Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 14 May 1952

Vol. 131 No. 11

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Military Service Certificate.

asked the Minister for Defence if he will state why an applicant of Knockbride, Bailieboro, County Cavan, who was admitted to have had service in the four statutory qualifying periods, namely, 1st April, 1919, to 31st March, 1920; 1st April, 1920, to 31st March, 1921; 1st April, 1921, to 11th July, 1921, and 11th July, 1921, to March, 1922 did not qualify for a military service certificate.

An application under the Military Service Pensions Act 1924, was submitted by the applicant to whom the Deputy refers and was referred to the Board of Assessors appointed under that Act. The board reported on the 10th January, 1927, that his service for pension purposes was nil and, accordingly, no award could be made. He also applied under the Military Service Pensions Act, 1934, but the Referee reported that he was not a person to whom this Act applied.

The applicant submitted a petition under the Military Service Pensions (Amendment) Act, 1949, and this application was reinvestigated by the Board of Assessors, who confirmed the previous report that the applicant was not a person to whom the Military Service Pensions Act, 1924, applied. In view of this report, I am precluded from taking any further action in the matter.

The Deputy appreciates, of course, that a report of the Board of Assessors or of the Referee is final and conclusive and that I have no function in regard to the determination of the merits of a particular applicant.

Can the Minister tell me if this man is qualified under the statutory periods, and if so, my question was why he had not received a service certificate; and if he has qualified in all these statutory periods, how is such an applicant to know whether he has a good case or a bad one, if he fails to get a certificate?

I have informed the Deputy in the clearest possible language that this case was examined under the 1924 Act, the 1934 Act, and under the Act of 1949, and in each case he was regarded as a person to whom the Act did not apply.

Top
Share