I move amendment No. 47 :—

In sub-section (1), line 17, to insert after the word " him " the words " or in the interests of the service ".

I propose to suggest to the Committee that the Minister should be empowered to promote any officer to higher substantive rank. In the ordinary way the Minister makes regulations dealing with promotion and in the ordinary way these are routine promotions, but circumstances might arise that would not be covered by these regulations. For instance, the Government might decide to promote an officer to higher rank and I suggest that my amendment would give the Minister power to make such a promotion if he thought it desirable.

Is it something in the nature of the State showing appreciation for distinguished service ?

Yes.

Or for practical purposes.

There may be a reason for a promotion not laid down in regulations.

The point Deputy Cowan is making is that the section restricts promotion to those that can be made only in accordance with regulations and it is suggested that it is desirable that he should have a free hand.

In paragraph 11 of Defence Force Regulations A.15 it is stated :—

" Notwithstanding anything contained in this part of these regulations, an officer may be rewarded for distinguished service by promotion to higher rank to fill a vacancy in establishments."

I think that that provision in the regulations meets the point.

No. I do not agree for this reason that these regulations are made under the old Act. Without the Minister having to put it into regulations, I suggest that there may be circumstances when the Minister might consider it desirable that, in the interests of the Defence Forces, an officer should be promoted and the power to promote should be clearly given to him by law, in the Act rather than that he should give himself power to promote by regulations.

I think it would strengthen the Minister's hand.

I think so.

Every promotion made by the Minister is made in the interests of the service. Surely a Minister would not make a promotion which is not in the interests of the service.

I take it that a lot of promotion in the Army would be automatic.

The Minister might consider drafting a section. It is possible the Minister might consider promoting an officer to higher substantive rank and then might make a regulation covering the promotion.

We did run into difficulty at one time where the Government of the day wanted to reward an officer for certain distinguished service. It might not have been a military service but there was some difficulty in giving the promotion. That was the time when Colonel Fitzmaurice flew the Atlantic to America. I can see circumstances in which, whether there was a vacancy in the establishment or not, the Minister might like to reward a member of the Defence Forces by immediate promotion. In that case he might not be entitled to promotion according to the regulation.

Is not the position at the moment that there is an order of seniority in the Army, and is not it correct that, unless there is something against him, an officer is virtually promoted automatically ?

I should not like to be too dogmatic in answering that question in the affirmative. The Committee will realise that various factors have to be taken into consideration, such as the ability of the officer, for the vacancy.

I appreciate that but what Deputy Cowan is after is a situation such as that which arose when Colonel Fitzmaurice undoubtedly merited recognition of his feat. There has arisen, to my mind, the case of an N.C.O. who substitutes for a rider at, say, a show at New York. I think that what Deputy Cowan has in mind, and that where there was no vacancy in the establishment, the Minister should have power to give promotion in circumstances such as that outlined by Deputy Cowan. There may arise cases in which a man may merit promotion—very rapid promotion.

These points are met in the regulations. There have also been cases where a private has been promoted corporal or sergeant as a result of meritorious service.

Deputy Cowan is anxious to crystallise that in the Act apart from the regulations.

Such promotions can be made by regulations. If the regulations are not wide enough, the Minister can widen them.

I think that that is undesirable when a situation crops up of the kind which I have mentioned and when the public would expect a particular officer to be promoted immediately to higher rank. There may be such circumstances in the future and it would be a bad thing if the Minister had to get the regulations amended, and send them over to the Department of Finance and get their approval before he could make such a promotion. The Minister, of course, would be acting on Government authority and instruction.

And there would be no hold up.

The power to reward meritorious service should be in the Act and I do not think that the Minister should resist getting that power. In other instances we were trying to curb the Minister's power, but here we are trying to give him power which he has not got already.

It is certain that in every instance it is in the interests of the service that a man gets promotion.

In the ordinary course an officer comes up for promotion and he is the man to be promoted but the interests of the service might require that that particular officer should be promoted not only by one rank but by two and the Minister should have power to do that.

I am inclined to agree with Deputy Cowan that there should be power to deal with the situation which he has mentioned.

The Minister has the power through the medium of regulations but Captain Cowan does not like the regulations. I do not know if there are any circumstances in which a man would be promoted two or three ranks. If he is promoted he gets promotion in recognition of his service. Any man who gets promotion merits it. I would resist this amendment because I am not satisfied that the words used in Deputy Cowan's amendment are those I would use in relation to rewarding an officer who gave meritorious service. Any Minister will have all the power he requires to provide the reward which any officer may merit as a result of his service to the nation. The Minister has complete power already.

I recall that a corporal who won a European boxing title was provided for in that way and that as a result of winning the title he got an extra stripe.

That was regarded as bringing honour to the nation.

It is quite right that the Minister should be tied to regulations. If he had an elastic mind he could do all sorts of things so far as promotions were concerned.

If a Minister is given power he would be expected to exercise it with common sense. He may, of course, make regulations which deal with normal things—the normal promotion of officers—but there are circumstances in which he may have to go outside the regulations to promote a man, and if he does that it automatically means that the regulations do not provide for it.

Have you any example in mind ?

When I was promoted myself I had to suggest an amendment of the regulations. I did not think that was right but my promotion was not one for distinctive meritorious service.

Is this amendment withdrawn ?

I should like to ask is it still in the regulations that you have to be two years in a rank before you can be promoted to a higher one ?

I think it is, and I think it is desirable that it should be there. Firstly, it operates for pay purposes. It is also necessary that a man should get experience say, as a captain before becoming a commandant and that applies to all other ranks as well. It may be that that rule did not operate during the emergency.

This section covers an underlying grievance in the Army, that a man may be holding a position that is normally held by an officer of greater substantive rank but he does not get the promotion.

The Deputy might perhaps be able to give us more information on that.

Such a situation may arise for purely administrative reasons. It is like a case of a foreman becoming ill and his place being taken by one of his men. The man cannot expect to be appointed foreman as a result.

I knew of a lieutenant holding an acting lieutenant-colonel's rank.

I would be very surprised if that were correct, if there were a case of a lieutenant holding an acting lieutenant-colonel's rank.

He was moved from acting captain to acting commandant and so on but he never got down to having his rank recognised. I think the Chairman has experience of that.

I always thought that with acting promotion there was promotion to the next substantive rank automatically.

That was done towards the end of the emergency but not at the beginning. In my battalion there was a lieutenant acting commandant.

The real trouble is that in the old days—I think it was changed ; I remember drafting an amendment to change it and I hope that it was never changed back—you were supposed to be two years in a substantive rank before being promoted to the next substantive rank. You had a man then in an acting rank for three, four or five years but when he was confirmed in the acting rank he had to wait two years for substantive promotion. I think it was deleted in 1930 but whether it was changed back again I do not know.

Acting ranks do not obtain at present.

We are going beyond the scope of the Bill ; we are wandering. Does the Deputy want to press the amendment ?

In view of what the Minister has said I will not.

Am I in order on this section in raising the question of pay for acting or temporary ranks ?

The question of pay does not properly come under this Bill at all—the actual amounts of pay.

I do not mean the actual amounts of pay but the question of payment to a junior officer who is acting in a higher rank.

I think that the position is—unless there has been a change—that the junior officer acted in a higher rank in one of two ways. He might act in a higher appointment holding his own rank. That is common enough in peace-time. Then you might have a commandant commanding a battalion, where he had active rank and wore the insignia of that rank, in which case he was always paid according to that rank. That is the practice.

The type of thing I refer to is when the senior officer is absent on sick leave or on an inquiry.

Then he is acting while holding his lower rank on the lower pay.

I cannot raise it on this section ? What I wanted to advocate was that he would be paid on promotion to acting rank. It is not relevant ?

I think not. However, we will not be too hard if you do want to say something.

I want to point out that in the Civil Service and local authority employment, when a man acts for one who is senior to him for a period of a month or over, he becomes automatically entitled to the salary for the acting rank. He is still, say, a staff officer, but if he does duty for an accountant for a month or over that he is paid an accountant's salary for it.

It does not apply generally.

Do you say in local government ?

Yes.

I know cases of people who are acting for three years without the rank.

Not the rank but the pay.

It is the pay that I refer to.

Local government is a little beyond us. This is a question of regulations for the Minister to make governing pay. The Minister will undoubtedly pay heed to Deputy Corish's remarks in that regard.

In what circumstances could the pay be fixed by regulation ?

It is a useful expression of opinion for the record.

On the section I want to say that sub-section (2) provides for the promotion for an officer holding acting rank to a higher acting rank. I think that that is a very undesirable thing: where a lieutenant is acting captain to promote him to acting commandant, leaving him a substantive lieutenant. Here we are giving power to the Minister to make regulations to provide that that may be done. One of the causes of a very deep and genuine grievance in the Army is that that may happen. It happens at the moment that officers hold appointments which should be held by officers of much higher rank.

There are no acting ranks in the Army at present. I want that clear.

No acting ranks at the moment ?

None at all.

That is a very good thing and I am very pleased to hear it. I think, then, that I might just deal with the other point, where an officer is sent in to act in a higher capacity ; in other words, a captain may be asked to do the duty of a commandant or lieutenant-colonel and do it for a long period. The Minister should consider whether for that period he should have acting rank and the pay of that rank, because the trouble is that when he takes on the added responsibilities and there is a check by the Department of Defence or the Quartermaster-General's or Adjutant-General's Department and any deficiency is found or anything wrong is discovered, he has to make good the loss just as if he were in receipt of the pay of the higher appointment. That is, I think, one of the things which create a great grievance in the Army: that officers of junior rank are forced to do the duties of a higher rank, to carry all the responsibilities and to pay out whatever has to be paid because of that responsibility while they are not given the pay to meet that responsibility. On the section I think it is sufficient to draw the Minister's attention to its being a source of grievance in the Defence Forces at the moment.

I find it hard to follow Deputy Cowan on this question. First, I thought he was arguing against acting ranks and now he seems in favour of them. There are always exigencies, temporary or otherwise, which must be met by provisions such as these in legislation. These abnormal situations should not be allowed to go on longer than is necessary. If a man is left in a higher appointment for a long time, the inference is that he is suitable for that appointment and should get the rank. I think that this being enabling legislation we should leave this provision in it.

I want to come back to sub-section (2). Like Deputy Cowan, I was glad to hear the Minister's statement that there was no such thing as acting ranks in the Army now. Still, the sub-section suggests something different to the Chairman's suggestion. The procedure was that, once a man was promoted to a higher acting rank, he got the immediately lower substantive rank.

That was the way at the end of the emergency.

The Minister was amazed when I suggested that a lieutenant could be an acting commandant.

An acting lieutenant-colonel.

I have one instance in mind where it happened. I think the Chairman knows the case to which I am referring. Sub-section (2) states that if a man is acting in a rank and the authorities deem it necessary to promote him into a higher acting rank, it may be done. Surely some provision should be made for him to get at least the substantive rank lower to that rank.

Those were things which happened at the beginning of the emergency and were regularised at the end of it.

They happened before the emergency.

With respect, if you read sub-section (2) you will see that it gives the Minister power to promote to a higher acting rank without the necessity of giving substantive promotion.

You are thinking in terms of junior ranks and junior senior ranks, where a lot may be said for Deputy Cowan's argument, but take the question where in an emergency expansion you have a commandant who may find himself raised to colonel, perhaps to major-general or perhaps even to lieutenant-general if things got big enough. Would you have him automatically become colonel substantive and be supernumerary in establishment when you come back to peace-time ? In the British Army after the 1914-18 war it was not uncommon to find colonels and major-generals finding themselves captains again in peace-time. The difficulty arises in the higher ranks which would become completely supernumerary to establishment in peace-time and frankly, while I would advocate with regard to junior ranks the policy advocated by Deputies Cowan and Collins, still from the legislative point of view I feel that this provision must be left as the Minister has it.

The Chairman may be right on that point but a specific provision was made by the British Army to prevent people holding for any period, even temporarily, appointments in which they were not given the rank immediately. If they became supernumerary afterwards that was dealt with on the question of retirement gratuity.

There were no acting ranks at that time unless I am under a misapprehension.

It happened to very senior officers in the British Army.

The Minister could advert to this expression of opinion here when he is implementing the policy, but from the point of view of the Bill I feel the Minister should be given these powers.

I do not wish to deny the Minister powers which he feels he wants, but those of us who are in close touch with the Army hear the rumbings deep down. We wish to give expression to these opinions here and ask the Minister in his own way to meet that point of view.

It is a provision for emergency purposes. It does not operate at present.