Clare Daly (Dublin North, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

129. To ask the Minister for Defence if he will halt all eviction notices and court proceedings against Curragh camp residents who are either former serving soldiers or the families of former serving soldiers until the technical assessment of the housing stock has been completed. [13717/14]

Clare Daly (Dublin North, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is an issue of which the Minister is obviously very well aware, namely, the almost 30 families and individuals who are classified as overholding in the Curragh camp, particularly those against whom legal action has already been initiated. In the context of the technical assessment of the dwellings which the Minister has commissioned, would it not be an idea to hold off from actively pursuing legal action pending the outcome of that technical assessment?

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the recent meeting Deputies Daly and Wallace had with officials from my Department on the issue. I hope the exchange of views and the explanations given were helpful and worthwhile from their perspective.

As I have said previously, military personnel are obliged, under Defence Forces regulations, to vacate married quarters within 21 days of retiring or being discharged from military service. The term "overholder" is used to describe former members of the Defence Forces and their families who have refused to leave married quarters when obliged to do so.

The situation of overholders continuing to occupy married quarters is no longer sustainable and measures to resolve this are being progressed. Properties located outside barracks are offered for sale to the occupants. Those located within barracks, such as the Curragh camp, are not for sale for security reasons. My Department is, in accordance with normal procedures, seeking vacant possession of married quarters which are being overheld and will continue to do so until the overholding issue is resolved. Any initiative to resolve overholding must support and complement the current policy, which dates back to 1997, of withdrawing from the provision of married quarters.

In the period since January 2013, 12 properties which were being overheld in the area of the Curragh camp have been returned by the occupants. Currently, there are 28 overholders remaining at the camp and ten of these do not pay any charges in respect of their use of the property.

I cannot support the illegal occupation of military property by those who have no entitlement. It is also important to remember that the Department of Defence does not have a role in the provision of housing accommodation for the general public and cannot provide housing for people who have no entitlement to housing provided from the public purse and whose requirement is likely to be significant, as the currently unoccupied properties are for the most part uninhabitable, with many in extremely poor condition.

In any event, the assessment of the current vacant housing stock does not change the fact that there are occupiers of houses in the Curragh camp who have no right to those houses and, therefore, the process for obtaining vacant possession must continue.

Clare Daly (Dublin North, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Both I and Deputy Wallace were very happy that Department of Defence officials took up our offer of a meeting. This issue and a number of others were discussed at the meeting in regard to accommodation in the camp. They made it clear that as a policy issue the Government does not want to see families living in the Curragh camp. I appreciate that, although I do not agree with it, and I recognise it is the Minister's view. However, this question specifically relates to the immediate concerns of those families who, for whatever reason, were led to believe that they could stay after they left the Army, either as a result of no contact from the Department of Defence or because they were told they could continue to live there. As a result of that, some of them find they cannot get alternative accommodation because they are too old or have too many needs to qualify for social accommodation.

Will the Minister consider, in the context of the meeting we had, the possibility of his officials meeting with representatives of those families? We do not condone those people who are paying nothing while living there and we have made that quite clear. We ask that officials would meet those who are not in that category to try to reach an amicable solution. Would the Minister be willing to make the technical assessment of the properties available to Deputies?

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As I have said previously to the Deputy, having dealt with the overall issue in my initial reply, it is my Department's policy to review each over-holder situation on a case by case basis. Obviously, as each case is different, I cannot pre-empt considerations that may be given. As the Deputy knows, where people are very elderly and do not have alternative accommodation, the Department has exercised discretion in how it deals with those aspects of the matter. However, the Department cannot, nor can I as Minister, stand over a situation whereby properties are occupied by individuals who make no payment of any description to the Department. My Department will continue to engage proactively, consider individual circumstances on a case by case basis and behave appropriately. I cannot go any further than that.

Clare Daly (Dublin North, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a pity that the Minister cannot put it more concretely than that because, while the Department has said that it is examining the cases individually, the reality is that people do not know to which category they belong. They do not know when the postman is going to knock with a letter from the courts. They are thinking, "it might be me, even if I am 70 years of age". Obviously, there is some reassurance in the fact that it has not happened yet but they do not know that it is not going to happen. I ask that there would be a positive engagement, accepting fully that nobody in this House or to whom we have spoken in the Curragh condones people not paying rent or making a contribution in accordance with their means. That is not what this is about. It is about the very real circumstances of people who have tried, have played by the rules and who have nowhere else to go. The Department must actively engage with them, all the while recognising that individuals are different and need to be treated differently. If there is a will to take up that offer of constructive engagement, will the Minister make his officials available to meet representatives of the group of residents to try to progress the matter?

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It has been the practice to meet, where appropriate, the individuals occupying the houses as opposed to some nominated representatives. I must emphasise what I said earlier, namely, that individual circumstances will be carefully examined. The Deputy is as aware as I am that there are some individuals occupying these houses who have been there for many years and who are quite clearly - to use the phrase, although I do not like it either - over-holders. In so far as there are very elderly people who may be living in a general state of stress and uncertainty, I have no difficulty discussing that further with my officials. I am aware of the fact that both Deputies Daly and Wallace raised that issue in the conversations they had with officials. The Deputies can be assured that issues of that nature are not being ignored. However, I must also be careful to ensure that people who occupy premises in the Curragh meet their rental obligations and that, in circumstances where there are legal obligations to vacate, nothing is done to prejudice the position of the State and the State's right to have those properties returned to it. Of course, there are also some security issues that can arise. As I understand it, there are also some particular issues with regard to the condition of some of the properties which are a cause of great concern.