Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 6 November 2013
6. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Defence the reason families and ex-servicemen are being asked to leave their homes in the Curragh; and the alternative accommodation that has been put in place for them. [46643/13]
Amharc ar fhreagraThis is the same matter as was raised by Deputy Wallace, and I compliment the Minister on his consistency in his answer, because he demonstrated again a total lack of humanity and compassion in his retort earlier. What he calls "overholders" and "anachronisms" are families who have given loyal service to him and the State, and the Minister and the Department of Defence, as their employer, have a duty of care to them. I want to know what alternative arrangements the Minister has for these families and individuals who have not sufficient income to get a mortgage or rent privately, who are not being taken on by local authorities and who are being made homeless by the Minister.
Not only does the Deputy have no monopoly on compassion, she also has the same tendency as her colleague sitting beside her to be selective with the facts and the background of issues. As I mentioned earlier, in February 1997 the then Minister for Defence set out policy on married quarters on the basis that they were largely an anachronism and that they should be discontinued in a managed and orderly way. Since then the Department has discontinued the practice of providing such accommodation. In addition, given the age of the housing stock, it has been found that over time the properties require a significant and disproportionate investment in order to ensure compliance with regulations regarding rental properties.
Personnel are obliged, under Defence Force regulations, to vacate married quarters within a specified period of being discharged from the Permanent Defence Force, something which the Deputy chooses to ignore entirely. The term "overholder" is used to describe former members of the Defence Forces and their families who have refused to leave married quarters within 21 days of leaving the Defence Forces. The Department is, in accordance with normal procedure, seeking vacant possession of overheld married quarters. The situation of overholders continuing to occupy married quarters is not sustainable. As the Department is no longer in a position to subsidise housing for those who are not entitled to it, the Department has had to take necessary action. Each overholder is being dealt with on an individual basis, as evidenced in the statistics I gave Deputy Wallace.
The Department does not have a role in the provision of housing accommodation for the general public. The securing of alternative housing is a matter for the individuals concerned in the first instance.
If individuals are not in a position to secure housing in their own right, it may be the case that they qualify for social housing or that they qualify for some level of housing assistance. Officials of my Department have met with Kildare County Council officials regarding over-holders, so they are aware of the situation and will advise overholders of procedures and requirements when making applications for social housing.
The problem is that the Minister has said he is taking an approach of reminding these people of their responsibilities, but what we are talking about here are families who have lived in this area for decades. One individual has been living in the Curragh Camp for 34 years and has given 44 years service to the Army. He retired two years ago and got a letter four months after he retired telling him to vacate the premises. He has been to Kildare County Council and was told he is over the limit for social housing. He has been to the bank and was told he does not have enough money and he is too old to get a mortgage. That family is one example but there are others who have nowhere else to go.
The Minister said there were fewer than 75 families in this situation nationally. Some of those are widows and separated people in very low paid, temporary employment. Can the Minister not engage humanely with 75 people? He claims that the maintenance of this stock has been onerous on his Department. Where is the cost-benefit analysis conducted into that? These people paid substantial amounts of rent and, indeed, when they retire from the forces they pay more rent. How much is the Department spending on the maintenance of their premises because they are giving it quite a lot of rent? I do not believe it actually costs the Department anything.
As I have already indicated to the Deputy, my Department does not have a role in the provision of housing accommodation for the general public. However, my Department does deal with each case on its own merits. As I said, officials of my Department have been in contact with the local authorities, and information on the appropriate State agencies to provide assistance is given to those overholders as part of the Department's engagement with them. If the Department was not dealing with this matter in a humane and considered way, some of the individuals referred to by the Deputy, who have been maintaining occupation of accommodation they knew they had an obligation to vacate, would have been required long ago to vacate it.
I accept this is a difficult issue for some families. It is an issue the Department has sought to deal with over a series of years, through the presence of successive Ministers for Defence, in a manner that is as careful as is possible. However, at the end of the day, this was accommodation only provided to be made available to families during the term of a person being a member of the Defence Forces.
I contend that this was not the knowledge of all people and, in fact, the conduct of the Defence Forces would vindicate that. To take the case of one individual, he exited from the forces over 15 years ago, lived in his home for 40 years and, if one likes, he is only now being squeezed, even though he lives there with three generations of his family. The Department may not be a housing authority but it does have a duty of care to former employees and their families. In fact, the individual and humane approach the Department has been taking has involved one woman who has lived there for 27 years, raised her family there and remained living there post a marriage break-up, being given four or five harassment letters and being brought before the courts to be evicted.
I ask the Minister again to explain how much he claims it is costing his Department to keep these people there. My assertion is that they have actually paid, through their own rent, for the upkeep and maintenance. Where is the drain coming from? Could the Department not engage humanely with them in that they have lived there for decades and raised their families? Have they not got the right now to live out the older years of their life or for the Minister to actively assist them in gaining an alternative?
As the Deputy well knows, despite the nature of her presentation, there is substantial engagement by the military authorities and by the Department with individual families before any action is taken with regard to court proceedings. That action is taken as a last resort in the context of individuals in these circumstances.
