Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 20 Mar 1947

Vol. 104 No. 18

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Ex-Corporal's Pension.

asked the Minister for Defence if he will state whether Departmental action in relation to R/901, ex-Corporal Gallowey's pension has since progressed to the point of (a) fixing the amount of the pension, and (b) paying any portion of it.

Ex-Corporal Gallowey's pension has been fixed at £45 12s. 6d. per annum but no portion of the pension can be paid pending his vacating the married quarters of which he is in possession.

Do I understand that it is the Minister's intention not to pay any portion of this pension as long as Corporal Gallowey is occupying married quarters?

That is correct.

Is the Minister aware that even on the figures given here by the Parliamentary Secretary the other night there would be at least 1/3½d. due to Corporal Gallowey even when 16/2½d. was taken from his pension in respect of the married quarters? Is it intended to withhold moneys over and above that exorbitant amount in respect of the occupation of married quarters?

The position is that the regulation will be carried out.

Does the Minister then suggest that regulations exist in the Army which are going to keep a soldier with a quarter of a century's service in the Army marooned in married quarters in the barracks, by virtue of the fact that there is no housing accommodation outside, and is it because of these circumstances the pension duly earned by him is going to be withheld and he is going to be charged three times the amount for the rent of the place that he would be charged if he was a serving member of the Army?

The position is that every week in the year men are completing their periods of service — their contract with the State — and they are complying with the regulations. This is one abnormal case which the Deputy has taken up, and I think he would be well advised not to encourage this man and perhaps other individuals, to do something that they should not do and that they have no right to do.

A contract has been completed with them. This man has been in the Army for a period of 25 years — that is true. He gave good service. He received all the amenities that the Army can give during that period and he has, in the normal way, completed his term of service. He is now bordering on 50 years of age. I do not know if the Deputy is suggesting that every soldier, when he reaches the end of his service, should be retained in the Army; I do not know what the Deputy is seeking, but I would like to impress upon him that it is the normal procedure. There is not a week in the year that officers, N.C.O.s and soldiers reach the end of their service and go out in the normal way. It may be there is some difficulty in this case about housing accommodation——

——but I would like to point out that this man has received no less than three months' notice, a period of time in which I am sure he could have acquired accommodation if he was not being encouraged in the manner in which the Deputy is encouraging him.

When the Minister says he is sure this man could have got accommodation, is he not aware, from representations made to him through the section of his Department established to deal with these matters, that this man has shown that he and I and some friends have been endeavouring to get housing accommodation for him and his family and we have not been able to get it? Can the Minister suggest any way in which this man can get accommodation and, if the Minister cannot do so, does he not realise the condition of this man and his family and has he nothing else to offer beyond saying "regulations"?

Top
Share