It is a wonderful coincidence that the Minister of State present actually taught in a school as the head bottle washer. I am not sure if the Minister of State was in the Army. Perhaps he has some experience of the Army that would lend him to respond to this matter. Unfortunately, the Minister of State has indicated he does not.
Defence Forces Property.
Perhaps Senator Minihan could answer it.
Senator Minihan would be welcome to a minute of my time.
I would be happy to answer the question for Senator Norris.
Senator Minihan would probably agree with me that armies, not just in Ireland but universally, have a horrible habit of being niggardly with ex-service people. After the First World War there were scandalous prospects of people who had been injured in that dreadful conflict playing the harmonica or begging for pennies on the street. I raised previously in this manner questions of Army pensions. There is also the scandal highlighted in the book written by a distinguished member of the staff of this House, Dave O'Donoghue, about the situation in the Congo where two people, whose reputations are still besmirched, have not had their gallantry recognised. I hope something will be done about that.
The case I raise today is a specific one. It is a question of the entitlements of a man who spent 34 years in the Army and had, as part of his occupation, the provision of housing in married quarters. This man is retired from the Army approximately 12 years but was allowed to continue living in the housing until the events of 23 November, when a fire broke out in the house. I have been in contact with the wife of this gentleman who told me she discovered the fire. She found her husband in a rather distressed state. Apparently, something had gone wrong with the wiring in the wall. A fire started, the television set and the curtains were ablaze and eventually the entire house was so badly damaged it could not be occupied.
The Army private was rescued with some difficulty by the fire brigade whose bravery I have to commend. They managed to get him out through a kitchen window. He was rushed to hospital and put on a life support machine on which he stayed for about three days.
I would point out that the month previously this man was in hospital recovering from three minor strokes, as a result of which he was forbidden alcohol and cigarettes and was put on a nicotine patch. I put that matter on the record because the informal response of the Army was to say that he was probably smoking a cigarette and fell asleep. That is not the case and there is much circumstantial evidence to show that the electrical wiring in the house was defective.
The private's wife indicated to me that she has had problems with the electricity virtually since day one. There were problems with the sockets and the fuse box. The Army sent electricians to the house on numerous occasions. The month before the fire she had them up to the house because all the lights went out. They had no electricity over an entire weekend. When the electricians came, they examined the fuse box in the hall and told her it was defective and needed to be replaced. To quote her directly, she said there was a wire burning straight across and that they would report this matter to the Army authorities. They never came back to her about it, however, and she was left with this defective wiring. The wiring in a number of the other houses was also defective. In addition, the electricians told her that the wiring had been installed incorrectly in the first place. In any event, the house was burned down and the husband is in hospital.
The wife and family then found that the Army simply refused to engage in any communication. It would not talk to her and she had to go to the Department of Social and Family Affairs. She and her family were put in bed and breakfast accommodation for six weeks. Is it not a bit shameful that the Army, having accepted responsibility for housing this man during his Army service, subsequently refused to communicate with this lady when a fire broke out in her house that was clearly as a result of defective wiring, to which the attention of the Army's maintenance department had been drawn, and allowed her to be put in bed and breakfast accommodation by social welfare? The family were put up there for an extra two weeks and after a further period were told they would have to go into a hostel for the homeless. This lady, her husband who is the Army private and a daughter, are staying at another daughter's flat and a further daughter is putting up another daughter in her flat. That is not satisfactory.
It is very important that these people be looked after. They had the accommodation during their Army period. They then had occupancy of the house for a further period of 12 years. There was a proposal that they should be allowed to buy out this house and they were agreeable to that, as were the other tenants, but apparently the situation was reversed and they were not allowed to buy out the accommodation. That appears to be a very niggardly way of treating somebody who was prepared to put his life on the line in defence of this country.
I ask the Minister of State to take a compassionate view of this matter and do something for these people. It is not appropriate that somebody who served without a blemish for so many years and brought up his family on the kind of meagre wages they got in the Army should have this support struck away from him and be expected to live in a homeless hostel. It is a reproach to all of us and I look forward to the Minister of State's reply.
The Minister for Defence thanks Senator Norris for raising this matter, as I do. The Department of Defence was made aware on the morning of 23 November 2005 that a fire had occurred at one of the married quarters located at Cathal Brugha Barracks in Dublin, which was occupied by a former member of the Defence Forces. The married quarters in question comprises one of 12 quarters constructed in 1982-83 by the National Building Agency. It is at ground floor level with a second married quarters located overhead.
The Dublin Fire Brigade attended the scene, assisted in the evacuation of the quarters and extinguished the fire. Gardaí from the Rathmines district also attended at the scene and have since furnished a report on the matter. That report, as well as one from the Dublin Fire Brigade, indicated that the fire resulted from a discarded cigarette butt in the occupant's bedroom. The Minister understands that the occupant's wife and daughter were also in the premises at the time. Fortunately, there was no loss of life but the occupant was taken to hospital suffering from the effects of smoke inhalation together with slight injuries.
An initial cursory inspection of the property by the Department's properties officer and the barrack foreman of works at Cathal Brugha Barracks indicated that the fire had totally destroyed the quarters internally and indicated that before being fit for occupation, total refurbishment would be required. There was no damage to adjoining or overhead properties. The military authorities were asked to furnish an architectural-structural assessment of the extent of the damage to the property. The Minister understands that the corps of engineers has completed an inspection of the quarters and the cost of repairs is estimated to be in the region of €95,000.
The occupant is a former member of the Permanent Defence Force, has been residing in married quarters since 1977 and has occupied the subject quarters in Cathal Brugha Barracks since July 1982. He was discharged from the Permanent Defence Force in July 1982 and had been overholding the property since 17 July 1994. Personnel, on being discharged from the Permanent Defence Force, are obliged to vacate married quarters within a short period from the date of the discharge. Overholding arises where members of the Permanent Defence Force who have been allocated married quarters, are discharged from the force and fail to vacate. The provision of housing is primarily a matter for the local authorities and married personnel have an equal claim to other members of the community in the same income category.
While it was the policy in the past to augment the measures taken by local authorities where soldiers' needs were exceptional, married quarters for members of the Defence Forces have for some time now been considered an anachronism and it has been the policy of the Department to discontinue them in a managed and orderly manner.
Since 1988 it has been the policy of the Department to sell off married quarters located outside of barracks. Such quarters are offered to occupants on terms similar to those contained in the local government tenant purchase schemes. In 1997, the married quarters located at CathaI Brugha Barracks were offered for sale to the occupants. There are a number of layout and structural design issues associated with them, especially common shared elements, for example, waterpipes, services, access to attics, common green areas, etc. All 12 quarters must be sold in view of their shared services design.
At that time it was made known that the quarters would only be sold if all of the occupants agreed to purchase. Notwithstanding declarations by the occupants of intent to purchase, doubt existed from the outset as to their financial ability to purchase the quarters. The Chief State Solicitor's office advised that the Department would not be under any legal obligation to accept any offers from any of the other occupants in the event of one or more of them choosing not to purchase.
The married quarters are surrounded by private housing built on land sold by the Department some years previously and connected to that development's sewerage system. The services of that development, including water supply, roads, footpaths, public lighting and green areas have not been taken in charge by Dublin City Council and are currently the responsibility of a private estate management company. Such services relating to the married quarters, if not taken in charge by the city council will be integrated into the adjoining private development and will need to be taken in charge by the estate management company, subject to a negotiated agreement between all the parties involved. It has not been possible to proceed with the sale of the quarters pending resolution of the difficulties surrounding the shared elements and services. The remaining 11 quarters are occupied and the Department is continuing to explore possible solutions to this intractable issue.
As already indicated, the provision of housing is primarily a matter for the local authorities and married personnel have an equal claim on such housing as other members of the community in the same income category. The Minister understands that the community welfare officer was in contact with the family immediately following the fire regarding their welfare needs, including accommodation and, in this regard, had also spoken to the Department's properties officer.
Members of the family have also been in touch with the Department. The Department has, in turn, been in touch with Dublin City Council, offering to provide any information or clarification it might require as regards any application it might receive in regard to accommodation for the individual in question, together with his family.
I thank the Minister of State for reading the script. I do not put the responsibility for this case at his door. However, I hope it goes back to the relevant authorities that this is a very legalistic performance. The script says that they were phasing out married quarters and these people were caught up in this, accidentally. I have no wish to cast aspersions on the forensic capacity of the Garda Síochána. However, there is an enormous amount of circumstantial evidence to suggest that the fire was unlikely to have been caused by a cigarette. They would not have found a cigarette butt in a conflagration such as that, so there is no direct evidence there, I would think, but I do not know. In addition, there is a succession of evidence to suggest that the wiring was faulty. There were constant complaints, so there is that argument at least. In any event it is relevant.
Here were people who occupied these quarters in a type of grace and favour situation. The Army was phasing it out and this accident was more or less used, accordingly. I agree with the Minister of State who said, thank God, that there was no loss of life. Will those concerned please organise a meeting with this family? I should be prepared to act as facilitator or whatever, if that is thought to be appropriate. It is not right to dump these people on the side of the road to let them fend for themselves after the years of service. In terms of real human wastage, this problem will revert to the Army eventually. To opportunistically take advantage of a fire in order to get rid of people from a house is not a very enriching view of military life. I strongly reiterate my appeal to the Department to look again at this situation and try to do something for this decent family which has given service to the State, was provided with housing and is now left without it.
I am shocked that anybody might regard it as appropriate that a soldier who has served a long time and who, having had this facility, should be left with his family to fare for themselves in a homeless hostel. That is not right. No amount of legalism can make it right. I look forward to a meeting being arranged.
I will refer the matter to the Minister for Defence.