatsoever, and if there is to be an inordinate influence in relation to promotions to senior rank from this particular establishment, upsetting the morale of the Forces, we must have another look at the role that the Army School of Equitation is to play in the future. The Department of Defence is not the Equitation School. The Department must be able to do its own job, and I am positive that it can do it efficiently.

Under various sections of the Defence Forces Act a number of people have power to promote. Under section 26 of the Act the power is vested in the Minister to make regulations subject to the Fourth Schedule of the Act, which gives him the authority to make regulations altering the Defence Force regulations and paragraph 7 is the one that has been altered. This gives the Minister that power. He also has power to promote under section 45. It is under this section that he produced this documentation. The Minister has changed the regulations to suit himself. Subject to the provisions of the Defence Force Regulations, 1974, the Minister may, having considered such recommendations as may be made by the Chief of Staff, promote an officer from one rank to the next higher rank. The Minister has taken away power previously vested in the Chief of Staff. He also altered subparagraph (2) which provides that in recommending an officer for promotion under subparagraph (1) the Chief of Staff shall also have regard to certain factors. In the past, there had to be certification by the Chief of Staff. The Chief of Staff was the person who made the recommendation to the Minister but now we have the serious situation where the Minister has absolute power.

The Minister has made a bad job of it. Under section 26 he has certain powers. He has power to amend the regulations in accordance with Schedule IV of the Defence Act, 1954. He has amended the regulation under section 45 of the Defence Act, 1954. It must be clear to the Minister, and to those who read the Act, that the Minister has altered the regulations under the wrong section. In fact, the officers concerned have not been promoted.

I would ask the Minister, even at this stage, to seek the advice of the Attorney General in order to clarify the situation in relation to section 26 and section 45. Section 26 is the section which gives the Minister the authority to amend the Defence Forces Regulations. The Minister has amended these regulations under section 45. I want to quote from the paragraph which the Minister has amended. It provided that an officer may, on the recommendation of the Chief of Staff, be promoted by the Minister from one substantive rank to the next higher rank. The Minister has changed that in order to give himself absolute power but he has done a bad job. I submit that the Minister has altered the regulations under the wrong section. It should have been section 26. An investigation by his legal assistants will show clearly that the Minister has made a mess of the whole affair. He must bear the responsibility for any money spent, any salaries given to officers wrongly promoted.

I would hope that the Minister would mend his hand. There are many ways in which he can do this. He can promote the officers he wishes to promote and, at the same time, and without interfering with the promotions of those entitled to them, he can rectify the situation. Morale must be restored throughout the service and in the higher ranks of the Army who have lost confidence in the Minister because of his dictatorial attitude and approach. I have pointed out to the Minister that he amended the regulations under the wrong section and it is now in the Minister's court to rectify the position.

I hope that, in the next day or so we will have a responsible statement from the Minister in relation to these promotions and future promotions, in relation to the prospects of officers who want to make a career in the Army and in relation to those who wish to apply for membership of the cadet school. I hope we will revert to the situation which existed before 17th June, 1975.

One heartening fact which has emerged is that we have a Chief of Staff, a man of courage, who will not allow himself to be intimidated by the Minister for Defence or any other politician. It is desirable that we should have a man at the head of our defence forces who has the moral courage to stand up to an irresponsible Minister. The Army should be grateful for having such a man. We know also that under section 114 of the Act the redress of wrongs percolates to the Minister, who adjudicates on them.

Now we have the Minister making appointments. If an officer feels aggrieved by being passed over despite the fact that he has all the qualifications and is fully equipped to take up a particular post, he must make a complaint to the Minister who will adjudicate on the complaint. How will a man make a complaint in future if the Minister has this responsibility and it is not the responsibility of some army officer? Surely this is of importance to officers who wish to redress wrongs. How will the Minister make a decision on an appointment he has made? What chance has somebody who has been passed over for promotion of getting justice when he has been trampled on by an irresponsible Minister, a Minister who has undermined his morale and shattered his prospects of promotion? Will the Minister now give an indication that he is prepared to mend his ways and act responsibly in future? Officers who have served the nation well, at home and abroad deserve consideration.

Perhaps the system applied in relation to promotions under section 7 is not the best possible system and, if it is not, it should be changed. Do we require a promotions board? Is such a board an answer to the problem of assessing fully and factually over a wide area the ability and efficiency the people in line for promotion? If that is a more sensible approach, then I have no objection to the Minister amending the regulations to introduce such a board. The Minister must show clearly that he is prepared to take deliberate action to ease tension and restore morale. That can only be done by reverting to what was the existing position.

The Minister may say that this is history repeating itself, but this decision was made by the Minister, aided and abetted by the Taoiseach and Members of the Government. I hope that before the debate ends we will have a clear statement, may be not from the Minister but from the Taoiseach who has a large responsibility here. He cannot wash his hands of his responsibility. I am sure the Minister would be unable to make such an amendment without the consent of the Taoiseach. If the Minister made this irresponsible amendment without the consent of the Taoiseach then the Taoiseach should take the appropriate action to deal with the Minister and let it be known throughout the Defence Forces that the Minister erred, that he was over-enthusiastic in his removal of certain people and certain elements. For the Taoiseach to speak of integrity in the future when so many people have been trampled on, people who were entitled to their rightful place in the armed services, is no answer. I have the priority lists of the people who have been passed over and disregarded, people who have given long and valuable service. Will the Minister indicate that there will be a correction of this serious situation?

The effect of some of the promotions will mean that officers of ability will be denied promotional prospects for 15 years. There will be a promotion block in certain centres for up to 15 years. This is a serious situation. One of the problems Ministers have battled with over the years is the question of promotional humps which developed during the emergency period, after it, and in other periods as well. Various efforts were made from time to time to relieve the situation and ensure that officers could obtain promotion to a reasonably high rank in a reasonably short time. It must be the desire of every responsible Minister for Defence to ensure that young men entering the Defence Forces will have the opportunity of gaining the highest awards at a very early age. The system must be worked. We must not in that process disregard those who have given long and loyal service, under contract to serve the nation. They must serve out that contract and, when their turn comes, they must be duly rewarded providing they have the necessary ability and meet the requirements laid down.

I would call on the Minister to make available to us—and this is the only way that the public will be satisfied— the documents exchanged between the Chief of Staff and the Minister prior to the Minister's so-called amendment. This amendment can and may be challenged in the courts. We hope the matter will be rectified before this House rises.

In last Sunday's Sunday Independent we had the poison pen of some anonymous reporter trying to stir up civil war hatred by an article on matters he knew nothing about. It was a completely erroneous description of events relating to other Ministers for Defence, trying to cause confusion and inject into the discussion a bitterness that is neither necessary nor desirable. I have no desire to examine into the previous political outlook or forecast the future political outlook of any individual. The Minister has done that. He is on record as doing it. Then we have the poison pen of an anonymous scribe, a scribe who fails to put his name to paper, and casts reflections on people to dishonour them. Some of the suggestions were no doubt an effort to cover up the irresponsible attitude of the Taoiseach, Deputy Cosgrave, and the Minister for Defence, Deputy Donegan. I am not going to judge further on this erroneous article or the poison pen tactics of the Sunday Independent, but I would suggest to the editor that he should look this man up, tell him he does not know what he is writing about, and ask him to check out if what he has written is factually correct. I say it is not.

There have been suggestions that men were promoted by Presidents, which they had the authority to do under section 42 of the Act. They have power to appoint just as the Minister has power to promote under section 45, but he has not power to amend regulations. I would impress upon the Minister the necessity and desirability of examining the provision under which the amendment was made, Schedule 4 of the Act, and read the small print on top; he will then know what his powers are under section 26. It is about time the Minister realised what his powers are under the various sections of the Act.

He has acted irresponsibly on this occasion, not merely by amending a regulation under the wrong section but by promoting officers without the necessary authority under the amended regulation which, in fact, is not amended at all. I would ask the Minister to consider this and not just to give his interpretation because the alleged amendment of this particular regulation will be challenged in due course.

How far is the Minister prepared to go? How many people will he promote? Who will it be in the future? We have seen now that there is absolutely no regard for efficiency, ability or the seniority list. Where does the Minister go from here? He can pick up who he likes along the way. Will we arrive at the stage when only the Minister's pals will be promoted?

In an earlier debate I indicated how irresponsible the Minister was in relation to promotions within the FCA. They were promoted on paper, serving in Dublin, promoted in Cork and taken back on paper the same day.

The Minister gave an explanation on that point which was not satisfactory to me: he said they were recommended by the Chief of Staff. I said that the Chief of Staff was then responsible if he wanted to pursue the matter further. We had the irresponsible action before. He did it in the FCA and he is now tampering with promotions within the Army. We hope that the situation will terminate now. We hope that common sense will prevail. We hope the Minister will give a clear indication to the personnel who are due for promotion that he will revert to the position as it was before 17th June when he signed this famous document that never was. If he proceeds on the basis he is proceeding with we can have quite a number of officers promoted. To quote General Sir John Hackett—one-time BOAC executive, in relation to officers: "It is possible that there are men who will follow these officers anywhere out of curiosity."

We do not want that situation to develop. We want men of standing and ability and men who are entitled to their promotions, men whom the Chief of Staff and indeed the Army can be proud of, not just friends of the Minister. Friends of the Minister are percolating to many places nowadays, and this can very well be the ruination of the Minister and can further undermine the morale of the service.

I will not detain the House longer, but I hope the Minister will give us the facts in relation to the so-called regulations amendment that has taken place, the reason why he believes that his knowledge is superior to that of the Chief of Staff and the general staff, the reason why he thinks his knowledge is superior to that of the commanders, the reason why the confidential reports and other reports of officers are disregarded, the reason why the seniority list is being disregarded and why he has promoted certain people. I have nothing against any officer who is promoted provided he is promoted on his ability and that there is no injustice done. Justice must be the keynote, and I do not want to reflect in any way on any man who is so promoted. I would be the last one to reflect on any man. I wish them well in their new posts and I hope that in the next group of promotions, which will take place in September, the same type of situation will not operate as was operated on the 17th June.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Donegan)

If Deputy Dowling thinks that if you keep saying something often enough and loudly enough everybody will believe it is true, then perhaps he could justify this debate. What I have got are strictly the facts. They will disprove 90 per cent of what he has been saying.

Firstly he posed the question of how could I adjudicate on redressing wrongs in the case of an officer who had been passed over when in fact it was I who promoted that officer. I want to tell Deputy Dowling that in the case of one of these promotions —I am not going to name anybody and in no circumstances will I indicate which one it is—he sent me two redressive wrongs in the last year-and-a-half when he had not been promoted, having been passed over. I made inquiries from his commanding officer, and the other members of the General Staff. Two of them would have promoted him; the Chief of Staff and two more would not. Having ruled on redressive wrongs twice, I felt—that is what I said in the Sunday Independent when asked about it—that the man who was second in seniority in his corps on the basis of his commanding officers and his OC command should be promoted. That is one of the promotions where I disagreed with the Chief of Staff. Surely you can see my position. I bear a heavy responsibility and I must use that to the best of my ability. If I find myself in disagreement with the Chief of Staff, then I have got to decide if I have the strength and courage and the guts to make a change in the regulations, or do I sit down and do nothing and allow that particular officer not to be promoted when in my heart I feel he is worthy of promotion and when the commanding officer and his OC command feel it as well, even though the other three officers were against him? Should that be allowed to stop him in what was his last chance of promotion? That disposes of one matter, but whether I can deal with redressive wrongs against myself, I have doubts.

I should now like to give the promoted officers' positions in seniority in their posts. They were second, seventh, sixth, fifth, 31st and twelfth. In the case of the man who was 31st, he was promoted by a previous Minister for Defence and he passed over 156 others. I have to bear the responsibility of placing these positions. I regret that responsibility but I do it honestly and fairly and I will take all the abuse that Deputy Dowling likes to hurl at me because I can disprove him. Every Minister for Defence has to face up to the responsibility of promotions. It lies on his desk and it is his pen that signs them, and whatever recommendations or systems were used and allowed to go through, the Minister, under section 45 of the Act, is the man who makes the promotion and it is his responsibility.

It is symptomatic of the 1954 Defence Act, put through by the late Oscar Traynor, which I regard as one of the best Acts of Parliament that ever came through this House, that under it the Irish Army are related directly to Government and to Parliament and to nobody else. That is the reason why it is the Minister for Defence who has to judge on redressive wrongs. That is why the Minister for Defence is the bulwark between situations where an Army man might be passed over and might be badly treated in his rights to have a redressive wrong. That is the thinking and that is the way be have dealt with it.

I have given the seniority positions of those promoted. I will not bother my head going back to give seniority positions of people in the past, but if anyone wants them they can have them. I would not dream of making comparisons. This is a serious matter. Since 1969 1,200 people have been killed and heavy responsibilities lie on my shoulders and on the Government.

I should like to go through the history of promotions. In 1924 the Minister for Defence made Order No. 7 which simply said that "No promotion shall be made without the authority of the Minister". In 1928 another regulation was made, Regulation No. 10/1928. It states:

All promotion of commissioned officers of the forces will be made by the Minister for Defence on the recommendations of the Council of Defence.

That position continued until 1949. The provision then regarding recommendations from the Council of Defence was deleted and a further order was made. I quote:

The Minister may promote any officer to a higher standing rank or to a higher acting rank.

As an administrative practice the fact was that the recommendations of the Council of Defence were taken into consideration by the Minister until the 1954 Act. In 1955—it was either General Seán MacEoin or the late Oscar Traynor who signed it but it was the thinking of Oscar Traynor at that time—the regulation was changed as follows:

An officer may, on the recommendation of the Chief of Staff, be promoted by the Minister.

The effect of that change was to completely vitiate the responsibility of the Minister and the powers of the Minister in this regard. I have given an indication where I made a decision against the Chief of Staff in respect of one officer. I have given an indication of the seniority position of those promoted.

My responsibility comes into it too. I must have regard for my men. That is my position. I am between the Chief of Staff and the men and I have to have regard for them and try to be as fair and honest as I can.

The effect from 1st January, 1955, was that the whole thing was in the hands of the Chief of Staff, but I operated this myself for the last two-and-a-half years. What happens is, and it happened on this occasion too, that the Chief of Staff sends down recommendations. He comes down and discusses them with you. You say: "Well, now, you passed over so-and-so the last time. Are you being fair to him?" He goes away and makes another suggestion, comes back, and this goes on in the most friendly fashion. Indeed, I am on the most friendly terms with the Chief of Staff at this moment in time. It goes on in the most friendly fashion over a period of weeks and, perhaps, even a couple of months. At the point in time when these promotions are to be made, they are made and that is all there is to it. On this occasion the Chief of Staff found himself sincerely and honestly in disagreement with me. I took my responsibilities in my hands and I changed the regulations.

In relation to the change of regulations some barrack room lawyer is instructing Deputy Dowling but he is instructing him wrongly, because I checked with the Attorney General's office and they advised that regulations regarding promotions can be made under either section 45 or section 26. Previous examples of citations of section 45 are, and I would like to put them on the record of the House, amendment No.68 made on 30th December, 1964, by the late Gerald Bartley, Lord rest him, as Minister for Defence, and amendment No. 71 of 31st January, 1966, by Mr. Michael Hilliard, then Minister for Defence. The Attorney General's office have already advised me that I am correct in what I have done and within the law.

The effect of the order of 17th June, 1975, puts the whole thing in its proper perspective. I promote. In this motion I am accused of ignoring and I quote:

... so as to enable him to ignore the recommendations of the Chief of Staff ...

This is not so. I have on my file here two separate sets of recommendations from the Chief of Staff in regard to the present promotions during a dialogue that went on between the Chief of Staff and myself for at least six weeks. Most of those promotions, let me say, do not come into effect until the 2nd September anyway.

I then would like to deny, of course, what was said in the newspaper report that the amendment was back-dated three days. It was not so back-dated. It was made on the 17th June and the promotions were announced on the 20th and signed on the 20th.

The factors now regarding promotions. You must take a lot of things into account. You have got to take command and staff courses, courses abroad, seniority positions and men's administrative ability itself. I do not, for a moment, profess to be the person who goes out and walks through some place like the Curragh Camp and says: "Oh, that is a great commanding officer" or walks through some barracks and says: "That is a very well run barracks". I do not. That is not the way it happens, as ex-Ministers for Defence in this House know. Reports of all kinds come and you must balance one against the other.

As regards the rather politically stupid—I would not like to use the word "stupid" without putting the word "politically" before it—suggestion by Deputy Dowling that I could promote everybody who has been put up for promotion as well as those I promote myself, he should know that the matter is one of establishment and that there were only six positions for six colonels. At the moment I am arguing very vigorously with the United Nations to try to get my seventh colonel. There is somebody, whoever he is, waiting out there in the Army. If I can get it in the next week or fortnight he will get it. Somebody must get that colonelship. Everybody knows it is on establishment. Everybody knows that you cannot say; "We will have 16 colonels instead of six." It just shows how little Deputy Dowling knows about the matter when he suggests that in this House.

Mr. Dowling

It can be done.

Mr. Donegan

It cannot be done.

Mr. Dowling

It has been done.

Mr. Donegan

I would suggest that the manner in which promotions were made was the best I could do in the circumstances. I had the responsibility of seeing people there who I felt were being passed over and I had not enough places to promote everybody who would like to be promoted. It was the greatest number of promotions available at the top ranks ever in the Army. The situation was that there had to be many great expectations and many great disappointments. If I had only one or two colonelships to give out there would be very few thinking about it, but when there was one in this corps and one in the other, a total of six, then the position was, of course, that there had to be great expectations and great disappointments.

Let me now point to the two Government appointments, that of Adjutant General and Quartermaster General, and tell you that the normal term of appointment is five years. Neither of those two gentlemen will complete five years. They will be retired on grounds of age before they have completed the five years. So, it may be taken that within the top senior men in the Army, these two gentlemen were very senior indeed. Most of the promotions that were made by previous administrations had far more than the five years to run. In fact, there have been instances where people were able to get a second five years in the job. It may be taken that such Government promotions were of senior men with less than five years to run.

I should like to discuss the matter of the equitation team. People fastened on to the question of the Army Equitation Team and suggested that, perhaps, people who were there got accelerated promotion and that there was a sort of preference for it. The position is that the Irish horse must be advertised.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Donegan

The Irish horse must be advertised and the only agent that has got the organisation to do the job is the Army jumping team. The position in relation to the Army jumping team is simply this: a person was promoted from the equitation team to a more senior appointment. The Chief of Staff's recommendation a year ago for that appointment was for a gentleman—and a very decent man, I know him very well—who was one place on the seniority list above the man now promoted and when it came to this time he did not put him up at all. He put a different fellow up. There I am now, if I wanted to talk about that position, with three possible names and I only have one job and as regards seniority one place below, one place above and I do not know where the third man was. When there is only one job one must do one's best. I want to indicate that I have the greatest belief in the people who were promoted and I think they will do well.

If you are looking for doctors you promote doctors to do doctoring. If you are looking for engineers you promote engineers to do engineering. A fellow who is promoted in the equitation team has no handle to his name at all. He is just a horseman and, therefore, you could say: "It is unfair. Why was he taken and brought up?" The truth is that he must be a specialist. He is just a specialist without the letters after his name. Within the equitation team that is the answer to it. You have got to pick the best man for the job. There is not much point in coming in with the place half broken down; spending £300,000 and then picking somebody who is a good man at radio. Maybe that is what the Opposition would like but that is not what we would do.

There has never been, within the Irish Army at the top, an absolute insistence that there shall be seniority all the time in promotions. I will give you what previous Governments did in relation to Chiefs of Staff. I will give no names. The first man on the list passed over 16 to become Chief of Staff. The second man passed over 27. The third passed over nine. There was a politician who took, as Taoiseach, an Aide de Camp and his proper rank for that appointment was Commandant. Without any establishment appointment, he made him lieutenant colonel. When he became President he promoted this individual to colonel. He was entitled to one commandant. He took two commandants and made them lieutenantcolonels and he kept the colonel who was 68½ years of age, thereby depriva colonel of an appointment for eight and a half years. If you want this sort of stuff you can have it. But I go back to my promotions and read them out to you again. First to the seniority, second, second, sixth, fifth, thirty-first and twelfth.

Mr. Power

I am very pleased to be associated with this motion and I feel that we should read it very carefully as I believe that every word and phrase of it is true. I intend, during the few minutes at my disposal, to give examples of the frightful wrong that the Minister has perpetrated on the Army. When we read this motion and when we look at the regulation we see that a regulation that was good enough for years for every other Minister, was not good enough for this Minister. The sequence of events that led up to this unprecedented action by the Minister is that a list of promotions was prepared by the Chief of Staff after consultation with the Army Council. That was presented to the Minister. He examined the list and he saw that it did not meet the requirements of his leader, prominent members of his own party and other Ministers and he made out his own list and presented it to the Chief of Staff. That list contained so many wrong promotions that the Chief of Staff would not agree with it and then it was necessary for the Minister to change the Defence Force regulations as they existed. I believe a compromise of three for you and three for our side was offered by the Minister but rejected by the Chief of Staff. This is the type of horse trading that Deputy Dowling has mentioned and the term "horse trading" was never more applicable than in this sordid case. Then the Minister decided in his arrogance— we have seen here tonight an example of how arrogant the Minister is—that he was going to have his own way and that he was going to change the regulations to suit himself. The Minister may, having considered such recommendations as may be made by the Chief of Staff, promote an officer from one rank to the next highest rank. In other words, that is the new regulation and the Minister can, in future, ignore what the Chief of Staff says and promote anyone he likes.

There are other minor points mentioned, that the Chief of Staff is supposed to take cognisance of, but they will not affect the issue in the least because we have no safeguard now over the actions of the Minister. It would be hard for any Chief of Staff to pick out a commandant, a colonel or a lieutenant-colonel and say: "That man is not fit for a higher rank". That is not the same thing as saying that if the Chief of Staff was left to himself he would recommend that particular man and that he would compare his qualifications with those of others in the field and decide that he should get that rank. The position now is that the Minister can do what he wants. We have a situation now where the Minister has reduced the general staff and the Chief of Staff to the ignominious position of being mere rubber stamps. His attitude tonight is that of one who has assumed the role of complete dictator, as far as the Army is concerned.

It must be said that some of the promotions, and he was pleased to mention these, are deserved but others are ridiculous. From my knowledge, I can say that three of those people who were promoted—I come from a constituency where there is a tradition of Army life—would never have been promoted if any sane person had a look at their AF 457. They would not be promoted if they lived to the age of Methuselah. I can also say that the omission of some from the list, cannot be explained. I know men in that list who are real soldiers, who have given a lifetime to soldiering, who have a 100 per cent clear record and have done all the command and staff courses and every other course available. It would be very hard for the Minister or anybody else to explain how that could have happened. I am confident that those people figured on the Chief of Staff's list but I know that they were culled by the Minister. We have, in Messrs Carroll, Byrne and Sullivan, three very sound men.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not think we should mention names.

Mr. Power

We have in the general staff people to whom I would have no hesitation in trusting promotions. They are sound men. I am not sure of their political leaning. May be if I had the ear of the Minister he could tell me that two out of those three were Fianna Fáil. We do not know and we do not want to know what they are. The fact that the Minister was so ready to explain that two of those who were promoted were Fianna Fáil, is a clear indication that the political leaning was subject to very close scrutiny by the Minister before anyone was promoted. I would depend on those people. I would depend my life on their sound judgment. The Minister rejected their opinion and he upset a balance that has always existed between the Minister and the Army. If the Minister was inclined to stray off the line, as this Minister has done, the opinion of the Chief of Staff was always there to act as a counterbalance.

Can anybody seriously believe that the Minister in charge of our Defence Forces at the moment should have the final say in a serious matter such as this? Does the Government side of the House believe this is a man who can be trusted in an emergency situation? Has it not been proved that when the Minister is subjected to pressure he is not capable of making proper decisions? When he cast himself in the leading role in the Claudia affair did his performance inspire confidence on that occasion? In this and in previous incidents the Minister has proved that he has a weakness of character that demands curbing rather than not having any restraint at all placed on it. I read today in the book that is placed under the flag that John F. Kennedy presented to us, regarding the Battle of Fredericksburg that a reporter, referring to that battle, said:

It can hardly be in human nature for men to show more valour or generals to manifest less judgment than were perceptible on our side that day.

In this case it could hardly be in human nature for a Chief of Staff to show more judgment and a Minister to manifest such a lack of it as has been shown in this particular case in the promotions and in changing the Army regulations.

Every element of panic is to be seen here in the Minister's action. He reminds me of the biblical character who realised that he saw the writing on the wall and realised that very soon he would be steward no longer and he went around to his friends and told them to take their pens and write fifty——

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Power

The Minister is obviously looking for personal powers. This is the first hole in the dam. He can appoint anyone he wishes now. He can, under section 41, allow an alien into the Army. For example, he could appoint a Russian and then with the newly acquired powers that he has he could promote him step by step to any rank he wished. There are many who would think that if that Russian were a Cossack he would have much more hope of accelerated promotion in the present case.

Under section 45 the President has power to appoint an officer to any position for any length of time. I presume that is to enable him to have an aide de camp of his own choice. Deputy Donegan referred to this tonight and also referred to the different matters that were done but it would appear now that Deputy Donegan is anxious to assume presidential powers to himself, but without the safeguard of impeachment we would have in presidential cases. Dar ndóigh, tá difríocht an-mhór ar fad idir Ó Dálaigh agus Ó Donnagáin.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister.

Mr. Power

The amendment must be cancelled now. The Minister is faced anyhow with an amendment that does not stand up in law. It was no barrackroom lawyer who told us this. I am confident that if the Minister pursues his madness it will be proved at great cost to him and the State in the court that this has been made under a wrong section. We will stand over that and the party that I represent are prepared to pursue that.

I have the best legal opinion that this hurriedly executed amendment has a technical error in it. Section 45 gives power to make a promotion but section 26 is the regulation under which to make promotions and when the Minister is changing that section he must refer to that section. The Minister should have made the changes under section 26 and subsequently the promotions under section 45. The amendment is illegal and ultra vires and therefore the appointments are not legal. Unless the Minister relents anyone can contest this in a court and his action will succeed. If the Minister wishes to pursue these mad promotions he has made he will have to make them again. We all know he was a fool once and we hope he will not be a fool twice. To judge by what has happened today it will be done again.

I do not think there is any need to make the case that this was what former Ministers such as Ministers Hilliard and Bartley did and that because they did it and the legal experts and the Attorney General told the Minister that it was right for him to do it, it was in fact right. It is quite possible that they were wrong and we believe they were wrong. I am confident that it will be proved that your action was wrong and illegal. All through your contribution here tonight it was quite obvious that you have a very false opinion of the role of the Minister for Defence. You have taken on yourself the role and the functions of the Army. Your very expressions lend weight to that.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should address his remarks through the Chair.

Mr. Power

The Minister said that himself. He said: "I am doing my best with the United Nations to get my seventh colonel." It was not "our seventh colonel", it was his particular seventh colonel. That shows the mind of the Minister. He mentions that after 1969 with 1,200 dead a heavy responsibility lies on his shoulders. If those are the shoulders that the heavy responsibility lies on. God help Ireland. Then he tells us that he was the man with the guts and the courage to make these promotions. The promotions are political patronage, and everyone with an eye in his head recognises that. The only man with guts and courage in this sordid affair was the Chief of Staff who refused to be party to it. Who knows best how to make promotions? Is it the Minister of the day—let him be there for long or short—or the Chief of Staff who has proved his worth?

The Minister has no idea of his own limitations. Up to now the loyalty of this Army has been traditional: it has never been in doubt. The Taoiseach has always expressed a pride in the setting up of the Army. Surely he can now see that aided and abetted by the Minister he has changed the entire role of the Army and politics have now come first in the Army. It would appear that the best advice one could give Army officers now hoping for promotion is to join a political party. That is what your action amounts to. We abhor the setting up in another part of this country of a group to which we refer as the B Specials, but now the Minister has his own D Specials down here.

Army morale is at a very low ebb indeed as a consequence of the action of the Minister. The Minister, to give him his due, had gained a reputation of genuine interest in the Army during his two years in office. But the Minister has lost that by this particular action. We now have a Minister who can never again hope to have the trust of the Army.

The Minister will have to answer quite a number of questions. These are questions that soldiers and other people are putting to me. They want to hear the answers to them. To know that the guillotine is coming down tomorrow will not satisfy them. They want to know did the General Staff object to these promotions and, if so, on whose recommendations were the promotions and the appointments made. Why was it necessary to amend the regulations and on whose advice was this done? Was the Cabinet consulted or was it not? Previously the Minister said that eventually they would come to some compromise. But this time they could not be brought together. He did not accept the judgment of the Chief of Staff. Does he now propose to retain the services of the Chief of Staff, seeing that he had not the trust that he should place in him on that occasion, or does he propose to dismiss him? Is the Minister prepared to place his selections and the justifications for them before a committee of this House together with the recommendations of the General Staff, with particulars of their careers, qualifications, confidential reports, and compare the Minister's selection with the team set up by the Chief of Staff and see who was right and who was wrong? That might help to explain how a person who never did a day's training in supply and transport can now be placed in charge of supplying transport in September. He may be an expert in one field—possibly he is. The officer, I am sure, is an expert in the equitation field. He probably deserves his promotion. Why was he not promoted as colonel in his own equestrian school and left there? Why was it necessary to move him out of that, or was it so necessary to find room for the most favoured son of all that he had to move aside and move on and let another take his place.

The courses that officers do can now be ignored. Why should the captains in the Curragh who are now doing their courses bother completing the courses? Has the Minister any indication that there were murmurs and rumblings among them to their OC, that they felt that there was no point in their doing these courses which up to now had been a forerunner to promotion, when they see that others who do not do these courses get accelerated promotion? Did the present officers doing this command and staff course object to completing their courses? I would like to know if the Minister has any knowledge of that.

In many of the cases that have been mentioned tonight promotions are merited and good: in some cases the promotions have upset the career structure of that particular corps completely. Some officers who were in line for promotion can now see that for 15 years there will be no promotion in that particular corps. Not alone will this be felt at the top but it will have an effect on all the positions down to the bottom as well. The situation that did apply up to now when the stress was on suitability and seniority was not too bad when, as Deputy Dowling said, it gave us the Chief of Staff who would not be bent as the Minister would like him to bend. That is the only redeeming feature of this nasty affair, the integrity of the Chief of Staff. Do we realise that under the regulations as they exist, in section 56, under the new powers that the Minister has, he could set up his own private Army and make his own private corps and that the present Minister has the "neck" to set up a corps of D Specials that could present us here with a Portuguese situation.

My first suggestion to the Minister tonight is a serious and very necessary suggestion, that to help a return of faith and morale and any sense of decency to the Army and to restore credibility in the eyes of the officer body, the present occupant of the seat of Minister for Defence must resign. To show that in future politics will be taken out of officers' promotions, I say what I am going to say now in the full confidence that the next Minister for Defence will be a Fianna Fáil Minister. I say that the selection of a future General Staff will be by a Defence Committee or a committee of this House, including members of the Government and the main Opposition parties, if you will, and that promotions to colonel and lieutenantcolonel will be on the recommendations of the committee composed of the Chief of Staff, the AG and the QMG and the Command OCs and, if you like, one member from each of the main political parties ——

Mr. B. Desmond

The Deputy is not serious.

Mr. Power

——that promotions up to the rank of commandant be made on the selection of the General Staff. The Minister attempted to answer a question tonight as to whom officers should go with a grievance. The Army has no representative body such as the Garda have. Their only representative body is the General Staff. If a member of the Army wishes to have redress he may go to his OC and if he is not satisfied with his OC he can appeal to the Minister. In this case the Minister has wronged the Army by denying some of deserved promotion. To whom do they now appeal? Obviously, not to the wrongdoer. Can they appeal to the President?

It would appear from tonight's remarks and a childish attempt to justify the promotions from the Equitation School that Dean Swift could well make a return to this country. In one of his lighter moments he wrote a book in which he referred to a country he called "Brobdinag" where horses took precedence over human beings. We are fast approaching a similar situation, and I say that coming from a constituency where we love horses.

The case made by the Minister was a very flimsy one indeed. The Minister has proved that he is not fit to be a Minister. He is either too weak or too easily swayed by others or— and I am inclined to favour the latter after listening to him here tonight— he is too arrogant, or else he is prepared to trample on people in order to have his own way. The action of the Minister has done untold harm, and the only way he can help to undo that harm is by listening to the loudly expressed views and wishes of hundreds of Army men to whom I have spoken. I know them, I represent them, and they have asked me to say to the Minister that the Army calls on him to withdraw this amendment and then resign.

In conclusion, I wish to say that one of the first things Fianna Fáil will do, when they resume office, is to change this regulation.

Mr. Esmonde

One has listened to a great many words and a great deal of noise, and it appears to me that the objection of the Opposition is that the Minister is prepared to accept responsibility. Prior to 17th June of this year he was merely a rubber stamp under the previous regulation. The Minister for Defence is answerable to this House for what happens in the armed forces and for all matters appertaining to the armed forces. I do not think any Member of this House would have it otherwise. We are the elected representatives of the people. We have to have somebody who is answerable to us in this House but, apparently, that is not what the Opposition want.

This change in the regulations by the Minister puts the matter right and puts it back in the pre-1955 situation. So that we may properly understand the situation, under the regulations, prior to the Minister's recent amendment, the Minister would have had to act on the recommendations of the Chief of Staff. The position now is that the Minister, having considered the recommendations of the Chief of Staff, takes the responsibility, as it should rightly be taken in this matter; it should be a matter for which the Minister is responsible to this House. If he is merely a rubber stamp how can he be answerable to any Member of this House? How can he answer questions about the Army or about promotions in the Army? It is quite clear that under section 45 of the Defence Act, 1954, it is the duty and the function of the Minister to take responsibility for promotions. This Minister is not prepared to shirk his responsibility——

Mr. O'Kennedy

The Deputy wants us here to have responsibility for promotions within the Army. Is that what the Deputy is saying? I am amazed to hear him.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order. There is a time limit to this debate.

Mr. Esmonde

It has been sought in this House to make the Army the plaything of politics, and the Opposition obviously do not like a Minister who is prepared to take responsibility.

Mr. O'Kennedy

Irrespective of who sits here, it is not our function——

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy O'Kennedy must desist from interrupting. There is a time limit to this debate.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. Esmonde

Two speeches made this evening were deliberate and direct attacks on the Minister personally. The gravamen of the complaint was that the Minister was taking responsibility; he was changing himself from being a rubber stamp to being an active and actual Minister for Defence. That is a thing the Opposition do not like. It is an extraordinary thing that, whenever law and order are mentioned in this House, Deputies from the other side trot out barristers' and lawyers' legal opinions. The Fianna Fáil Party can be very legal and very lawful at certain times.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy O'Kennedy, up to now in this debate Members have been allowed to speak without interruption. I am insisting on the Member in possession being given that opportunity. Deputy O'Kennedy and Deputy Wilson must cease interrupting. There are only a few minutes left. Deputy Esmonde is in possession and, if Deputy O'Kennedy persists in interrupting. I will ask him to leave the House. I am asking that the Deputy in possession, from an ingrained sense of fair play, be allowed to utilise the two minutes remaining to him.

Mr. Esmonde

I was dealing with the statement made by Deputy Power when he said: "When the Minister was put under pressure, he showed weakness of character." In other words, Deputy Power was indicting the Minister in his office as Minister for Defence for what he has done up to date. Deputy Fitzgerald is inclined to be irrelevant. Possibly Deputy Fitzgerald was not in the House when the point was being made. I should like to put the matter in perspective for the benefit of those who have not been doing enough thinking during this debate. Words like "promotion" and "political patronage" have been used. This is the type of language it is easy to use. It is a peculiar thing that whenever we have a debate appertaining to anything in regard to law and order or any of the agencies that deal with law and order, a great deal of noise and disorder comes from the Fianna Fáil benches. Anything of that nature is anathema to Fianna Fáil. Deputy Wilson and others do not appear to have read section 45 of the Defence Act, 1974.

Dr. Byrne

Hear, hear. Quite true.

Mr. Esmonde

I do not think they know what is in the section. Possibly the Deputies will read it tomorrow, perhaps even when they leave this Chamber, and will then stop flying off the handle. Deputies on the other side of the House cannot accept the situation. No Minister for Defence can derogate his responsibility under an Act of Parliament. Prior to 17th June of this year that responsibility was derogated to the Chief of Staff. The section is plain. It is No. 18 of 1954, page 199, for Deputy O'Kennedy's information.

Statements have been made which show a definite element of panic in this case. Deputy Power tends to speak as if he had the authority of the majority in the Irish Parliament. Where he gets that authority I do not know; where he gets his information I am not too certain about either. Just because the Curragh happens to be in his constituency Deputy Power might think he is speaking with an authority he has not actually got, or an authority of knowledge he has not got. To make a statement that three people promoted would never have been promoted if they had lived to the age of Methuselah—a limited number of people have been promoted—is language which is very much to be deprecated in the House. It is identifying people, bringing it down to a very small number. I do not know what Deputy Power's ability may be to judge who should be promoted but as far as I am concerned —and every Deputy on this side of the House—the one person who has that responsibility is the Minister for Defence.

Mr. Wilson

Jeunesse d'oré.

Mr. Esmonde

Deputy O'Kennedy is a comparatively young man like myself, and Deputy O'Kennedy and I in our younger days were reared in the same town. We know, even at our tender age what happened in the past in relation to promotion. I made a firm resolution, in speaking on this motion, that I would not go into that. It has been hinted at; it has been left there. It is a dirty, murky page in the history of our armed forces in relation to promotion. It is better that we do not go into those past cases. We should bury it and forget about it. It did no good to the honour of this country or the armed services.

Mr. Meaney

We are discussing a Fianna Fáil motion. We put down this motion because, as various speakers have said, the Minister has assumed dictatorial powers. It is our view that this Government have been guilty of wicked patronage, and this is further patronage. In a plausible manner the Minister said here a short while ago that he and the Chief of Staff discussed this and that, and that they are great friends, but why did he change the Act? Why did the Act not work for him when it worked for every other Minister for Defence since 1954? Deputy Esmonde referred to things that happened in the past, and I shall refer to that later. I will not dig up things which happened in the past. Names should never be mentioned in the House. It was possible to identify people from what the Minister said, and that is a very bad approach. I would ask the Minister to come into the House tomorrow and state clearly why had he to change the Act when he and the Chief of Staff were great friends.

Debate adjourned.

Mr. O'Kennedy

On a point of order. In the event of the guillotine motion being moved tomorrow, will the House have an opportunity at some later stage to vote on this motion we are discussing this evening?

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

That is a matter for the House. That is not for me to say.