asked the Minister for Defence why he revoked amendment 83 of the Defence Force Regulations A15 made by him on 17th June, 1975; and the nature and degree of the deficiencies in the amendment which led to its revocation.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Defence Forces Promotions.
17.
During the debate on the Deputy's motion in Private Members' Time on the 8th and 9th July, 1975, the Deputy made the case that section 45 of the Defence Act, 1954, had been wrongly cited as the authority for amendment No. 83 to Defence Force Regulations A. 15. In the light of the debate I examined the position, as I was requested to do during the debate, and I concluded that I had two options, namely
(a) retain amendment No. 83 and leave the initiative regarding litigation—the possibility of which the Deputy had projected during the debate—to any person wishing to engage in such litigation.
or
(b) make a new regulation.
Rather than put anybody to the expense of litigation I chose course (b) and made amendment No. 84, the citation in which includes both section 26 and section 45 of the Act.
As the Deputy was informed by letter dated 18th August, 1975, from my Department, three other regulations which had been made in the period 1964-1970 were revoked and remade, in addition to amendment No. 83, in the form of amendment No. 84.
Arising out of the reply and the illegal promotions which were rectified while the House was adjourned, may I ask the Minister if during the debate he indicated on two occasions that he had checked with the Attorney General's Office and that the Attorney General had indicated that the Minister's action was in order? Would the Minister now indicate to the House that he was misled by both the Attorney General and the legal staff of the Department of Defence?
The promotions were legal and are legal and I am so advised at this moment in time by the Attorney General. I was advised at all times that such promotions were legal but so that there would be no question or quibble or somebody invoking litigation which might be very expensive for himself and very unpleasant for persons with families who might be observing a person promoted, whose promotion at that point was almost sub judice, I decided, to put things absolutely beyond doubt because of the allegations of Deputy Dowling, that I would cite other sections and I so cited. I would remind the House that I cited also section 45 and I am advised at this point by the Attorney General that section 45 was legal, was legal during the period of adjournment of the Dáil and is legal. But I cited the other sections to make sure that there was no danger of anybody resorting to litigation which would only impose expense on themselves. The Deputy was so informed by the Secretary of my Department in a letter dated 18th August, 1975. He waited for a week and then gave this letter to The Sunday Press.
The Minister says: "...to put the matter beyond all doubt" so the Minister had a doubt in his mind and the Minister is still not up to date on this matter in so far as the promotions were illegal. I should now like to know what action he proposes to take in relation to the officers who were at that time recommended by the Chief of Staff and who were passed over by the Minister and not promoted? Does he propose to take any action now to ensure that the careers of these men will be protected and that their rights in the future will be adequately safeguarded?
I am not responsible for statements made by the Deputy. In fact some statements made at the present moment are in my view quite erroneous. I want to assure the House that my advice from the Attorney General's Office is that section 45 was the relevant section at all times and remains the relevant section but so as to remove all doubt and so as to make these promotions absolutely beyond doubt, even doubt expressed by the Deputy which did not help the morale of the Defence Forces or the work that had to be done within the Defence Forces, I cited—and here is the very important punch line—not only other sections but section 45. I cited those sections. That means those promotions stand, were legal and are legal.
Further arising out of the reply——
The Chair wants to avoid overlapping. There are a number of questions related to this subject matter. We cannot delay unduly on any one of them.
This is a very important issue; it is the breaking of the law by the Minister. I want to point out to the Minister that he made the orders under the wrong section. He is entitled to make promotions under section 45 but he is not entitled to change regulations under that section.
The Deputy is making a statement which is not in order at Question Time.
The Minister has now rectified the situation and I would like to ask him if he now regards the "barrack room lawyers"— by which description he referred to those who advised me—as inferior to the Attorney General who has now mended his hand?
Certainly I do.
18.
asked the Minister for Defence the number of promotions in the Defence Forces made by him prior to 17th June, 1975, which were outside the normal course of promotion; and the ranks to which the promotions were made.
Between the date of my assuming office and 17th June, 1975, two officers of the Permanent Defence Force were promoted to fill appointments, for which the higher ranks were appropriate, in the United Nations Peace-keeping Force in Cyprus. One of the officers was promoted from commandant to acting lieutenant-colonel and the other from captain to acting commandant.
Could the Minister say if these officers were promoted without the recommendation of the Chief of Staff?
I cannot so say because I have not the information but my recollection is that they were promoted with the recommendation. I must be quite truthful and say that I have not got the information here in my brief. My recollection is that they were promoted with the recommendation.
Surely the Minister should be able to tell us whether the officers were promoted with the recommendation of the Chief of Staff. This is a very serious matter. There is now a doubt in the Minister's mind in relation to other promotions he made: he is not sure whether these are legal or not. I want the Minister to tell the House whether the promotions he made prior to 17th June were made with or without the recommendation of the Chief of Staff. This is most important.
My recollection is that they were made with the recommendation. In fact I would almost go so far as to swear that they were but the information is not in my brief and I would hope that the Deputy would accept my word that my recollection is that they were made with such recommendation.
I do not accept the Minister's word at all.
Nor do I yours.
The Minister should be able to indicate to the House whether or not the recommendations were made by the Chief of Staff in accordance with section 7 of the Defence Force Regulation A15, not that he recollects that they may or may not have been. He either made them legally or illegally.
I certainly made them legally, as all promotions have been made legally, but I want to say that my clear recollection is that these were made with the recommendation of the Chief of Staff. That is my recollection. I am giving it to the House. If the Deputy wishes to put down another question asking that definite question I will give him a definite answer, but my recollection, which I hope the House will accept, is that they were so made. I hope the House will accept that.
Further arising——
This must be the Deputy's final supplementary.
I have another remedy if I do not get the information here.
That is fully appreciated.
This is a very important matter if the careers of men are placed in jeopardy by a Minister.
There has been a lot of repetition.
The Minister should know at all times if he is acting within the law or not. The question to the Minister was, if prior to 17th June he was positive he acted in accordance with the law. The Minister is not so positive and gave us his recollection which means there is a doubt in his mind. That, in effect, means he must have been fiddling with promotions prior to 17th June. The Minister should tell the House if he made the promotions with the recommendation of the Chief of Staff. If he does not wish to give that reply now he should do so on Tuesday next.
This is repetition; the Deputy asked that question on at least three occasions earlier. This is not good enough and repetition must stop on both sides of the House.
The question asked me to give the number of promotions outside the normal course of promotion. My Department had extreme difficulty in ascertaining what the Deputy meant by that and we came down on the basis that the only thing it could mean was promotions to the United Nations. Two persons were promoted.
I did not want to have the question disallowed.
The information was not given to me as to whether or not the promotions were made with the recommendation of the Chief of Staff. My recollection is that they were. I gave my recollection to the House and I feel that should be accepted.
Will the Minister be able to come back to the House on Tuesday next and indicate in positive terms that all the promotions made by the Minister prior to 17th June were made with the recommendation of the Chief of Staff?
If the Deputy puts down a question to that effect he will get an answer.
Will the Minister be able to give that answer to the House on Tuesday next?
I have given the Deputy lots of latitude and he ought to be grateful to the Chair. We must move on at some stage; there must be some finality to these questions.
This is an important matter because the careers of men are at stake here.
I am asking the Deputy to put a final supplementary and I mean final.
Will the Minister indicate to the House next Tuesday whether the promotions made by him——
The Deputy has already asked that question. This is not good enough and I am calling the next question.
Will the Chair tell me how I can extract this information from the Minister?
That is not the function of the Chair.
19.
asked the Minister for Defence if, following the change in Defence Force Regulations by amendment 84, he proposes to initiate legislation to amend section 114 of the Defence Act, 1954.
The answer is "No".
The situation at present is——
Is the Deputy embarking on a statement? That would not be in order and the Deputy knows that.
It arises out of the Minister's reply and I want to point out that it is necessary to amend——
The Deputy may not point out: he may ask a brief and relevant supplementary question.
Is the Minister prepared to do that in view of the fact that he has taken unto himself, in amendment 84, the power to promote? An officer now cannot submit to the Minister for an impartial decision in relation to the redress of wrongs if he is so passed over and wishes to bring this matter to the Minister's attention because the Minister can now tell the officer that he is the person who did the promoting and he is not prepared to listen to the request. This is the redress of wrongs a man is fully entitled to under the Act but now the Minister is prepared to trample on and deprive serving personnel of an opportunity to redress wrongs.
The Deputy is not entitled to go on making speeches at Question Time.
There is another remedy for that.
The Deputy is quite entitled to avail of that remedy and may do so but he may not abuse a privilege at Question Time.
Will I get the opportunity of discussing this matter in the House?
The Deputy knows his rights in these matters.
I take it that I can.
Amendment 84 did not change the situation on promotion in relation to the Minister for Defence. The promoting body was always the Minister for Defence.
The Minister does not know what he is talking about.
The promoting body was always the Minister for Defence.
The Minister adjudicated and made the promotion?
This is a complete facade. Section 114 (1) of the Defence Act, 1954 provides that if an officer thinks himself wronged in any matter by any superior or other officer, including his commanding officer, he may complain thereof to his commanding officer. If he does not get satisfaction from his commanding officer he may complain in the prescribed manner to the Minister. We have been advised that this provision gives an officer an unqualified right to complain, the only restriction being that the wrong must be by another officer, not by the Minister. It seems that Deputy Dowling wants section 114 (1) expanded to include alleged wrongs arising from decisions of the Minister. The procedure was never intended to apply to the acts of a Minister and this was made clear in the Dáil during the passage of the Bill which became the Defence Act, 1954. Nevertheless, Ministers have always been willing to see all complaints or representation made by a member of the Defence Forces on any service matter. This has been the case since the 1954 Act came into operation and I have operated it stringently and absolutely. Every person who had a complaint could make it to me and I dealt with it, asked the questions and got the reports and read them slavishly and religiously. Specifically, as regards promotions, it might be noted that in law—I want to make this clear— the Minister is and always was the promoting authority.
Prior to the Minister taking upon himself——
Which I did not do because it was there before.
——the right to promote without the recommendation of the Chief of Staff if an officer felt himself wronged by the fact that a person was promoted out of line and recommended by the Chief of Staff the Minister could adjudicate on the redress of wrongs. However, he cannot give an impartial decision now because he is now the promoting officer.
The Minister, whoever he was, was always the promoting officer——
On the recommendation of the Chief of Staff.
My position in relation to the redress of wrongs was that I could only decide on a redress of wrongs by another officer, including his commanding officer, not by myself.
The Minister is not an officer.
That is a point the Deputy is making in my favour.
The Minister has taken onto himself the mantle of an officer.
Is the Minister saying he can do no wrong?
Machiavelli.
No, I am saying that the provisions in the Defence Act, 1954, related to the redress of wrongs done by the military authorities to another officer.
20.
asked the Minister for Defence the circumstances in which he becomes involved in the promotion of officers (a) outside the establishment and (b) in a capacity personal to himself.
My position in the matter of the promotion of officers derives from the Defence Act, 1954 and relevant regulations made thereunder.
This means that officers are promoted outside of the establishment.
My position in the matter of the promotion of officers arises from the Defence Act, 1954 and relevant regulations made thereunder. Section 45 of the Act provides that the Minister may, in accordance with regulations made by him, promote any officer to a higher substantive rank and he may, in accordance with regulations made by him, promote any officer holding a substantive rank or an acting rank to a higher acting rank. An officer promoted to a higher acting rank shall at any time thereafter, on a direction to that affect being given by the Minister, revert to his substantive rank or, if so directed, to an acting rank higher than his substantive rank.
There are officers promoted outside the establishment?
Yes, there are two who went to the United Nations.
Why did the Minister mislead the House during the course of the debate when he said that he regarded my statement as rather politically stupid, that I did not know what I was talking about and then went on to say that it could not be done? The Minister is now aware that appointments can now be made outside the establishment.
Appointment to the United Nations can be made outside the establishment with the agreement of the Minister for Finance and nobody else.
Question No. 21.
The Minister misled the House on 8th July when he stated that this could not be done.
The Deputy is making a statement; he is not asking a question.
I said there was a way around the terrible tragedy he has inflicted on a number of officers.
Is the Deputy asking a question?
The Minister has now learned——
Next question, please.
What the Deputy is saying is not relevant. He is trying to mix up a couple of officers in the United Nations with officers in the Army.
They are all in the Army.
21.
asked the Minister for Defence the number of officers serving outside the establishment.
At present four officers of the Permanent Defence Force are seconded to local authorities for the performance of civil defence duties and 24 officers of the force are serving overseas with the United Nations. Everybody else is in an appointment within the establishment.