asked the Minister for Defence whether the continued delay in paying the balance of a gratuity awarded to an officer on his retirement is due to some uncertainty as to the officer's responsibility for a loss to public funds, or whether this responsibility has already been established by a Court of Inquiry.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Army Officer's Retirement Gratuity.
33.
The answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. I do not propose to reply to the second part as it is the practice not to disclose the findings of a Court of Inquiry such as the one to which the Deputy appears to be referring.
34.
asked the Minister for Defence whether he is authorised to withhold any portion of a gratuity awarded to an officer, merely to recoup a loss to public funds, without proof that the amount is due and owing by that officer; and, if so, whether he will disclose details of such authorisation.
Under Article 39A of the Defence Forces (Pensions) Scheme, 1937, as inserted by Article 33 of the Defence Forces (Pensions) (Amendment) Scheme, 1947, there may be deducted from any pension or gratuity any moneys or the amount of any public claim due or owing to a State authority by the person to whom such pension or gratuity is payable.
Is the claim due and owing?
The Deputy may or may not be aware that we have received intimation of possible legal proceedings in this matter and I am sure he will appreciate a disinclination on my part to discuss it by impromptu question and answer.
May I ask the Minister whether the legal proceeding to which he refers have any bearing whatever on the question of responsibility for a loss to public funds or whether, in fact, they refer to the validity of a warrant for arrest of another man?
I repeat what I have just said in reply to the last Supplementary Question.
Which means we can get no answer at all.
When he is doing that with you, what will he do with us?