asked the Minister for Defence the authority under which tenants of married quarters are indiscriminately levied with the cost of repairing wilful damage by unknown persons.
33.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Damage to Army Married Quarters.
32.
asked the Minister for Defence the total cost of the repair of property in the married quarters in Cathal Brugha Barracks, Dublin alleged to have been wilfully damaged by children and in respect of which some occupants of the married quarters have been notified of the Department's intention to deduct a proportion of the repair costs from moneys due to them by the Department; and the basis upon which people were selected for the deductions.
With your permission, a Cheann
Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 32 and 33 together.
Subsection 97 (2) of the Defence Act, 1954 (No. 18 of 1954), paragraph 10 of Defence Force Regulations Q.6 and paragraph 43 of Defence Force Regulations S.3 Authorise the deduction from the pay of soldiers living in married quarters, in equal proportion, of the assessed amount of damage caused to public property in the area of the married quarters where such damage is not traceable to an individual or individuals or where it appears to have been occasioned by children of members of a unit who cannot be identified.
The total cost of repairs arising out of recent damage to public property in the vicinity of soldiers' married quarters in Dún Cathal Brugha attributable to children was £50 9s 6d. The cost was apportioned amongst 90 occupants of soldiers' married quarters. These represent the occupants of all soldiers' married quarters excepting those with no children and those who went into occupation of quarters after the damage was caused.
Are we to understand that the section to which the Minister refers is the Ministerial application of St. Paul's advice that the innocent must suffer for the guilty? May that regulation properly be applied to civilian occupants of married quarters, that is, people who have retired from the Army, who are now not subject to military discipline and who are living in the married quarters because of the inability of the local authority to provide them with alternative accommodation? Further, will the Minister tell the House the Army's defination of "a child"? When is a person assumed to reach an age at which he or she would not be deemed likely to cause the kind of damage children usually cause?
I do not think that in this instance there is anything in the point about the age up to which a person is designated "a child". Does the Deputy object to the Department of Defence seeking to recover from occupants of married quarters their share of the damage caused by the general body of the occupants' children?
Further arising out of that reply, I understand the Army has no information in the case in question which justifies the accusation that the children of married quarters were responsible for the damage. Furthermore, would the Minister have regard to the particular case to which I have already referred, which concerns an overholder who has no children within the normal understanding of the word certainly, the youngest member being 18 years of age, working as a shop assistant and not likely to be involved in damage caused by children?
That is not my information in relation to the overholder. The regulations are there to be carried out and it is my business to see that they are carried out.