asked the Minister for Defence if he will consider, as an interim measure, the purchase of houses on the open market; and the cost of houses being built at present by his Department, such as those in the Curragh.
Ceisteanna — Questions Oral Answers - Army Houses.
15.
It is not proposed to purchase houses on the open market for married personnel of the Permanent Defence Force.
The approximate cost per house of the scheme of 50 houses completed at the Curragh Camp in 1979 was £12,000.
In view of the serious situation about accommodation would the Minister adopt this suggestion as an interim measure because the existing system is so cumbersome and tied up in red tape that it is not solving or even nearly solving this most serious problem in the Defence Forces?
As the Deputy probably knows, married personnel are entitled to local authority houses like other people in that category. It is a function of local authorities to provide houses for married personnel of the Defence Forces just as in the case of other applicants. The Department of Defence have been building houses in different areas, particularly in areas of greatest need. A great deal of the available money is used for the purpose of replacing very old married quarters which are no longer suitable for families to live in. We concentrate very much on this.
I asked the Minister if he will accept, as I do, that provision of houses by local authorities is not the answer; the Minister cannot shirk his responsibility in this regard. I regard his reply as being unsatisfactory. Is the Minister aware that his predecessor, Deputy Molloy, visited barracks in Dublin and on his return said he was shocked and horrified and that work would commence within a week. That was in 1979 but to date it has not started. That highlights the subject matter of my question. There is a problem and it must be tackled. I ask the Minister to reconsider his decision not to introduce this interim measure.
I presume the Deputy is referring to Deputy Molloy's visit to Cathal Brugha Barracks where a problem arose because the contractor who was appointed at that time did not go through with the contract, which meant that it had to be readvertised and another contractor appointed. That was not the fault of the then Minister.
I am not suggesting that. But what has happened since?
Tenders have now been received and, hopefully, a contractor will be appointed within a few days.
Will the Minister accept that in the Estimates for 1980 a sum of over £7.5 million was provided for accommodation and that less than £4.5 million was spent? Does this not emphasise the problem, the slowness and the cumbersome nature of the present system?
I gave the Deputy the reason for the holdup in that particular case — the contractor did not go through with the contract.
Ceist 16. We cannot spend all day on one question.