Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 7 May 2014

Vol. 840 No. 2

Priority Questions

Defence Forces Reorganisation

Seán Ó Fearghaíl

Question:

1. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Defence further to the decision to reduce the number of Army brigades from three to two within a Defence Forces strength of 9,500 personnel, if the then three operational commanders of the Army were part of a formally constituted prior consultation or study process to advise on the personnel, intelligence, operational, logistical and deployability implications of such a decision; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20329/14]

Perhaps the Leas-Cheann Comhairle might advise us on this issue. When we start Question Time late because we do not have a quorum, additional time should be made available to us.

This question focuses on the unilateral decision made by the Minister to move from a three to a two brigade structure in the Defence Forces. I ask the Minister to indicate whether there was formal consultation with the operational commanders of the three brigades in advance of the decision.

The Department of Defence has civil and military elements, with Defence Forces headquarters being the military element. The Chief of Staff who is head of Defence Forces headquarters is my principal military adviser, while the Secretary General of the Department of Defence is my principal defence policy adviser. Military command is vested directly in the general officers commanding Army brigades, the Defence Forces training centre, the Air Corps and the flag officer commanding the Naval Service. However, for matters relating to the overall management of the Defence Forces, including organisation of the Defence Forces, the Chief of Staff is the appropriate source of military advice. The decision to undertake a major reorganisation of the Defence Forces within a two brigade structure was progressed within this well established overall management framework.

Following my decision to initiate a major reorganisation of the Defence Forces, encompassing the consolidation of three under-strength Army brigades into two full strength brigades, I tasked the Secretary General and the Chief of Staff with developing detailed proposals for my consideration. A joint civil-military group was established to progress this work and I understand there was broad consultation within the military organisation in this regard. This shaped the final proposals. In addition, the strategic management committee provided a forum for discussing the work of the group.

Final proposals for the reorganisation of the Permanent Defence Force, agreed between the Chief of Staff and the Secretary General, were forwarded for my consideration in July 2012 and I accepted them in full. I also accepted further proposals for the reorganisation of the Reserve Defence Force following the completion of a value for money review in November 2012.

I am satisfied that the reorganisation has maintained the operational capacity of the Defence Forces to the greatest extent possible within the available resource envelope. It has allowed the Permanent Defence Force to continue to fulfil all roles assigned to it. This remains a key focus and I will continue to work closely with the Chief of Staff and the Secretary General in that regard.

I have the height of respect for the current and previous Chiefs of Staff and Secretaries General of the Department. Nonetheless, I put it to the Minister that it indicates a weakness in the process he applied that there was no consultation or formal study of the personnel, intelligence, operational, logistical and deployment implications for the Department and the brigades and that no consultation took place with the brigade commanders. I accept the Minister's point that with a force of just 9,500, a three brigade structure is not ideal, but it would not have resulted in any reduction in operational outputs in the training or deployment capacity of the Defence Forces. However, real problems have emerged as a result of the decision the Minister took, a decision he took unilaterally in advance of the Green Paper and White Paper process. It appears that he took the decision without either he or the then Chief of Staff having any engagement with the relevant commanders.

I am not aware of the problems the Deputy has said have emerged. If there are particular problems he wishes to bring to my attention, I will ensure they are addressed. As he knows, a three brigade Army structure was adopted in the 1990s when the strength of the Permanent Defence Force was set at approximately 11,500 personnel. This structure was retained when the White Paper on Defence in 2000 revised the ceiling to 10,500 personnel. However, it was no longer viable to retain a three brigade structure with a ceiling of 9,500 personnel, the approximate strength of the Defence Forces when I became Minister for Defence. The Defence Forces were heading towards a position where, if we had not received additional financial allocations, the numbers would have dipped below 8,000 within 18 to 24 months. At a level of 9,500 which we set as the objective strength of the Permanent Defence Force, there was too great an imbalance between the administrative support and operational elements within the three brigade structure. This made the retention of a three brigade structure completely non-viable, as opposed to the viable two brigade structure we now have in place.

Does the Minister accept that retaining the three brigade structure would have allowed the Army to retain the structural architecture to expand in times of crisis and need, retain operational situational awareness in critical parts along the Border with Northern Ireland and, critically, retain operational command and control structures close to where operational outputs were being delivered? I put it to him that to suggest operational oversight of Permanent Defence Force and Reserve units in County Donegal can be managed effectively from Rathmines is not credible. I would go so far as to say it indicates a level of recklessness in terms of State security. It is equally not credible to suggest units in Galway can be overseen from Cork. These are just two of the problems that can be identified. We engaged with the Minister here and had discussions on previous parliamentary questions about other operational difficulties faced by members of the Defence Forces as a result of the decisions taken by him.

What the Deputy is suggesting is that we have in place an architecture, but that we do not have the numbers that would allow it to make sense. The architecture the Deputy's colleagues had in place while in government was based on a strength of 11,500 for a three brigade structure. When I entered government and assumed the position of Minister for Defence, there was a strength of 9,500. Therefore, if we are talking about architecture, many of the rooms in that house were empty and did not allow for the flexibility the Deputy suggests. If there was an emergency, we could not suddenly find an extra 2,000 members for the Defence Forces overnight. On the basis of the financial envelope I had inherited from my predecessor, I could not have recruited members to the Defence Forces in 2012 and 2013, as we did. While no study has been completed, I can tell the Deputy from my experience and engagement with officers and enlisted personnel, both at home and on overseas missions, that I am satisfied the organisational changes in the Permanent Defence Force have brought positive improvements in the deployability of personnel and the sustainability of the force.

Protected Disclosures in the Public Interest

Pádraig MacLochlainn

Question:

2. Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Minister for Defence the steps he is taking to ensure the safety and protection of whistleblowers within the Defence Forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20331/14]

As the Minister knows, the position of Ombudsman for the Defence Forces was established after the then captain Tom Clonan blew the whistle on serious matters. This led to the formation of the office. Recently there has been some controversy because the Minister has made the position a part-time one and appointed to it a person who served in the Defence Forces rather than an outsider. Will the Minister provide an assurance for potential whistleblowers in the Defence Forces in the future?

As the Deputy will be aware, the programme for Government made a clear commitment to the introduction of whistleblower protection legislation. In this regard, my colleague, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, published the Protected Disclosures Bill in July 2013. It is anticipated that the legislation will be enacted during this Dáil term. The Bill has as its main objective the protection of workers against reprisals in circumstances where they make a disclosure of information relating to wrongdoing in the workplace. It will have application in all sectors of the economy, including the Defence Forces. The Bill provides for a stepped disclosure regime in which a number of distinct disclosure channels are available, internal, regulatory and external, which the worker can access to acquire important employment protections.

Three specific forms of protection are provided for in the legislation which will also apply to all members of the Defence Forces. These protections are protection from the retributive actions of an employer; protection from civil liability; and protection from victimisation by a third party. In a situation where an employer penalises an employee for having made a protected disclosure, the Bill provides for access to appropriate redress mechanisms. For most workers, this involves making a claim for redress through the normal industrial dispute resolution mechanisms, namely, through a rights commissioner or the Labour Court.

In the case of the Defence Forces, section 114 of the Defence Acts provides for an internal redress mechanism where a member of the Defence Forces thinks he or she has been wronged in any matter. This system provides for the internal investigation of a complaint at various levels in the organisation up to and including the Chief of Staff. In addition, the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces provides an independent external redress mechanism for members of the Defence Forces. Under the new Protected Disclosures Bill, either or both of these mechanisms can be used where members allege penalisation for making a protected disclosure. The Bill specifically provides that members of the Defence Forces can make a complaint directly to the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces where they consider they have been penalised for having made a protected disclosure. They are not required to go through the internal redress system.

I am confident that the provisions included in the Bill, once enacted, will copperfasten the safety and protection of whistleblowers across all sectors in the State, including the Defence Forces. I am satisfied also that the Office of the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces works extremely well and that there can be no valid allegation of any nature other than that the current ombudsman deals objectively and fairly with all complaints that come before him.

The Minister will be aware of the serious concerns of PDFORRA about the decision he made to make the Office of the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces a part-time one and to appoint a retired colonel, Liam McCourt, to the position. To be clear, I do not question the character or sterling record of Mr. McCourt. The issue for PDFORRA, however, is that there was a full-time independent person in the role for seven years but now it has been given to somebody who served in the Defence Forces. Regardless of any decision he makes, this could put a question mark over the adjudication of issues that may arise. Is the Minister entirely satisfied with the decision to appoint him and does he believe it has had no negative impact on anybody in the Defence Forces who has issues he or she wants to have addressed?

I am satisfied that is the case and find it regrettable that the Deputy should raise any issue concerning the current Ombudsman for the Defence Forces. The person concerned was a judge in the military court, adjudicated on issues and there was never any question that he did so other than independently and objectively and with fairness. As the Deputy is aware, the issue he has raised has been part of an approach taken by way of litigation by PDFORRA.

I am not going to enter into that. Moreover, the Deputy should be careful not to cast aspersions on the capacity, independence and objectivity of the current Ombudsman for the Defence Forces. The Deputy says it is not his intention to do so, before asking questions which seem to do exactly that. I said to him on a previous occasion that I find his continuing concerns for whistleblowers touching, given that some of his former colleagues in the Provisional IRA had little concern for such people. Their remedy was a bullet in the back of the neck.

The Minister cannot resist the opportunity to pass the buck. His stewardship over two Departments is an absolute bloody disaster. PDFORRA, which represents the vast majority of men and women serving in our Defence Forces, has expressed grave concerns about the decision he made in this matter. No aspersion is being cast on retired Colonel Anthony McCourt, but PDFORRA is making the obvious point that the Minister has replaced a person who was independent, not from a Defence Forces background and served full-time in the role for seven years with somebody who previously served in the Defence Forces and will work on a part-time basis. Whether we like it or not, this might throw into question decisions made by the ombudsman or create a certain perception. That is the reality.

Will the Minister address the concerns expressed by PDFORRA as representative of the overwhelming majority of members of the Defence Forces? I am merely putting those concerns to him today. Perhaps he will even be willing to meet with people who have a different view from himself. Instead of looking in the mirror for wisdom all the time, he might, God forbid, discover that there are people other than himself with a valuable opinion to offer.

There the Deputy goes again. The individual to whom he refers was appointed following the holding of a competition which I had no hand or part in influencing. He was recommended following the outcome of that competition and so appointed. That is the end of it. As I said, the individual in question was formerly a military tribunal judge, yet the Deputy is suggesting that he is not an appropriate person. Of course, what the Deputy is doing in this area is what he does in other areas. He is seeking to pretend he is the friend of the ordinary rank and file of the Defence Forces while pillorying anybody who is in a position of leadership therein. The narrative in which he and his colleagues are constantly engaged is an interesting one, but it genuinely does not fool too many people. In the context of some of the history with which his party is associated, it will get little traction within the Defence Forces.

Military Aircraft Landings

Clare Daly

Question:

3. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Defence the position regarding the activities of the Irish Army patrol at Shannon Airport overnight on 24 April in the presence of a US Hercules C130, in view of the fact that this aircraft has been fitted with extra fuel tanks associated with special missions and was twice present in Shannon in March. [20208/14]

On the question of whether people are being fooled more by the Minister or Sinn Féin, I have no problem in answering. The Minister is not exactly riding high in the credibility stakes at the moment. My question flows from our discussion during the previous Question Time with the Minister on the continued use of Shannon Airport by United States aircraft. Members of the Defence Forces were present at the airport on 24 April, 30 April and on several occasions in March. In the context of the Minister's assurance on the previous occasion that the activities of such aircraft did not breach our neutrality because they were not carrying munitions or arms, did the Irish Army patrol units that were present get any information as to what they were actually doing there?

An Garda Síochána has the primary responsibility for law and order, including the protection of the internal security of the State. Among the roles assigned to the Defence Forces is the provision of aid to the civil power, ATCP, which in practice means to assist An Garda Síochána when requested to do so. There is ongoing and close liaison between An Garda Síochána and the Defence Forces regarding security matters. The Defence Forces have deployed personnel to Shannon Airport, in response to requests for support from An Garda Síochána, since 5 February 2003.

On 24 April 2014, a request for Defence Forces support was received from An Garda Síochána and troops were deployed. The Defence Forces have no information in regard to extra fuel tanks on the aircraft.

The Minister does not seem to recognise the seriousness of this issue. The aircraft in question was a US navy cargo transport airplane operated by the VR-62 fleet logistics unit. This is not any ordinary aircraft; it is fitted with special fuel tanks and was previously associated with special ventures such as the one which took out Osama bin Laden. It also was used as part of a joint Australia-US military exercise in 2013. Yet the Minister continues to state that such aircraft are not engaged in military activity when they land in Shannon. If they are not carrying arms, ammunition or soldiers on their way to or from military operations or exercises, what are they doing at the airport? Why would the US Government spend money on very expensive flights across the Atlantic several times a month if there is no associated military purpose? Can the Minister shed any light on the situation? The reality, of course, is that there is no explanation other than that they are landing as part of military activity.

The Deputy might have been a fan of Osama bin Laden but I am not sure what relevance he has to this matter. I have given her the information that is available to me. There is no further information I can add in response to the question she raised. In the context of this particular flight, my information is simply that An Garda Síochána requested the assistance of the Defence Forces, and the latter provided that assistance. I have no information in regard to the further flight plans of the particular aircraft the Deputy mentioned.

The Minister is returning to form in trying to mislead the House. I, of course, abhor the activities of Osama bin Laden. The point I am making is that this was not an aircraft bringing soldiers on their holidays. It is a specially modified aircraft for engagement in military exercises. The idea that the Minister could say with certainty that these aircraft are not so engaged, when Defence Forces personnel have consistently failed to examine them, beggars belief. There are no Russian aircraft or Chinese war planes landing at Shannon Airport, only US aircraft. Can the Minister really not join the dots, given what we see happening around the globe, including the build-up of military aggression in the Ukraine and Syria, for example, and conclude that the US establishment is unlikely to waste its money sending troops on their holidays on these types of aircraft? Will he not agree that the flights might have some other purpose? The Minister has some neck in insisting otherwise when he has not taken the trouble to examine the situation.

It is a matter of particular concern to members of the European Union that Russian troops have been exercising close to the Ukrainian border. I do not know whether that is the type of military aggression the Deputy has in mind. She also made reference to Syria. I do not understand what relevance this particular flight landing in Shannon Airport has to the dreadful tragedy being played out in Syria, where it is estimated that more than 130,000 people have lost their lives and many more are seriously injured. In addition, nearly 2.3 million people are living in refugee camps outside Syria. An horrendous civil war is going on and it seems clear that the country's ruler is continuing to use either chemical or biological weapons against his own population. Moreover, fundamentalists of the al-Qaeda type have been responsible for killing large numbers of people and warfare continues between the groupings who contest the Assad regime. What is happening in Syria is appalling and atrocious. Of course, if the Americans tried to intervene to bring about peace, they would immediately be condemned by the Deputy. What the situation in Syria has to do with the landing of an aircraft in Shannon Airport escapes me entirely.

Defence Forces Funding

Seán Ó Fearghaíl

Question:

4. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Defence his plans regarding capital investment in defence facilities in the Curragh; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20330/14]

My question concerns the long-term proposals or vision the Minister has for the necessary continued investment in the Defence Forces training centre at the Curragh Camp, and his vision for the necessary continued investment in Army installations across the country.

As the Deputy knows, my Department is engaged in an ongoing building programme designed to modernise and enhance the training, operational and accommodation facilities available to members of the Defence Forces. Under the building programme there has been considerable capital investment at the Curragh Camp in recent years. Between 2008 and 2013 my Department spent more than €11.7 million on major building projects there, with individual building projects costing in excess of €1 million as follows: new armoured vehicle garaging; refurbishment and alterations to No. 4 block at Plunkett barracks; refurbishment of the catering centre at McDonagh barracks; refurbishment of block No. 7 at Connolly barracks; refurbishment of the infantry school building; and re-roofing of the military medical facility.

Notwithstanding the constraints on the capital budget, significant projects which will provide substantial additional facilities at the camp are currently being progressed, including continuation of the process to replace ordnance storage facilities so as to bring the complex into line with modern standards for such facilities, and continuation of the conversion to natural gas consumption of the major energy-consuming facilities in the camp. The capital works programmes are based on operational requirements and are compiled on a priority basis by my Department in conjunction with the general staff.

I welcome the Minister's reply. The works he identified were needed and I welcome the fact that they have been carried out. Between 2000 and 2005, the level of investment in the Curragh camp - €64 million - was quite enormous. Between 1997 and 2009, something of the order of €400 million was invested in equipment, resources and infrastructure for the Defence Forces. The Minister will be aware that the sale of barracks was, to a very large extent, a contributory factor in facilitating that level of investment. There will be a need for continuing investment in the Defence Forces into the future. I would like to see evidence to the effect that the Minister has a particular vision in this regard. The next question, in Deputy Clare Daly's name, relates to housing at the Curragh. On a recent visit to the camp - I thank the Minister for facilitating it - I was again struck by the level of dereliction which still exists there and the number of houses that are boarded up. In the context of the operational capability of the Defence Forces, there is a need for continued investment. It is the responsibility of the Minister to bring forward a plan in respect of this matter.

I agree that there is a need for continuing investment. This is a very important matter in the context of the Defence Forces. It will not have escaped the Deputy's notice that the State has been in great financial difficulties for the past three years and we have been obliged to substantially reduce our expenditure, both current and capital. There has been a decreasing envelope of capital expenditure in respect of the Defence Forces. Cuts to expenditure have, of course, been the case for every other Department. Nevertheless, some very important developments have occurred and I listed some of those in my initial reply.

As the Deputy is aware, we are currently working to produce a White Paper on defence. Obviously, the latter will address the issue of capital investment in the Defence Forces. An assessment is currently under way into the capital needs of the Defence Forces but, having said that, I do not want to pre-empt what might be contained in the White Paper. The Deputy may rest assured that while we may disagree on some issues, I am quite happy to inform him that there is no doubt in my mind regarding the need for continuing investment in the Defence Forces. My Department is, of course, committed to securing such investment. I refer here to necessary investment and, in that context, one must identify where the priorities lie. Those priorities are identified in consultation with the general staff.

I thank the Minister for his positive response. I am conscious that in the coming years it is going to be particularly difficult for him to obtain the investment for necessary developments within the Defence Forces as he engages in combat at the Cabinet table. Even in good times, funding had to be obtained by means of the sale of barracks. As we move forward, it is going to be even more difficult to achieve the level of investment required. Mowag armoured personnel carriers, which are vital to members of the Defence Forces involved in peacekeeping operations abroad, cost €1 million per unit. I do not believe there has been any reduction in their price. We are going to face a challenge in meeting the very necessary cost of equipping the Defence Forces. Particular responsibility in that regard will rest on the Minister's shoulders in the context of fighting at the Cabinet table to obtain the level of investment that will be required. It must be remembered that there will be many competing demands on the money involved.

I dealt only with a small number of issues when replying to the Deputy's original question. The largest investment my Department is making at present is in the two new naval vessels that are to be commissioned. As the Deputy may be aware, one of those vessels, LE Samuel Beckett, was delivered to Haulbowline on Wednesday last. I visited the facility there on Friday and was shown around the vessel. A capital investment of €54 million has been made to provide what will be the best ship, with the most modern technology, that the Naval Service has ever had. The second vessel, LE James Joyce, is currently under construction and is due to be delivered next year. The cost of this vessel will also be in the region of €54 million. Despite the financial difficulties with which the State has been obliged to contend, my Cabinet colleagues and I were able to make available the funding required in respect of the construction of the vessels to which I refer. The first ship will be officially commissioned in the next ten days to two weeks and the second will be commissioned next year.

I accept that the point I am about to make will facilitate the Deputy in tabling a parliamentary question on another day but one of the issues which arises in respect of this matter is the age of the naval fleet. There is a need to ensure we will be in a position to identify the funding necessary for any further new ships that may be required in order to replace those in our aging fleet. We have already made very substantial inroads in this regard despite the financial difficulties under which the State has been obliged to labour and the constraints within which the Government has been obliged to operate.

Defence Forces Properties

Clare Daly

Question:

5. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Defence the results of the technical examination into dwellings at the Curragh camp; and his plans to remediate these dwellings and deal with those currently accommodated in the area. [20209/14]

We have discussed this issue on many occasions. The question relates to the accommodation units in the Curragh Camp and must be seen against the backdrop of both the court action and the pressure being exerted by the Department of Defence to remove those families that deemed to be overholders from their homes. As the Minister is aware, my colleague Deputy Wallace offered his professional expertise in examining the properties in question. The Minister instead chose to commission a technical examination of the properties, a move for which we were none the less grateful. Where stands that examination at present and what are the plans in respect of the families involved?

I thank the Deputy for her question. As she stated, my Department recently undertook an assessment of vacant former married quarter properties in the Curragh Camp with a view as to their potential for future military use as single living-in accommodation. The properties in question comprise a terrace of 16 houses and are typical of the type of former married quarters accommodation vacant in the Curragh. Three of the houses have been reconfigured over time by combining adjacent houses. As a result, there are now 13 individual units in the terrace overall. The terrace is a solid brick structure with a slate roof. The majority of the houses comprise two bedrooms, a kitchen and sitting room. There is a small toilet located at the rear of each house on the ground floor but there are no bathroom facilities. The assessment indicates that in order to be viable for accommodation use, adjacent properties would have to be combined to give a smaller number of larger units. However, the assessment also indicates that the properties are in a very poor state and that the estimated cost of the repairs necessary to make them suitable as accommodation is simply prohibitive. While the outcome of the assessment is still under consideration, it is clear that any renovation would be very costly, would only deliver eight to nine viable units and would be very limited in terms of future military needs. This is not a cost-effective solution to meeting accommodation needs at the Curragh.

This represents a radical U-turn on what the Minister previously stated in the House. There are approximately 101 accommodation units in the Curragh Camp. Our understanding was that the technical assessment to be carried out would contemplate all of these dwellings and not just the 16 which comprise a particular terrace. If only those 16 dwellings were the subject of the assessment, then it is obvious the Minister has engaged in a sleight-of-hand exercise because the residents and Members on this side of the House understood that much more would be involved.

We cannot divorce this situation from the overall housing crisis that exists and the savings to the State of remediating what are otherwise solid units compared to having to rebuild up to 100 units or homes.

I would like to see the technical assessment thus far. The Minister has given us little detail but he has been remarkably dismissive of the findings. To level the playing field I am keen to have our experts examine the situation. I call on the Minister to furnish us with the interim findings and to explain why the other 87 units which he was supposed to have examined have disappeared off the radar.

It is my understanding that what was undertaken was a review of these particular units to get some insight into the possible benefits of undertaking renovation works and the likely difficulties that would be encountered. I am told that in the context of the particular group of terraced houses examined, the estimated cost of works was in the region of €863,000, VAT inclusive. In respect of the terrace of 16 houses, this gives an average cost per house of €53,937, if we could preserve 16 houses. However, on the basis of the survey undertaken it was concluded that of the 16 terraced houses, ultimately only nine feasible units could be produced from the renovations. This would put the cost per unit at €95,888. These are not costs that I could stand over in the context of a particular proposal.

Since this was an initial assessment, I have no difficulty asking whether there are buildings in a better state of repair or whether works could be carried out at a lesser cost. However, my understanding is that this terrace was used as a representative example of the difficulties that exist and the types of structure that are in place to get some sense of the costs involved, and I have outlined the costing I have been given.

I would like to see the full report to date. Even the figures the Minister gave do not amount to an excessive amount to pay for a dwelling house in the current climate. We cannot divorce this scenario from the housing crisis in the State, not least in the Kildare County Council area, where there are thousands on the housing waiting list and the State is going to have to foot the bill.

Reference was made to developing an accommodation unit for €54,000. I understood the Minister stated in his earlier answer that it was not 16 units but 13. Somehow the figure has gone down to nine. Anyway, even €90,000 is not excessive. One could not build a house from scratch for that amount anywhere else. Again, will the Minister indicate whether we will be able to see the technical assessment of the properties such that we can consider it? Could the Minister shed some light on where he sees the families currently residing in those units going as well as the position of some of the other 100 feasible properties in the area? What is going to become of them?

On the last issue the Deputy raised, I have said previously - giving the Deputy some detail, which I will not repeat - that the individual circumstances of families in particular houses are taken into account. The Deputy is aware of that because there are individuals, whom I referenced previously when the Deputy raised the issue in the Chamber, who are described as overholders in the technical sense and who have been living in some of these houses for many years. There are elderly individuals there. As the Deputy is aware, there is no intention ultimately to discommode them, but they are not in lawful possession of the properties. No one will be rendered homeless on the basis of the manner in which we deal with these matters.

There is a significant wider housing issue which must be addressed. I have explained to the Deputy that as a Government we are altogether conscious of this. The Minister of State responsible, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, is doing what she can to address the issue. Sadly and unfortunately, because of the financial position of the State, there is not an open-ended amount of money that can be made available to address this as comprehensively as we all would like.

Top
Share