Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 13 Mar 1951

Vol. 124 No. 11

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - B.A.O.s' Allowances.

Major de Valera

asked the Minister for Defence if he will state (a) whether a Finance Branch or other directive or regulation providing for ".Arrears of Allowances to B.A.O.s under Amendment to D.F.R. S/3. Para. 70", whereunder allowances at the rate of 3/3 per day are provided for married N.C.O.s living with their families (except where military accommodation is provided) with effect from 28/12/'50 was recently promulgated; (b) the number of B.A.O.s in this category and affected by this provision, and (c) whether the net effect of this provision is that such married B.A.O.s have suffered a loss of 10d. per day.

A Defence Force regulation was made on the 23rd February, 1951, altering the rates of special allowance payable to N.C.O.s filling vacancies for battalion administrative officers with units of An Forsa Cosanta Aitiuil in country districts to 3/3 a day for N.C.O.s provided with military accommodation or who are living with their families and to 6/- a day for others. Previously the allowances were 3/1 a day for personnel provided with military accommodation and 4/1 a day for all others.

The difference between the two rates of special allowance (at present 2/9 a day and previously 1/- a day) represents an element in respect of the cost of lodgings for single men not provided with the accommodation which they would normally have in barracks if they were stationed at military posts. Previously, in addition to personnel who were compelled to live in lodgings, the higher rate of special allowance was, owing to the wording of the regulation, issued to married personnel living with their families, although such personnel are not at any time or in any locality provided with free married accommodation. The anomaly which existed hitherto has been rectified as from the 23rd February, 1951, with the result that 61 battalion administrative officers who had, prior to that date, been in receipt of 4/1 a day are now in receipt of 3/3 a day, representing a decrease in their cases of 10d. a day.

Major de Valera

Is the Minister aware that on 28th February last, his predecessor was asked a similar question and the answer was that in effect there was no reduction? Will the Minister admit that, in fact, in the case of these men there was a reduction of 10d. per day?

A reduction in some cases and an increase in more.

Major de Valera

But in the case of these particular men there is a reduction of 10d. per day.

There is a reduction of 10d. to people who are not entitled to it at all.

Major de Valera

But these were allowed to draw it before.

Major de Valera

I take it that they were drawing it legally.

Major de Valera

Then the Department made illegal payments?

If you will listen to the point you will find that there was an anomaly. A situation arose in which they were paid and the position now is that they are not asked to pay it back. Could the Deputy leave it alone in their own interest?

Mr. Boland

I was ridiculed by the Minister's predecessor for saying that these men had been reduced by 10d. a day and it was a fact all the time.

Will he be charged with telling an untruth?

Major de Valera

Will the Minister give us a copy of that regulation?

The Deputy can get it easily enough.

Major de Valera

I propose to come back.

Top
Share