asked the Minister for Defence if he will give details of the plans he has to provide housing accommodation for Army members; the amount of money to be spent on accommodation in 1985; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Army Housing Accommodation.
9.
The provision of housing is primarily a matter for the local authorities. Members of the Defence Forces have an equal claim on such housing with other members of the community in the same category.
My Department continues to provide accommodation for members of the Permanent Defence Force to supplement the efforts of the local authorities in areas where soldiers' needs are greatest. The extent to which such accommodation can be provided and maintained by my Department is determined by the level of the resources available for that purpose.
The relevant provisions in the Estimates for Defence for 1985 amount to £8.35 million for building works, an increase of 37 per cent on the 1984 outturn. Of this, approximately one quarter is expected to be spent on housing accommodation.
Is it not a matter for the Minister, and the Defence Force, to ensure that adequate accommodation is available for serving personnel? It appears that only £2 million is available for Army housing this year and I should like to know if the Minister will accept that in a number of barracks personnel are in dire need of renovated or new houses? What plans has the Minister to expedite the provision of these facilities for personnel in 1985?
I should like to make it clear, as I thought I did in my reply, that the provision of housing is primarily a matter for local authorities. It is not a case of the Minister for Defence providing houses. Members of the Defence Force should be treated like all other citizens and not separately. If there is a need in a place because a local authority is unable or unwilling or there is some special Defence Force reason, I could see a specific role for the Department of Defence. The married quarters about the country mostly exist since pre-Treaty days. They were built for a specific purpose because in the days of the British Army regiments moved all over the then British Empire and families moved with them. They stayed in such quarters in the course of their regiments' tour of duty in a specific place. That position no longer pertains and is not relevant to our situation. The fact that we have married quarters is fortuitous or incidental. I am anxious that they are kept in good repair and, where they are in bad repair, that they be replaced. That is happening on a continuing basis. In this city, where there were very old married quarters, arrangements have been made with Dublin Corporation to hand over the sites. Dublin Corporation are providing new houses on those sites.
In Athlone, for example, major improvements are to be made to the married quarters in McCormack Park. There is an ongoing scheme of providing accommodation throughout the country but the primary responsibility for providing housing for citizens rests with local authorities and not with the Department of Defence.
Is the Minister aware that those living in Army married quarters who are anxious to provide themselves with a house do not have the same grants and subsidies available to them as those who live in local authority houses who hand up their house? Will the Minister arrange that these facilities be extended to those who live in Army married quarters? The Minister has enunciated a concept that he feels those in married quarters should be extended the same facilities as others on local authority housing lists and I should like to ask him to pursue this matter at Cabinet level to ensure that equity is extended to members of the Defence Force.
I said that members of the Defence Force should be available to be housed by local authorities like any other citizens. I do not know what inequity the Deputy is referring to. I am not aware of any inequity in regard to married quarters unless the Deputy is referring to the £5,000 grant that is available to a local authority tenant who vacates his house. Is that what the Deputy is referring to?
I will send details to the Minister. At one time there was close liaison between the Department of Defence and local authorities, particularly in the Kildare area, to try to relieve the problem of overholders and I should like to know if that is continuing and if attention is being given to try to solve that problem? Is an effort being made to have a special number of houses in each local authority scheme allocated specifically to overholders?
My Department keep in touch with local authorities in areas where overholding is a problem. I have asked my officials to try to identify in advance cases where overholding might be likely to occur at some time in the future so that arrangements can be made in advance of the problem rather than after it occurs, as happened in the past.
I should like to ask the Minister to investigate the inequity referred to by Deputy Power. The £5,000 grant is not available to Army personnel who leave Army accommodation. Due to the fact that they are in such accommodation they appear to be treated as second class citizens when they approach the Housing Finance Agency or local authorities for house loans. Will the Minister remove those anomalies to ensure that adequate housing and equal treatment is given to Army personnel?
I am not aware that there is any prejudice against Army personnel in regard to how they are treated when they apply for loans. A member of the Defence Force applying for a Housing Finance Agency loan or a local authority loan is treated in the same way as any other citizen. No separate criteria are applied. I do not accept that there is any inequitable position there. I would be glad to hear the details from Deputy Power. I should like to tell the House that the £5,000 grant was brought in specifically to be paid to local authority tenants to procure better use of the local authority housing stock. It is perverse logic to say that because it is not available to soldiers they are thereby prejudiced. The grant is not available to people living in private rented accommodation. The Deputy is making a case for the grant to be extended to everybody, but of course that would be patently impossible.
I should like to ask a final supplementary on this important matter.
I have treated it as such and allowed a lot of questions. The Deputy should put a question and not make a statement.
The Minister has said that Army housing primarily is the responsibility of local authorities, but surely when Army personnel move out of Army accommodation they are entitled to the same incentives as those in local authority houses because the common denominator is the Exchequer in all cases.
I sympathise with the Deputy's point. Indeed, I have raised in other places the possibility of extending this to Army personnel but it is not simple.
Will the Minister investigate it?
I have already done so.
Will the Minister agree that the provision of further Army accommodation such as married quarters is only perpetuating the problem and that every effort at Department of Defence level, in close liaison with the Department of the Environment, should be made to rehouse Army personnel in local authority or other houses? Will the Minister agree that the reason for having Army personnel living near a barracks no longer pertains today and that this is something that should be pursued more vigorously than it was in the past?
I agree entirely with the Deputy in that regard. I reiterate what I said to Deputy Treacy, that the provision of houses in the first instance is a matter for the local authority.