asked the Minister for Defence why marriage allowance has not been paid to the wife of Private John McLoughlin, 209267, 3rd Field Company, S. & T.C., Collins Barracks, Cork, although she had been directed by his Department to make application for same following her husband's discharge on medical grounds.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Soldiers' Marriage and Dependents' Allowances.
The Department of Defence did not direct Mrs. McLoughlin to make application for payment of marriage allowance but she was informed that if her husband would submit a claim for payment in the normal manner the question of payment would receive consideration.
Ex-Private McLoughlin did not, however, submit a claim and the Department was subsequently informed that he had left his home on the 30th of September, 1942, and that all efforts to trace his whereabouts had been unsuccessful. In the circumstances, the Department can take no further action in the matter.
asked the Minister for Defence whether he is aware that a pension of 16/4 per week was awarded to Mrs. Mary Curran, widow of R/679 Sergeant James Curran, Corps of Engineers, who lost his life in the Cullenstown mine disaster in January, 1941; and that this small pension is insufficient to provide for the maintenance of Mrs. Curran and her child; and whether, having regard to the fact that the late Sergeant Curran rendered approximately 19 years' service in the Army, and lost his life under such distressing circumstances, he will authorise a substantial increase in the pension at present paid to Mrs. Curran.
Mrs. Mary Curran, widow of the late R/679 Sergeant James Curran, was granted an allowance of 12/6 per week in respect of herself and an allowance of 4/- per week in respect of each of her two children, John Henry and Kathleen Frances, under Section 15 of the Army Pensions Act, 1927. The allowance in respect of the child, John Henry, ceased on the 16th February last on his attaining the age of 18. The allowances at present payable to Mrs. Curran and her child, Kathleen Frances, are the maximum permissible under the Act and, in the circumstances, it is not possible to grant any increase in the allowances.
In view of the fact that this unfortunate woman has to pay 6/- per week rent and is, therefore, left with a sum of only 10/- with which to provide fuel, clothing and food, and having regard to the fact that her husband served in the Army for approximately 20 years and met his death in such distressing circumstances in the mine disaster referred to, will the Minister consider recommending to the Government that in this case and any such cases, which are particularly poignant, special consideration should be given to the circumstances of the unfortunate living victims of such disasters?
Of course nothing can be done under the present Act which is, I think, about 15 years old. I understand that this lady did not apply for a widow's pension, and we believe that she would be entitled to secure a contributory pension if she were to apply. I think that possibility should be explored.
Assuming that that is not possible, and the lady does not think that it is, would the Minister consider sympathetically the question of making some additional provision for the dependents of persons who lose their lives in such circumstances? The Minister realises, of course, that the whole country heard with horror of the appalling disaster at Cullenstown, when this man lost his life. Would the Minister consider expressing some measure of the nation's gratitude to the men who lost their lives by increasing the allowances paid in such circumstances?
As I mentioned in the reply, the lady is getting the maximum amount allowed under the Act. It is my function to see that she gets whatever she is entitled to. Beyond that I can do nothing except to amend an Act that is now 15 years old. That is the only thing I can do, and I do not see that that is possible at the moment.
asked the Minister for Defence whether marriage allowance has been withheld from the wife of Private Bartholomew Boyce, No. 59990, "C" Company, 3rd Battalion, Bawnjames Camp, New Ross: and if, in view of his reply to question on 21st March, 1944, he will now sanction payment of marriage allowance, together with arrears due as from the date of Private Boyce's admission to the Married Establishment.
In the reply to the question of the 21st of March, 1944, it was stated that marriage allowance is paid to the wives of soldiers on the Married Establishment, provided that they are not separated from their husbands for reasons other than the exigencies of the Army service.
Marriage allowance is not being paid to Mrs. Boyce because for domestic or personal reasons she is not residing with her husband. Payment of marriage allowance cannot, therefore, be sanctioned in this case.
asked the Minister for Defence whether marriage allowance has been withheld from the wife of Sergeant William Callaghan, No. 17667, Military Police (now discharged from the Forces as medically unfit after 21 years' service); and, if so, if he will indicate the reasons for such decision; and if he is now prepared to sanction payment of arrears of marriage allowance to this soldier's wife as from the 8th May, 1940.
Marriage allowance was not paid to Mrs. Callaghan because, for personal or domestic reasons, she did not reside with her husband.
Payment of Marriage Allowance cannot, therefore, be sanctioned.