asked the Minister for Defence (1) whether he is aware that the Secretary of his Department has stated by letter that of the sum of £72 4s. 2d. still withheld from the gratuity of a retired officer the sum of £50 is in respect of the loss by theft of certain stores; (2) whether it is a fact that on his conviction for the theft of such stores an NCO was released on his undertaking to repay the value of the stolen goods; (3) whether the officer after his retirement was found responsible in any way for the loss by theft of certain goods; if so, whether by Court of Inquiry, Audit Board or other tribunal; and whether he was given the opportunity of hearing any evidence at such tribunal or giving evidence on his own behalf; (4) whether, if the officer now suffers a deduction from his gratuity of £50, this will entail a modification of the undertaking given by the NCO to repay the value of stolen goods and a modification of the verdict of the Civil Court which tried the NCO; (5) whether he has read the proceedings and findings of the Court of Inquiry into the deficiencies in the FCA stores in question; and whether in the light of the special circumstances established by that Court he will now either reduce to £22 4s. 2d. the amount to be deducted from the officer's gratuity in substantial conformity with the findings of the Court; or, if not, whether he will furnish to the officer the particulars of the basis on which he has reached a decision to enable the officer to furnish an explanation for further consideration.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Army Officer's Retirement Gratuity.
The reply to (1) is that the letter from the Secretary of my Department stated that, of the sum of £72 4s. 2d. which it is proposed the officer should pay, £50 is related to the stolen stores. The reply to (2) is that the non-commissioned officer was sentenced to a term of imprisonment, not to be enforced if he paid the sum of £663 3s. 9d. within a stipulated period. He has not done so. As to (3) I satisfied myself, having regard to all the facts, that the officer's responsibility is reasonably measured in the sum of £72 4s. 2d. With regard to (4), it was because of reluctance to withhold indefinitely a very large portion of the officer's gratuity and because of the strong representations made as to the difficulties which withholding it created for him that I formulated the proposal which has now been conveyed to the officer, before the eventual position as to payment by the ex-CQMS is known. I am not in a position to express an opinion on the specific point raised by the Deputy. If, however, the ex-CQMS eventually paid in full any deduction made from the officer and related to the stolen stores would, of course, be reconsidered. As to (5), I have given full consideration to all relevant factors and I arrived at a conclusion which I regard as not in the least inequitable to the officer. I have given him a full indication of the grounds for that conclusion and at the same time I have given him the opportunity of submitting whatever representations he wishes before I order the deduction.
Can I take it from the Minister's reply to the fourth part of the question that the officer was not found responsible for the amount of £50 by any tribunal whatsoever?
I cannot give the Deputy to understand any such thing.
That is the question which I asked the Minister in the first place: was he found responsible by any tribunal, and the answer the Minister gave to me was that the Minister had come to some conclusion. May I ask the Minister now whether he came to that conclusion as a result of an inquiry or finding by any tribunal or whether this is a purely arbitrary decision, as I suspect it is?
The conclusion I came to was arrived at not on the basis of the report of the inquiry exclusively. As I have said, I have taken all the facts and factors into account and I have arrived at a decision which I think is quite fair to the officer concerned. I am now awaiting his representations and on receipt of them a further decision will have to be made by me.