David Norris (Independent)

Senator Minihan would probably agree with me that armies, not just in Ireland but universally, have a horrible habit of being niggardly with ex-service people. After the First World War there were scandalous prospects of people who had been injured in that dreadful conflict playing the harmonica or begging for pennies on the street. I raised previously in this manner questions of Army pensions. There is also the scandal highlighted in the book written by a distinguished member of the staff of this House, Dave O'Donoghue, about the situation in the Congo where two people, whose reputations are still besmirched, have not had their gallantry recognised. I hope something will be done about that.

The case I raise today is a specific one. It is a question of the entitlements of a man who spent 34 years in the Army and had, as part of his occupation, the provision of housing in married quarters. This man is retired from the Army approximately 12 years but was allowed to continue living in the housing until the events of 23 November, when a fire broke out in the house. I have been in contact with the wife of this gentleman who told me she discovered the fire. She found her husband in a rather distressed state. Apparently, something had gone wrong with the wiring in the wall. A fire started, the television set and the curtains were ablaze and eventually the entire house was so badly damaged it could not be occupied.

The Army private was rescued with some difficulty by the fire brigade whose bravery I have to commend. They managed to get him out through a kitchen window. He was rushed to hospital and put on a life support machine on which he stayed for about three days.

I would point out that the month previously this man was in hospital recovering from three minor strokes, as a result of which he was forbidden alcohol and cigarettes and was put on a nicotine patch. I put that matter on the record because the informal response of the Army was to say that he was probably smoking a cigarette and fell asleep. That is not the case and there is much circumstantial evidence to show that the electrical wiring in the house was defective.

The private's wife indicated to me that she has had problems with the electricity virtually since day one. There were problems with the sockets and the fuse box. The Army sent electricians to the house on numerous occasions. The month before the fire she had them up to the house because all the lights went out. They had no electricity over an entire weekend. When the electricians came, they examined the fuse box in the hall and told her it was defective and needed to be replaced. To quote her directly, she said there was a wire burning straight across and that they would report this matter to the Army authorities. They never came back to her about it, however, and she was left with this defective wiring. The wiring in a number of the other houses was also defective. In addition, the electricians told her that the wiring had been installed incorrectly in the first place. In any event, the house was burned down and the husband is in hospital.

The wife and family then found that the Army simply refused to engage in any communication. It would not talk to her and she had to go to the Department of Social and Family Affairs. She and her family were put in bed and breakfast accommodation for six weeks. Is it not a bit shameful that the Army, having accepted responsibility for housing this man during his Army service, subsequently refused to communicate with this lady when a fire broke out in her house that was clearly as a result of defective wiring, to which the attention of the Army's maintenance department had been drawn, and allowed her to be put in bed and breakfast accommodation by social welfare? The family were put up there for an extra two weeks and after a further period were told they would have to go into a hostel for the homeless. This lady, her husband who is the Army private and a daughter, are staying at another daughter's flat and a further daughter is putting up another daughter in her flat. That is not satisfactory.

It is very important that these people be looked after. They had the accommodation during their Army period. They then had occupancy of the house for a further period of 12 years. There was a proposal that they should be allowed to buy out this house and they were agreeable to that, as were the other tenants, but apparently the situation was reversed and they were not allowed to buy out the accommodation. That appears to be a very niggardly way of treating somebody who was prepared to put his life on the line in defence of this country.

I ask the Minister of State to take a compassionate view of this matter and do something for these people. It is not appropriate that somebody who served without a blemish for so many years and brought up his family on the kind of meagre wages they got in the Army should have this support struck away from him and be expected to live in a homeless hostel. It is a reproach to all of us and I look forward to the Minister of State's reply.