Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 18 June 2014
3. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Defence the position regarding the issuing of three eviction notices in the past two weeks to residents in the Curragh Camp; if he will instruct his Department to withdraw from all such proceedings until proper dialogue with residents is held, as previously agreed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25918/14]
Amharc ar fhreagraThis is an issue that we discussed with the former Minister, Deputy Shatter, on his last appearance here, where he told us that nobody in the Curragh would be rendered homeless and that the Department would engage with people there in order to look at alternative accommodation for them, yet, in the past two weeks, three eviction notices were served on residents there, including on a number of quite ill citizens. Will the Minister agree to honour the previous commitments made to engage with the residents to discuss so-called "overholding" in the Curragh?
I thank Deputy Daly for her question. As has been 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 are not for sale, as the property is required to be retained for future military use and for security reasons. My Department is, therefore, 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, some 12 properties which were being overheld in the area of the Curragh Camp have been returned by the occupants. There are 28 overholders remaining at the camp. This represents a small group in relation to the large number of military personnel who occupied such quarters over the years but who returned the properties to the Department on their retirement, as they were required to do. Ten of the current group of overholders do not pay charges in respect of their use of the property, including in some cases charges for the use of electricity.
Of the remaining overholder cases at the camp, the Department is aware that a small number of occupants may be particularly vulnerable due to their personal circumstances. In light of this, the Department has been examining what assistance it might provide in order to bring about a resolution. My officials will contact these individuals once the range of options open to the Department is determined.
It is preferable not to have to use legal means to obtain vacant possession of the properties concerned. However, the ongoing illegal occupation of military property by those who have no entitlement to do so cannot be supported. It is important to remember also that the Department of Defence does not have a role in the provision of housing accommodation for former members of the Defence Forces or for the general public.
The Minister's response is wholly inadequate. He has just rehashed information that has been given in this House many times and did not deal with the question. Events have moved on since the mantra that the Minister read out to us previously and there have been developments on the ground. Deputy Wallace and I met the property management section at the Curragh Camp a number of months ago. The residents also met representatives this week. The Minister has not addressed the fact that, in the intervening period, the Department of Defence has seen fit to issue eviction notices to a number of other people, which goes completely against what the Minister, Deputy Shatter, said previously. He said that nobody would be rendered homeless on the basis of the manner in which the Department dealt with those issues. He acknowledged that there were a number of elderly and vulnerable citizens there. The Minister's actions contradict that.
The group which met the Department on Friday put forward the suggestion that O'Higgins Terrace might be renovated. That is an order which could be handed over to the county council because of where the terrace is situated in the camp. There was a suggestion that this would be given active consideration. Can the Minister confirm that is the case and that he will, as he said he wanted to, withdraw from legal proceedings in the meantime?
A number of people who are in residence in the married quarters are vulnerable and the Department will examine their circumstances on a case-by-case basis. It is fine to live in the married quarters when one is a soldier, but it has always been the case that once one has retired from the Defence Forces, one vacates those premises. People have been under no illusions over the past number of years of the terms and conditions involved.
The Department pays the property tax in respect of each house occupied by the overholder. Overholders do not have to pay for their bin collections. Bins are collected by the Defence Forces under the general bin collection contract to the Curragh. Some overholders do not even have to pay for their electricity. Deputies here represent struggling people in their own constituencies, yet there are people in the camp who do not have to pay property tax nor pay for their bin collections and electricity.
A number of legal proceedings have been commenced and they will continue.
The Minister's comments are derogatory and inaccurate and he has not moved on with developments. It was agreed with the Minister, Deputy Shatter, that there would be a technical assessment of the properties in the Curragh Camp. A limited technical assessment was done on Pearse Terrace. I would like to see the outcome of that, because, on the information which the Minister, Deputy Shatter, gave us, it is possible to renovate some of those dwellings for accommodation use, which in the current climate of a housing crisis is something that everybody should be concerned about.
The Minister said that he was looking at the circumstances of some residents on a case-by-case basis but then slandered everybody who lives there and tried to make out that none of them pays their bills. I put it to him that Department officials met residents on Friday and discussed the possibility of renovating O'Higgins Terrace. If he is saying that no one will be made homeless and that vulnerable people are there, what alternatives is he putting in place to deal with that? Is the O'Higgins Terrace proposition being considered? In the meantime, will he withdraw from legal proceedings and discuss this matter rationally with the families and individuals who served this State so loyally as members of the Defence Forces over the years?
We will not withdraw from any legal proceedings and those will continue, because this situation has been going on for quite some time. It is my Department's policy to review each overholder's situation on a case-by-case basis. As each case is different, I cannot pre-empt how overholders that the Deputy has grouped together will be dealt with. As I have already mentioned, both the cost of renovation of the properties and the security issues surrounding civilian occupation of quarters within the military barracks present problems which are difficult to overcome.
However, I have taken the Deputy's views on board. There has been a huge amount of consultation between the Department and the residents in the Curragh. Numerous meetings have taken place over quite some time and I understand that Deputies from all sides of the House have been in contact with the Department raising the concerns of some of the residents there. This question goes back to the fact that it has always been a condition that when one retires from the Defence Forces, one is no longer a resident or entitled to a house. That has been the case and it has never been hidden from any member of the Defence Forces who had the right to a property.
