Vol. 835 No. 1
125. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Defence his plans to review the 21 year limit for those members of the Defence Forces who remain fit and able, who are in good health and who are well capable of continuing to serve; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13940/14]
Question No. 1 deals with an issue raised here previously with the Minister. It asks if he will again review the position of those soldiers serving as members of the Permanent Defence Force with 21 year contracts, many of whom are coming to a point at which their 21 years will have been served. If the Minister persists with his insistence that they retire, it will have profound implications for them.
The unsatisfactory age and fitness profile of the Permanent Defence Force was an issue of serious concern during the 1990s and the subject of severe criticism in a series of external reports, mainly Price Waterhouse Consultants and the Efficiency Audit Group, EAG. One of the key areas identified for urgent action by the EAG was the development of a manpower policy with an emphasis on lowering the age profile of Permanent Defence Force personnel. The EAG's report was accepted by the Government in 1995.
In an effort to alleviate the situation, the Government had already decided in 1993 to enlist personnel on a five year contract basis, following consultation with PDFORRA, Permanent Defence Force Other Ranks Representative Association. In 1997 agreement was reached with PDFORRA on a new manpower policy for the Defence Forces. This policy, applying to personnel enlisted after 1 January 1994, provided that service for private soldiers would initially be for five years, with the option of extending it to a maximum of 12 years, subject to meeting standards of medical and physical fitness and conduct. Longer periods of service were envisaged for non-commissioned officers.
In 2004 PDFORRA submitted a claim under the conciliation and arbitration scheme for a further review of the terms of service applying to personnel enlisting in the Permanent Defence Force after 1 January 1994.
A set of criteria was agreed with PDFORRA to provide longer careers for those who enlisted post 1 January 1994 while continuing to address the Government’s objective of having an appropriate age profile to meet the challenges of a modern Defence Forces. The criteria require that any person re-engaging after 12 years' service must be able to continue to operate at their current level both at home and overseas on an ongoing basis. Re-engagement is subject to the individual soldier meeting specified criteria in regard to physical fitness, medical category, successful completion of military courses of instruction, service overseas and conduct ratings.
I thank the Minister for his reply but I regret that I do not sense the Minister is willing to change tack. We are all committed to having in the Defence Forces men and women who are fit and able to carry out the onerous responsibilities they have from time to time. Nonetheless, we are now looking at a situation where people in their late 30s and early 40s will be forced out of the Defence Forces. They will be forced out into an extremely challenging employment market. Many of them have young families and significant mortgages and they will not be able to secure employment. That is something I am concerned about and I expect the Minister is concerned about it also. PDFORRA has highlighted the economic implications for the State. It suggests the cost to the State of pushing some of these young people into unemployment is €20,000 per year.
Like any Member of the House, I am anxious to ensure those who have given long service in the Defence Forces have every possible opportunity to obtain alternative employment when they leave. Many leave the Defence Forces having gained a great many skills that facilitate obtaining employment. In the context of the age issue, it is a serious matter to ensure we have an appropriate age profile within the Defence Forces to facilitate it undertaking operational matters and meeting the obligations that fall on the Defence Forces internationally and in assisting the civil powers domestically. The point I was making is that where someone is re-engaged after 12 years' service, the maximum service period for these personnel is as follows. Enlisted personnel, up to and including the rank of corporal and equivalent Naval Service rank may not serve beyond 21 years. Enlisted personnel in the rank of sergeant and equivalent Naval Service rank may be permitted to continue in service up to the age of 50 years. Enlisted personnel in all higher ranks may serve to the age of 56 years. With the approach of 2015, the first effects of the agreement whereby privates and corporals may not serve beyond 21 years will be felt by Permanent Defence Force members in those ranks. A claim has been received from PDFORRA for a further review of the matter. In accordance with normal procedures the association’s claim is being dealt with under the conciliation and arbitration scheme for members of the Defence Forces. As discussions under the scheme are confidential to the parties involved it is not appropriate for me to comment further on the matter at this time, other than to emphasise that in dealing with this issue the manpower and operational needs of the Defence Forces must be the primary consideration. It is intended to finalise negotiations with the representative association within the next few weeks.
I accept that the operational needs of the Defence Forces are primary but in an international comparison, we are looking at forced retirement between 39 years and the early 40s, compared to Malta at 55 years of age; Belgium, 56 years; Finland, 55 years; and Australia, 60 years of age. No one wants to go back to the period when we had a style of Dad's army. We are talking about retaining people in the service of the State who are physically capable of carrying out the duties assigned to them.
The Defence Forces has some of the best trained technicians in the country. They have been trained over a four-year period at a cost of €200,000 to the Exchequer. To cast them to the wind has profound implications for the Department of Defence and its budget.
I hope there will be some flexibility on the Minister's part in how he approaches the negotiations on the individuals in question.
As the Deputy is aware, I cannot comment; it would be inappropriate for me to do so during the negotiations. What he is raising and, in effect, protesting against is a policy that his party stood over in government for over 14 years. It is quite extraordinary that he should now be exercised about this matter from the Opposition benches. What I am exercised about is ensuring we follow proper procedures within the conciliation and arbitration service. It is intended to finalise negotiations with the representative associations within the next few weeks and it is important that I say no more about that aspect of the matter. The Deputy is correct that we have within the Defence Forces some very well qualified personnel in various technical areas and it is these qualifications which facilitate them in gaining employment. Some of the states the Deputy has mentioned where members of their defence forces at lower levels are 55 or 60 years of age have far bigger defence forces than we do. Our objective is to have a force with a strength of 9,500. Is the Deputy seriously suggesting it is in the interests of the State or the public interest to have the substantial majority of members of the Defence Forces in the 50 to 60 year age group?
The Minister knows that I am not.
We are recruiting 400 new members to the Defence Forces this year by virtue of the fact that certain numbers retire annually and that we can bring new young people into the Defence Forces and give them job opportunities that are not currently available to them.
126. Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Minister for Defence if he will outline all efforts by the Defence Forces and his Department to follow up on an initiative from PDFORRA in March 2001 aimed at recovering the body of a person (details supplied) when they met the then Minister for the Displaced in the Lebanese Government, Marwan Hamadeh, in the Lebanon. [13081/14]
I have discussed this matter previously with the Minister. Two members of the Defence Forces, Private Hugh Doherty and Private Kevin Joyce, were killed on 27 April 1981 in Dyar Ntar, a village in south Lebanon. I wish to probe the efforts made to date by the Defence Forces and Governments to follow up on a meeting held in 2001 on the initiative of PDFORRA with representatives in Lebanon, including the Minister for the Displaced, Marwan Hamadeh. It was an important initiative and it appeared progress had been made, but I wish to hear what has happened since.
As the Deputy is aware, Private Kevin Joyce was killed on 27 April 1981 in the village of Dayr Ntar in south Lebanon. An observation post at Dayr Ntar, near As Sultaniyah, manned by Private Hugh Doherty and Private Kevin Joyce came under attack. Private Doherty was later found dead from gunshot wounds and Private Joyce was missing. Some equipment was also missing. The attackers are unknown. The incident and the disappearance of Private Joyce have been the subject of ongoing investigation by successive Irish units with UNIFIL. Specific efforts include an immediate response and search by the contingent then serving with UNIFIL, follow-up searches and inquiries by contingents with UNIFIL, a Military Police investigation in 1985, an intensive investigation by the 88th Battalion in 2000 to 2001, and a senior officer delegation in 2005, assisted by diplomatic efforts at the highest level, to endeavour to locate the whereabouts of Private Joyce. In November 2000 the 88th Infantry Battalion conducted an investigation, the conduct of which was made easier by the withdrawal of the Israeli defence forces from south Lebanon and the consequent freedom of movement in the area. Various leads were followed on the ground and representations made to the Palestinian Authority through diplomatic channels. In March 2001 contact was made with the leading members of the Fatah organisation in Lebanon. The Fatah group claimed it had not beem responsible for the disappearance of Private Joyce. However, it stated it had information on the whereabouts of Private Joyce’s body. Unfortunately, the information did not materialise. The next battalion - the 89th Infantry Battalion - continued to maintain contact with Fatah but, yet again, it was unable to gain any positive information.
A senior officer delegation travelled to Beirut in May 2005 and met various people, including the then force commander of UNIFIL, a Lebanese army liaison officer and the Honorary Irish Consul, Mr. Daouk. They also met the leader of Fatah in Lebanon, Brigadier General Sultan Al Anien, who declared that he knew the burial site of Private Joyce. Unfortunately, the follow-up inquiries from this visit did not yield positive results.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
In 2007 the then Minister for Defence visited the Lebanon and met the Lebanese Minister of Defence, Mr. Elias Murr. The Minister raised with him the disappearance of Private Joyce. Mr. Murr assured the Minister that his government would assist in whatever way possible to locate the whereabouts of Private Joyce. In the past the authorities in Lebanon have made efforts to obtain information on the whereabouts of Private Joyce, including broadcasting pictures of him on television. To date, despite all of these inquiries, no information has been elicited leading to the recovery of Private Joyce. However, I am advised by the military authorities that even though it is now nearly 33 years since this tragic event happened, the case remains open. Efforts are made from time to time in Lebanon to establish the location of Private Joyce’s remains and, if located, efforts will be made to repatriate them. The Department will continue to make every effort to bring this tragic case to a conclusion.
As the Minister is probably aware, I had an opportunity to meet some members of the Doherty family in County Donegal. I represent the constituency in which they live and from where Hugh Doherty came. I met some former members of the Defence Forces who had served with the two men. Mr. Eamonn Lafftery who was a member of the Defence Forces and president of PDFORRA was also present at that meeting. He was part of the initiative taken in 2001 which appeared to show promise. I want to establish specifically what happened in following up on that initiative. That meeting took place in March 2001 and was attended by the then Minister for the Displaced in the Lebanese Government, Marwan Hamadeh, and the Archbishop of Tyre who certainly appeared to be very exercised about the matter and gave an undertaking that they would thoroughly investigate it. That was an excellent initiative. How was it followed up by the Defence Forces? What efforts did they make in this regard? Did they engage with the Minister? Was there ongoing liaison with him? There may be nothing to learn, but I want to know what happened.
In what year did that meeting take place?
It took place in 2001.
In response to the Deputy's initial question, I have outlined the chronology of events. I went further on from 2001 and, unfortunately and tragically, no further information emerged. In 2007 the then Minister for Defence visited Lebanon and met the Lebanese Minister for Defence. He raised with him the disappearance of Private Joyce. The Lebanese Minister for Defence assured the Minister that his government would assist in whatever way possible to locate the whereabouts of Private Joyce. In the past the authorities in Lebanon have made efforts to obtain information on his whereabouts, including broadcasting pictures of him on television, but to date, despite all of these inquiries, no information has been elicited leading to the recovery of his remains. I am advised by the military authorities that, even though it is nearly 33 years since this tragic event happened, the case remains open. At a meeting I had in Lebanon, I believe in March last year, I again raised the issue of Private Joyce because we are all very conscious that his remains have not been found and of how this has impacted on his family, but, unfortunately, it remains the position that no further information has been made available. I know from a conversation I have had with the UNIFIL commander that they have no further information available. The difficulty is that many years have now passed and it seems unlikely that information will be brought forward, but I can assure the Deputy that he has not beem forgotten. It is my intention, should I visit the troops again in Lebanon, to again raise the issue, but I cannot tell the Deputy that I have any sense of optimism.
I ask that the Defence Forces examine this matter. They may need to contact the people who were involved in the meeting mentioned. Marwan Hamadeh is still alive and I ask that our diplomats in the region try to make contact with him to establish what happened after he gave that undertaking. I understand he was very exercised about the matter and made telephone calls while at the meeting. He was the Minister with responsibility at the time. I acknowledge that this endeavour may well lead down a blind alley, but it is worth examining again. I ask that the Minister liaise with the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Eamon Gilmore, to see if our diplomats could re-engage with people in Lebanon, be it the Palestinian Authority or more particularly the former Lebanese Minister to see if there was something that was missed at the time.
I have no difficulty in bringing to the attention of the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade what the Deputy has had to say. I am sure our ambassador will, in so far as she can, look into the possibility of making progress. Should I find myself visiting Ramallah on the West Bank again, I will have no difficulty in raising the matter, but I do not have any knowledge that indicates that anyone within the Palestinian Authority knows where the remains of Private Joyce are to be found.
I can only say to the Deputy that I am not optimistic that this will be resolved in a manner that would be fitting and appropriate. I wish it were so. I would very much like to achieve that outcome if it were possible.
127. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Defence in relation to the recently announced recruitment campaign for the Defence Forces, if he will be reviewing the admissibility criteria in relation to the visibility of tattoos; if there will be an appeal mechanism in place for persons whose application to the Defence Forces is refused; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13082/14]
I understand the rule with regard to the visibility of neck tattoos was introduced in 2012. Will the Minister consider reviewing it? Is an appeals mechanism in place for individuals refused entry on these grounds?
In order to be eligible for enlistment in the Permanent Defence Force as a general service recruit, applicants must meet all of the specified criteria and standards for entry as laid down in Defence Force regulations and the associated administrative instructions. In this regard, paragraph 131 of Administrative Instruction A9 provides that "Tattooing above the collar of the shirt is prohibited". This criterion applies to all personnel who join the Permanent Defence Force and the Reserve Defence Force and is in line with requirements in other countries.
The purpose of this requirement is to prevent the induction of personnel who subsequently could not be deployed on ceremonial duties which form part of the functions of military personnel. In particular, I am advised that the reverse arms drill movement requires the tilting of the head forward and downwards on completion of the drill movement, which exposes more of the neck than is normally the case.
The military authorities have advised it is at the physical fitness testing stage of the selection process for recruitment that a determination on the matter of a tattoo is made. Where an applicant is found to be ineligible due to tattooing above the collar of the shirt, the applicant will be informed of this both orally and in writing. From time of being advised, an applicant has 72 hours to make it known, either orally or in writing, that he or she wishes to appeal the decision. A senior officer subsequently meets the applicant and makes a final decision on the matter.
There are no plans to review the admissibility criteria on the visibility of tattoos.
I am referring specifically to the case of Lee Walker from Wexford town. Originally, he passed the test in Cork but did not make the final list at the time. When he went for the test last year he passed the interview, fitness test and medical test but on the second occasion it was deemed his tattoo was too high, even though he showed me pictures in a still position and with his head tilted forward where the tattoo was not visible.
I realise that regulations and rules are in place, and he is probably outside the timeframe. An exception was made when Dave O'Riordan appealed in October or November of 2012 and he was allowed to join although he was over 26 at the time. Lee Walker is now 26. Will the Minister be conciliatory and consider giving him another chance? He has never wanted to do anything other than join the Defence Forces and it means so much to him.
I understand our Defence Forces are not in any way unique in this area. A number of armies, including the British, Australian and US armies, have a similar rule. I note what the Deputy said and I will look into the matter further. I am not familiar with the individual mentioned by the Deputy. I will make inquiries with the Defence Forces along the lines raised by the Deputy and I will write to the Deputy.
I thank the Minister. I received a letter from Lee Walker and if it is okay with the Minister I will forward it to him.
If the Deputy has a letter he is very welcome to furnish it either directly to me or to my private secretary. He can simply pass on the letter with a compliment slip. There is no need for a covering letter, other than just to confirm it is from the Deputy, and I will revert to him after I have furnished it to the Defence Forces and sought an appropriate response.
I thank the Minister.
128. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Defence his views on the impact his recent organisational changes of the Defence Forces has had on the working conditions of members of the Defence Forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13941/14]
The Minister's major initiative in July 2012 was the reorganisation of the Defence Forces and the move from a three-brigade to a two-brigade structure. Almost two years later, in the Minister's view has this change had any major implications for those serving within the forces with regard to their day-to-day operations?
The Deputy is aware, arising from the comprehensive review of expenditure in 2011, the Government decided to stabilise the strength of the Permanent Defence Force, PDF, at 9,500 personnel. Following that decision it was decided that it was not viable to retain a three-brigade structure within a strength ceiling of 9,500 personnel. A major reorganisation encompassing a reduction in the number of Army brigades from three to two was undertaken. This reorganisation to give effect to this decision is now complete and has improved the deployability and sustainability of the Defence Forces, while maintaining an all-arms versatile force both at home and overseas. The Government recognised that the reorganisation was a major change in the organisation and structure of the Defence Forces and was cognisant of the demands it placed on members of the Defence Forces and that such significant organisational change could cause both uncertainty and concern. Therefore, the implementation of the major reorganisation of the Defence Forces progressed in full consultation with serving personnel and their representative associations, including through regular meetings where issues of concern to their members were raised and then dealt with. There is a broad consensus that the subsequent organisational changes have brought significant improvements to the PDF.
The men and women of the Defence Forces always have risen admirably to the challenge of change and modernisation and this period of change for the PDF has been no exception. All options to minimise disturbance to serving personnel were explored but inevitably, given the scale of the reorganisation, it was necessary for some staff to be moved to new locations. The Defence Forces personnel support service representatives in every barrack or installation provided every necessary support to such redeploying personnel. My Department and I remain fully committed to ensuring that the Defence Forces as a whole provide a challenging and rewarding career and do so in a supportive working environment. I am satisfied both that recent structural changes have not had a detrimental impact on working conditions generally within the PDF and that the reorganisation is working well.
Notwithstanding the Minister's remarks, I understand that before the reorganisation, there were five operational units within Dublin while there now are only two. Moreover, one is the cavalry squadron, many of the duties of which are largely ceremonial. As a consequence, Defence Forces personnel are called in regularly to Dublin from various parts of the country, including Dundalk and Athlone and from as far afield as Finner Camp, County Donegal. How can it be sensible that members of the Defence Forces are called in to do duty in Dublin from such locations, particularly from County Donegal? I suggest to the Minister this surely is having a negative impact on the operation of the force and I cannot help but wonder whether additional costs arise from such a situation.
In the context of the Defence Forces and the difficult financial circumstances that have afflicted the State as a result of the total economic and fiscal ineptitude of the Deputy's own party in government, the Defence Forces have been doing an extraordinary job. The reorganisation was necessary to ensure the Defence Forces were organised in a manner that reflected the objective strength of the Defence Forces. I presume the Deputy does not suggest the closure of a barracks in County Donegal and the reopening of another barracks in Dublin. Inevitably, where there is a reorganisation and if some barracks changes are effected, on occasions there will be movements of members of the Defence Forces from one part of the country to another, even if it is only temporary. It is part of the job and I believe is not an issue of any great concern. Moreover, it has not resulted in any excessive costs being incurred because the Defence Forces operate in an extraordinarily cost-effective way within the reduced budget that is available as a consequence of the fiscal reductions that had to be effected to enable the Government to bring the State's finances back in order.
I am highly amused that at every given opportunity, the Minister cannot resist the temptation to engage in party political sniping.
I am trying to deal with very legitimate issues for the Defence Forces and it would serve the Minister better to focus on the particular issues before us. I am not suggesting the closure of an installation in Donegal or the opening of a new one in Dublin. I am simply asking if there are costs involved in the transport of personnel on a regular basis from Donegal to Dublin. Are there implications in terms of the process of transportation? Are vehicles required? Is there an implication in terms of wear and tear on particular vehicles? Are practical day-to-day difficulties arising for the operation of the forces as a result of the Minister's reorganisational process?
There are no practical day-to-day difficulties of which I am aware. The Defence Forces have managed during my period in office to come in annually on budget in accordance with the Estimates prescribed for them. I am sorry if the Deputy thinks I am engaged in party political sniping. I understand that members of his party, including his party leader, think the world started on 9 March 2011 and that they want to forget much of the devastation they visited on the country in their preceding years in government.
129. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Defence if he will halt all eviction notices and court proceedings against Curragh camp residents who are either former serving soldiers or the families of former serving soldiers until the technical assessment of the housing stock has been completed. [13717/14]
This is an issue of which the Minister is obviously very well aware, namely, the almost 30 families and individuals who are classified as overholding in the Curragh camp, particularly those against whom legal action has already been initiated. In the context of the technical assessment of the dwellings which the Minister has commissioned, would it not be an idea to hold off from actively pursuing legal action pending the outcome of that technical assessment?
I welcome the recent meeting Deputies Daly and Wallace had with officials from my Department on the issue. I hope the exchange of views and the explanations given were helpful and worthwhile from their perspective.
As I have said previously, military personnel are obliged, under Defence Forces regulations, to vacate married quarters within 21 days of retiring or being discharged from military service. The term "overholder" is used to describe former members of the Defence Forces and their families who have refused to leave married quarters when obliged to do so.
The situation of overholders continuing to occupy married quarters is no longer sustainable and measures to resolve this are being progressed. Properties located outside barracks are offered for sale to the occupants. Those located within barracks, such as the Curragh camp, are not for sale for security reasons. My Department is, in accordance with normal procedures, seeking vacant possession of married quarters which are being overheld and will continue to do so until the overholding issue is resolved. Any initiative to resolve overholding must support and complement the current policy, which dates back to 1997, of withdrawing from the provision of married quarters.
In the period since January 2013, 12 properties which were being overheld in the area of the Curragh camp have been returned by the occupants. Currently, there are 28 overholders remaining at the camp and ten of these do not pay any charges in respect of their use of the property.
I cannot support the illegal occupation of military property by those who have no entitlement. It is also important to remember that the Department of Defence does not have a role in the provision of housing accommodation for the general public and cannot provide housing for people who have no entitlement to housing provided from the public purse and whose requirement is likely to be significant, as the currently unoccupied properties are for the most part uninhabitable, with many in extremely poor condition.
In any event, the assessment of the current vacant housing stock does not change the fact that there are occupiers of houses in the Curragh camp who have no right to those houses and, therefore, the process for obtaining vacant possession must continue.
Both Deputy Wallace and I were happy that Department of Defence officials took up our offer of a meeting. This issue and a number of others were discussed at the meeting in regard to accommodation in the camp. They made it clear that as a policy issue the Government does not want to see families living in the Curragh camp. I appreciate that, although I do not agree with it, and I recognise it is the Minister's view. However, this question specifically relates to the immediate concerns of those families who, for whatever reason, were led to believe that they could stay after they left the Army, either as a result of no contact from the Department of Defence or because they were told they could continue to live there. As a result of that, some of them find they cannot get alternative accommodation because they are too old or have too many needs to qualify for social accommodation.
Will the Minister consider, in the context of the meeting we had, the possibility of his officials meeting with representatives of those families? We do not condone those people who are paying nothing while living there and we have made that quite clear. We ask that officials would meet those who are not in that category to try to reach an amicable solution. Would the Minister be willing to make the technical assessment of the properties available to Deputies?
As I have said previously to the Deputy, having dealt with the overall issue in my initial reply, it is my Department's policy to review each over-holder situation on a case by case basis. Obviously, as each case is different, I cannot pre-empt considerations that may be given. As the Deputy knows, where people are very elderly and do not have alternative accommodation, the Department has exercised discretion in how it deals with those aspects of the matter. However, the Department cannot, nor can I as Minister, stand over a situation whereby properties are occupied by individuals who make no payment of any description to the Department. My Department will continue to engage proactively, consider individual circumstances on a case by case basis and behave appropriately. I cannot go any further than that.
It is a pity that the Minister cannot put it more concretely than that because, while the Department has said that it is examining the cases individually, the reality is that people do not know to which category they belong. They do not know when the postman is going to knock with a letter from the courts. They are thinking, "it might be me, even if I am 70 years of age". Obviously, there is some reassurance in the fact that it has not happened yet but they do not know that it is not going to happen. I ask that there would be a positive engagement, accepting fully that nobody in this House or to whom we have spoken in the Curragh condones people not paying rent or making a contribution in accordance with their means. That is not what this is about. It is about the very real circumstances of people who have tried, have played by the rules and who have nowhere else to go. The Department must actively engage with them, all the while recognising that individuals are different and need to be treated differently. If there is a will to take up that offer of constructive engagement, will the Minister make his officials available to meet representatives of the group of residents to try to progress the matter?
It has been the practice to meet, where appropriate, the individuals occupying the houses as opposed to some nominated representatives. I must emphasise what I said earlier, namely, that individual circumstances will be carefully examined. The Deputy is as aware as I am that there are some individuals occupying these houses who have been there for many years and who are quite clearly - to use the phrase, although I do not like it either - over-holders. In so far as there are very elderly people who may be living in a general state of stress and uncertainty, I have no difficulty discussing that further with my officials. I am aware of the fact that both Deputies Daly and Wallace raised that issue in the conversations they had with officials. The Deputies can be assured that issues of that nature are not being ignored. However, I must also be careful to ensure that people who occupy premises in the Curragh meet their rental obligations and that, in circumstances where there are legal obligations to vacate, nothing is done to prejudice the position of the State and the State's right to have those properties returned to it. Of course, there are also some security issues that can arise. As I understand it, there are also some particular issues with regard to the condition of some of the properties which are a cause of great concern.
