I am raising this matter on the Adjournment because, in its essence, it is a question of the right of Deputies in this House to frank answers to questions which are asked. In certain circumstances a Minister is occasionally entitled to decline to give the information sought and to give his reasons—and that is frequently accepted. However, in such circumstances, it has been customary to say frankly that the information is not being given and to give a reason for taking that course. In other cases, the custom and the proper course has been to give the information frankly, and heretofore we accepted in this House— and, indeed, it is very frequently done —that, although the information would not be politically helpful to the Minister who is giving it, nevertheless it was frankly given. My reason for raising this matter is because there has been a lamentable departure in this particular case from that correct practice. The Minister who is answering to-night is in no way responsible, and when I speak of the Minister in this matter I am speaking of the corporate body, and I must, of necessity, refer to his predecessor in office.
Another point which I should like to make is that the Deputies of this House have the privilege of asking for information. They should not be put to the task of a careful legal formulation of the question in order to get the information which they require. It should be sufficient for a Deputy to make his sense clear when asking for the information and, on such a clear request, it should be sufficient to have an answer frank in the spirit as well as in the letter of the question. What happened in this case? On the 28th February last the Minister was asked whether any reductions had been made in subsistence allowances payable to battalion administrative officers attached to the F.C.A. The reference is column 773 of the Official Report of the 28th February last. The Minister's predecessor in office replied that the rates of special allowance payable to N.C.O.s filling vacancies for battalion administrative officers with units of the F.C.A. in country districts have heretofore been 3/1 a day for personnel provided with military accommodation and 4/1 a day for others. He said, further, that it was recently decided to alter these allowances to 3/3 a day for administrative officers for whom accommodation is provided or who are living with their families and 6/- a day for others. In a supplementary question, Deputy Boland asked about a reduction of 10d. a day for N.C.O.s and the net result was that the Minister's reply left everyone under the impression that rather was there not a reduction but that there was an increase and he professed not to understand the rest of the question. This was an example of a half-truth which was misleading. In view of the form of the question, I fear I must draw the inference that the reply was deliberately misleading. Reading the answer in the light of facts that, fortunately, we subsequently had available to us, it is easy to see, on parsing the answer, that it can be read as not an untrue statement but as a partial statement which was misleading.
What, in fact, apparently was the position? It would appear, and I gather this now from the Minister's reply to-day, that there was, in fact, a reduction in the amount of subsistence allowance payable to N.C.O.s, some 61 in number, of 10d. a day. The Minister's answer on the occasion referred to was to show an increase to N.C.O.s in the same category but with a slight difference of circumstances. What were the circumstances? Incidentally, in the question to-day I asked 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, paragraph 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...." I am not quite clear from the answer whether that is a correct reference. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong. It would appear that the new regulations provide especially for N.C.O.s living in the Dublin area— which do not concern us here; then for married N.C.O.s living with their families at 3/3 per day, and then for single or married N.C.O.s living away from their families who are to get 6/- a day. It appears that the net result of this was to increase the subsistence allowances to N.C.O.s in the Limerick and Dublin area, and also to single or married N.C.O.s living away from their families due to the exigencies of the service. But married N.C.O.s living with their families, except where military accommodation was provided, were to get 3/3 a day whereas heretofore the sum was 4/1 a day. Therefore, if I understand the matter correctly, there was a reduction of 10d. a day in the allowances paid to these men who were living with their families but for whom military accommodation was not provided. Surely a responsible Minister, in face of the question asked —whether any reduction had recently been made in subsistence allowances payable to B.A.O.s—would have given that fact as well as others. That is the first point. In its essence, it is a question of the privilege and right of Deputies of this House. I am perfectly certain that no Minister would be misled to such an extent by the officers of his Department in a matter of that nature —and I must therefore lay the blame on the present Minister's predecessor.
At the risk of repetition, I should like Deputies to appreciate what is involved for every Deputy in the House if any such lack of frankness or misleading answers to questions from the ministerial benches should be tolerated, no matter who or what group or what Party or what Government should be responsible for the furnishing of these answers.
I come now to the question of these B.A.O.s themselves.
It appears therefore that there are 61 N.C.O.s who are to suffer a decrease of 10d. per day in their subsistence allowance. The subsistence allowance is an allowance that goes to meet the cost of living and enables them to be efficient. Surely this time when prices are rising, when the supply situation is difficult, is not a time to cut the allowance of these officers. Surely a time when we want to encourage the F.C.A. which is the major part of the Reserve of our Defence Forces is not the time to do a thing like that. Any of us who have had experience of voluntary forces— and a number have been tried in the State heretofore—realise and must know that the efficiency of such a force depends firstly on the furnishing of an adequate whole-time personnel to cater for them and secondly on the enthusiasm and efficiency of that personnel. Very much indeed depends on these factors. What will be the effect of this action on the efficiency of the F.C.A. which we all profess to regard as important and encourage and which the Minister and his predecessor sought to encourage? What effect can it have but an adverse one? The amount of money involved cannot be very great. I have not done the sum. I should have, I suppose.
