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

3. To ask the Minister for Defence if he will cease his efforts to remove former members of the Defence Forces and their families from their homes in the Curragh Camp, some of whom have lived there for decades. [52918/13]

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

Men, women and children in families who have given loyal service to the State are facing eviction from their homes. My question asks the Minister to accept that this is not appropriate treatment of citizens who have served the State, to stop this course of action and instead to engage in a progressive and more humane solution.

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

In February 1997 the then Minister for Defence set out policy on married quarters on the basis that they were largely an anachronism and that they should be discontinued in a managed and orderly way. Since then my Department has discontinued the practice of providing such accommodation. In addition, given the age of the housing stock, it has been found that over time the properties require a significant and disproportionate investment in order to ensure compliance with regulations regarding rental properties. In recent years much of the stock has become unsuitable for habitation and has had to be taken out of use. Consequently, there has been a sharp decline in the number of married quarters in use, with only 25 serving personnel currently occupying married quarters in the Curragh.

Where properties are located outside barracks, they are made available for purchase by tenants. For security reasons, properties located within barracks cannot be sold and are removed from the stock of available housing when they become vacant. Personnel are obliged under Defence Forces regulations to vacate married quarters within a specified period of being discharged from the Permanent Defence Force. The term "overholder" is used to describe former members of the Defence Forces and their families who have refused to leave married quarters within 21 days of leaving the Defence Forces. My Department is, in accordance with normal procedure, seeking vacant possession of overheld married quarters.

The issue of overholders continuing to occupy married quarters is not sustainable. As my Department is no longer in a position to subsidise housing for those who are not entitled to them, the Department has had to take necessary action. Each overholder is being dealt with on an individual basis. My Department does not have a role in the provision of housing accommodation for the general public. The securing of alternative housing is a matter for the individuals concerned in the first instance. If individuals are not in a position to secure housing in their own right it may be the case that they qualify for social housing or that they qualify for some level of housing assistance. Officials of my Department have met Kildare County Council officials regarding overholders so they are aware of the position and will advise overholders of procedures and requirements when making applications for social housing.

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

I am afraid the Minister's reply does not deal with the reality of the issue. The people in question are not anachronisms or overholders but rather men, women and children, some with special needs and other difficulties. These people have attempted to engage in some instances with other State agencies like Kildare County Council and private lenders to secure mortgages but they have been unable to do so because of a deficiency in economic means or their age.

There are a couple of issues with the Minister's reply. It may be Defence Forces policy for people to leave married quarters after they retire from service but that provision has not been implemented. Families have lived in this accommodation for years and in some cases for decades after the serving member retired but no action has been taken. The Minister has stated his Department is not in the business of housing but the State has been taking rent from people like this since 1922; that means the Department has been in the business of housing. It has a duty of care to the people left in that accommodation. No maintenance has been done, as departmental figures would indicate, so there is no cost to the Department. I ask the Minister again to intervene properly rather than evicting these people.

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

As is the Deputy's usual presentation, she is creating a drama and exaggerating the extent of any difficulties. There are currently 29 married quarters being occupied by overholders in the Curragh camp, with a further 14 overholders in the Dublin area. The duration of overholding - or individuals retaining possession of properties they should not retain, as opposed to the many former members of the Defence Forces who occupied such properties and complied with regulations when vacating them - ranges from 44 years to ten weeks. That does not suggest the Defence Forces have been taking a tyrannical approach in dealing with overholding individuals.

As I indicated in the reply, regulations are in place which have been complied with by the vast majority of members of the Defence Forces who have been provided with accommodation. Upon leaving the Defence Forces or a short time thereafter, the people in question should vacate the accommodation but a small number of people have failed to do so. In dealing with the issue, the Defence Forces have had regard to the specific individual circumstances; as I noted, an individual has been overholding for 44 years. The matter will continue to be dealt with in a considered and appropriate way but we must ensure that people comply with legal obligations where they can do so.

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

The Minister may think it is dramatic but it is not so for some of the individuals involved. One family has three children, two of whom have serious special needs. That family also has a very ill wife but it has received a letter ordering them to leave the property. Somebody else has lived in a property since 1952 but has been asked to leave. There are other court orders for other cases. I am not being dramatic as this is a shoddy way to treat people who served the State loyally. As I stated to the Minister before, these people have gone to other organisations to seek alternative accommodation but they have been refused. Will the Minister engage with those people and treat them humanely, as this is causing grave difficulty? One person may get a letter or a court order but the person living next door may not; nevertheless, people do not know what day the postman will knock on the door or they will be thrown out. We are talking about isolated elderly people living in derelict dwellings and it is not a suitable way of treating people. The Minister is responsible for the matter and I am asking him to intervene. The information being given to the House is not accurate. Some of these people have sought alternative solutions but have been unsuccessful in their efforts.

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

As the Deputy should know, the authorities within the defence family have sought to deal with people in an appropriate way in the context of the legal obligations which those individuals have. Is the Deputy suggesting that people who cease being members of the Defence Forces should not comply with legal obligations and vacate a property. It was known that these properties would not be available when a person ceases to be a member of the Defence Forces.

I assure the Deputy that individuals in difficult circumstances have been and will continue to be dealt with in a humane way but the Defence Forces and the State cannot simply hand over these properties to individuals. The people in question do not own these properties, which lie with the State, and they are obliged to vacate this accommodation unless one ignores the reality of the legal position. That would be entirely inappropriate.