andMr. Harte asked the Minister for Justice whether the Government have taken a decision to replace the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána as chairman of the interview board for superintendants and chief superintendents by someone outside the force; whether it was proposed that the new chairman would be advised by the commissioner and whether the commissioner has refused to undertake this advisory role or has nominated other officers for this purpose; and why the decision was taken by the Government.

The answer to the first part of the question is "no", and accordingly the other parts of the question do not arise. However, as the question apparently is based on reports which have received some publicity but which were unfounded, I think it right, for the information of the House, to give some additional particulars.

The Government, whose statutory responsibility it is to make appointments at chief superintendent and superintendent levels, decided in November last that the promotion interview boards which sit in these cases to make recommendations to the commissioner and, through him, to me and to the Government, should include a civilian—by which I mean a non-Garda member. That was the only decision the Government made on the matter and they did not nominate any particular person for this purpose or any panel from which the person would be selected.

The selection of the civilian was made by the commissioner who also decided that it would be appropriate that the civilian should chair the board and that he himself should withdraw from it. As such decisions are internal administrative ones, I would not normally make any further comment, but in the particular circumstances, in case there is any lingering suggestion that the commissioner was under some form of pressure from me to withdraw from the chairmanship or from the board, I wish to make it quite clear that this was not so. However, I think I should make it equally clear that when he told me what he had in mind and of the reasons for it, I appreciated the force of those reasons and—again because of the publicity that was given to this matter—I am prepared to say that the fundamental reason for the decision was that he was anxious to take this opportunity to solve the recurring prooblem of his having to take himself away from his ordinary duties as commissioner for the periods necessary to chair those boards. That recurring problem was one that was greatly added to by the fact that, on the very same occasions, two other officers in key positions, namely, two deputy or two assistant commissioners who traditionally sat on those boards with the commissioner, were also required to be away from their ordinary duties.

To probe the matter further, I understand from the latter part of the Minister's reply, though this was not clear from the former part, that the commissioner was chairman of the board but is no longer the chairman. Is that correct?

That is so.

I understand also that this was a decision of the Government. Is that correct?

The decision of the Government in November last was to provide for a non-Garda member on that board and this decision was at the request of the commissioner.

As a result of that Government decision the commissioner is no longer chairman.

The Government's decision was at the request of the Garda Commissioner.

I understand that the Government decision with regard to the civilian person was taken by the Government and not by the commissioner.

The decision was taken by the Government at the request of the commissioner.

At his instance?

At his request.

Was the decision taken without any prior suggestion or indication from the Government that they would so wish or without any suggestion to that effect from any civil servant acting on behalf of the Government?

The reasons for the request were stated.

For the Government's request.

I have given the reasons in my reply.

I think we are talking about different matters.

We are not.

We cannot have this kind of cross-examination. It is not in order.

It is necessary in order to establish the truth.

We must confine ourselves to what is in order.

I am confining myself to supplementaries arising directly from the question. It would appear that the Government took a decision to put a civilian on the board and that the commissioner decided in those circumstances, in view of the fact that this altered his role in the matter, that he would not serve on the board and nominated somebody else to do so. The reply to the question suggests to me that that is a correct interpretation of the situation.

The decision was taken at the request of the Garda Commissioner and the reason for his seeking this change was because there was a major time-consuming period involved for him and indeed for his deputy and assistant commissioners. It is not unknown for outside opinion to be available on interview boards, a situation that has been found to be very satisfactory.

Who raised the question first?

As I have told the Deputy, the decision was on foot of a request from the Garda Commissioner and the Government were happy to meet that request in the light of the reasons given by the commissioner.

I understand that the request came from the commissioner, but was there any prior proposal to him that he should make such a request?

The reasons for the request being made were stated by the commissioner and were responded to by the Government.

Was there any suggestion that the commissioner should make such a request? The Minister's failure to answer this question is significant.

I have answered the question.

Was it suggested that the commissioner should make the request?

I have given the reasons for the demand being made.

I take it that it was suggested to the commissioner that he should make that request.

It was not so suggested. The Deputy is endeavouring to imply something which I have not said.

There is a clear implication in the Minister's failure to answer on five occasions my direct question that the initiative in this matter came from the Government.

This question does not merit ten minutes of Question Time.

Is the answer yes, or is it no?

Is it not the case that there would not be any more important ordinary duty of the commissioner than dealing with these promotions? How could such a function not be considered to be a very important matter?

I regret very much that what the Deputy has said implied that my answer was not straight. My answer was straight. However, to answer the supplementary, there is not any suggestion that the function in question is not important. As I have stated already, the new arrangement allows the commissioner, the deputy commissioner or the assistant commissioners to make themselves available in other areas and in other situations. Apparently the commissioner is happy about this.

There is not any evidence of his being happy but the evidence from the Minister's non-reply is that he was required by the Government to submit this request, thereby undermining the independence of the force as the Government have done in other respects.

I reject that statement.

The Minister is attempting to cover-up.

It is not a very effective cover-up.

There is not any question of a cover-up.

Is the appointment of a civilian chairman subject to the approval either of the Government or of the Minister?

The civilian chairman holds the same position as that of the commissioner in that regard.

But is his appointment subject to the approval of the Minister or of the Government?

The Government acceded to the request of the Garda Commissioner.

Is it the procedure that the commissioner must submit the name of the civilian concerned to the Minister or to the Government?

This decision was taken in November last at the request of the commissioner. There was not any previous similar situation.

Is the civilian concerned subject in respect of his appointment to the approval either of the Minister or of the Government? It is a straight question.

The Government agreed to the situation that now exists.

Is the name of the person submitted by the Garda Commissioner subject to the approval of the Government or of the Minister?

I have given a satisfactory answer in that regard.

The Minister has not answered at all. What I am asking constitutes the kernel of the matter.

(Cavan-Monaghan): Do this interview board make recommendations and draw up a panel of suitable candidates for promotion?

That is a separate question.

The Chair must agree. We cannot have every aspect of promotions discussed under this question.

(Cavan-Monaghan): The information I am seeking arises from the question.

What is involved is a very serious matter.

The fact that the Deputies consider the matter to be serious does not give the Chair authority to give the question any special treatment.

(Cavan-Monaghan): Can I have a guarantee that, if I table a separate question on the lines of my supplementary, it will not be regarded as a repeat?

The Chair will try to facilitate the Deputy in that respect.

When the Minister refers to certain steps, is he talking for himself or for the Minister for Justice? Was there any prior discussion with the commissioner and with the Garda representative bodies before the Minister for Justice made the announcement concerned? Also, did any officer threaten to resign as a result of the Minister's statement?

I am acting here today at this point with the same authority as the Minister for Justice would have. If the Deputy wishes to table separately the other questions he has asked, we shall endeavour to reply to them.

The question I asked was whether the Minister of State was in contact personally with the commissioner's office on the matter or whether the Minister for Justice was the person involved.

It was the office of the Minister. I have that office today and it has the same effect for the purpose of Question Time.

I am asking the specific question of whether the Minister of State was in contact with the commissioner before the Minister for Justice made the statement in question.

I speak here today for the Minister for Justice.

Was Deputy Collins in contact with the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána and was this matter discussed before he made his decision?

The Deputy should ask Deputy Collins that at the first available opportunity.

The Minister of State said he was speaking for Deputy Collins.

Surely he has given a fair answer to the question. This is more like a star chamber that the Dáil Chamber today.

It must be getting fairly near the bone when Deputy Moore is getting upset.

Not in the least, but when I see all the accused over here; he has nothing to hide.

We have not had one straight answer yet.

Was the Minister for Justice or the Minister of State in contact with the Commissioner's office before the Minister, Deputy Collins, made this statement and, as a result of Deputy Collins' statement, did any senior Garda officers threaten to resign?

They are all separate questions. I suggested a remedy to the Deputy, that he ask Deputy Collins.

Deputy Doherty said he was speaking for the Minister.

Question No. 21.

Is it not a fact that——

Question No. 21.

——a number of gardaí refused to——

The number of promotions to the ranks of sergeant and inspector of members who had not passed——

The Minister of State has been asked a question about his own actions. He is not entitled to say that the Minister for Justice should be asked. Was he or was he not himself in contact with the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána on this matter? That is the question.

The numbers of promotions to the ranks of sergeant and inspector——

This is a sham.

——of members who had not passed the professional promotion examinations in each of the six-month periods mentioned, commencing on 1 January 1977 were as follows: To the rank of sergeant: 4, 1, 1, 29, 9, 14, 8.

On a point of order, when a Minister is answering in this House, a Minister of State——

When a Minister is answering other Deputies should remain in their seats.

Is he answering for the Minister in question? Is that not the position?

That is not a matter for the Chair. I would point out that I have given almost ten minutes to one question. This is way above the average. I am not allowing any more.

But we have had no answer.

Is it in order for a Minister of State to repudiate responsibility and say that his Minister should be asked? Is there any precedent for that?

The Chair is trying to conduct the proceedings of the House in an orderly manner and is not responsible for Ministers' answers. Question No. 21.

I was hoping to assist by clarifying, on a point of order, as to whether a Minister of State is entitled to say that the matter should be referred to the Minister. Is he not standing in for the Minister and required to answer the question?

He was only trying to be helpful.

The Chair has no control over ministerial replies.

(Cavan-Monaghan): The Minister is walking on a thin rope and and if he moves one way or the other he will fall.

Question No. 21.

The Minister is acknowledging that there were officers who threatened to resign.

No, he did not.

I am acknowledging nothing. I have replied to the question as asked in relation to my duties.

Would the Minister please answer Question No. 21?