Lucinda Creighton (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to raise a serious issue, namely, the sudden decision of the Department of Defence to evict residents of a block of family units in the Defence Forces married quarters at Cathal Brugha Barracks by means of a letter dated 11 September 2008, which demanded that the residences be vacated by 30 October 2008. I call on the Minister for Defence to remedy this matter, as well as his failure to honour agreements entered into between the residents and the Department of Defence in the 1990s, whereby the units were to be sold to the residents. Such agreements have not been honoured by the Department to date.

The background is that the individuals involved are either former Army officers or family members of deceased Army officers. While each household's personal circumstances differ, all have a common bond in that the father in each of the family units was a member of the Defence Forces of long standing, having served a full 21 years in the Army. Their families have resided in the aforementioned married quarters for more than 30 years. No one can argue with the fact that these people have given the State some service and deserve to be recognised and treated with dignity and respect.

On 19 September, the residents of each unit received correspondence from the Department ordering them to vacate their homes by 30 October. The nature of this letter was extraordinarily cold and callous. It stated that should the recipient fail to vacate, a court order would be issued and the Department would seek to recoup the costs and expenses incurred as it claimed it was entitled to do under the relevant Act. This is no way to treat people who have served this country. It constitutes shocking behaviour and it is completely unacceptable that it was allowed to happen.

I stress this correspondence came out of the blue. While there was ongoing communication during the 1990s regarding the purchase of these units from the Department of Defence, it was laid to rest at that time. Nothing happened and the proposal was not pursued by the Department. I have seen correspondence in the name of the Minister for Defence, Deputy Willie O'Dea, which was communicated in 2006 and which made no reference to eviction orders or notices or to the initiation of any such proceedings. Suddenly however, a letter arrived telling people they must vacate the homes in which they have lived for the past 30 years within five or six weeks. This is extraordinary.

The position of the residents is clear. They engaged in good faith with the Department and its representatives in the 1990s in an attempt to buy their homes from the Department. This proposal was not pursued by the Department and it effectively was dropped. While the residents have acted in good faith, I contend neither the Minister nor the Department has done so in the manner of their dealings with former Army officers and their families.

A meeting took place in recent days between the residents and representatives of the Department of Defence at which certain obstacles were put forward by the latter in respect of the purchase of the units in question. I stress the residents still are prepared to purchase the units, albeit at the rate offered to them in the 1990s because it was not their fault they ultimately were not allowed to purchase, as was agreed at the time between their solicitors and the Department. They put no obstacles in the way and all such obstacles were laid down by the Department. I contend that the price is non-negotiable in that the people involved must be allowed to follow through on the agreements that were put in place in the 1990s and which were reneged upon by the Department. While there are issues in respect of various utilities such as water supplies and so on, these undoubtedly can be ironed out in terms of management structures within the complex.

Although I am running out of time I wish to make a further point. There was an intimation by the Department of Defence that there could be in some way a distinction between those units that are still occupied by former Army officers and those which, in effect, are occupied by Army officers' widows. I take grave exception to this suggestion, which suggests that the wives of Army officers should be disadvantaged because they have had the misfortune of losing a loved one. This is a shocking way to distinguish between people whose families have been dedicated to the service of the State. They must be treated with some decorum and respect.

The bottom line is this has been exceptionally heavy-handed treatment which has caused significant anguish for those involved in that they were told they would effectively be thrown out on the street within a period of a just a few weeks, having lived in these units for the past 30 years. I urge the Minister to put forward a satisfactory plan that would allow these people to have comfort and security for the future in terms of making their homes in these quarters of Cathal Brugha Barracks.

Noel Ahern (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Deputy for raising the matter. I will speak from notes supplied by the Department of Defence. Defence Forces married quarters are provided to serving members until their retirement or resignation and Defence Forces regulations state that quarters must be vacated within 15 days of leaving the service. The current position has arisen as a result of a failure to vacate these quarters as required.

The Defence Forces married quarters at Cathal Brugha Barracks consist of three and four-bedroom maisonettes. A letter issued to 11 occupiers who are in occupation on 11 September 2008, as the Deputy mentioned. They were informed of the Department's intention to complete the process of obtaining vacant possession of these married quarters and the occupiers were requested to make arrangements to vacate the premises and make alternative arrangements for their accommodation as soon as possible, but no later than the end of October. In the event that the occupiers qualified for local authority housing, an application form was enclosed.

I understand the Deputy's comments about the manner being callous and cold with regard to such matters, but it would not be appropriate for me to comment on any of those remarks. From what I have heard, the letter was probably written by a legal person. The Department of Defence indicates it should be clearly understood that the occupiers of these quarters are not being evicted as they have no entitlement to reside there and there are no tenancy agreements in place.

I understand the Deputy's comments on people who have done the State service through the Defence Forces. These issues often depend on what agreement was signed. Although I do not have the full detail, I understand it is not today or yesterday that these people retired. In many cases the issue might not concern widows but another generation. If the Department has such rules, it is clearly becoming more efficient in implementing them as they seem to have been ignored for donkey's years.

Previous attempts in the 1990s to sell the quarters to the occupants were not completed as legal difficulties were encountered. No agreements were ever entered into to sell the quarters concerned to those people who are in occupation of them. At a meeting with officials on 24 September, the occupiers were informed the deadline was not set in stone and the opportunity to work with them to achieve a solution favourable to all parties was welcomed.

It would appear now, arising from yesterday's meeting, that all the occupiers wish to purchase the quarters. Officials in the Department of Defence undertook to review the possibility of selling to the occupiers and a further meeting has been scheduled for the end of October. It is hoped that substantial progress will have been made by that time to facilitate a solution that meets the needs of the both the occupiers and the Defence Forces.

When I served as Minister of State with responsibility for housing, there were a few old cases like this involving voluntary housing and apartments. The argument was often thrown about that people were made an offer in 1988 or 1992 and the people wanted to buy at that price. I do not believe I ever saw anybody succeed with that argument, although I understand it. Matters seem to have moved forward in recent days from what the Deputy termed the original "cold and callous" letter. I hope business can be done very quickly.