Vol. 964 No. 2
1. Deputy Lisa Chambers asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence his plans to improve the physical environment and living conditions in Army barracks across the country; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3627/18]
What are the plans of the Minister of State and his Department in this regard to ensure that our soldiers are living in appropriate circumstances?
In order to ensure that the Defence Forces have the capability to deliver on all of the roles assigned by the Government, my Department is committed to the development and improvement of the physical environment and living conditions in military barracks. This is achieved through the Defence Forces built infrastructure programme, which is designed to modernise and enhance training, operational and accommodation facilities for Defence Forces personnel. It is based on operational requirements and is compiled on a priority needs basis by my Department in conjunction with the military authorities.
The capital element of the programme focuses mainly on infrastructure projects, including the construction of new buildings and the refurbishment of facilities. In any one year, the programme provides for new project starts and the continuation of building projects already under way. At the end of 2017, projects worth some €35 million were at various stages of implementation ranging from design to construction. Some €14.2 million has been provided for the delivery of these projects in 2018.
In addition to major capital projects, ongoing works are required under the programme to ensure the upkeep and repair of barracks and other military facilities. An amount of approximately €9 million has been provided for these works in 2018.
In recent years, the infrastructure programme included a number of projects to provide for accommodation requirements identified by the military authorities. Projects currently under way or planned in respect of military accommodation include significant upgrades and refurbishment of existing facilities at the Defence Forces training centre, Cathal Brugha Barracks and Casement Aerodrome, at a cost of €3.1 million, €1.8 million and €3 million, respectively.
The White Paper on Defence identified the need to develop a rolling five-year plan for the provision of future Defence Forces built infrastructure requirements, taking into account the capability priority needs of the Defence Forces. The plan is expected to be finalised in the coming months.
The basis for the White Paper project was the completion of a comprehensive infrastructure needs assessment. Arising from this, a number of additional projects specifically for the provision of accommodation for military personnel have been proposed. Subject to further assessment and prioritisation of military capability requirements, it is expected that a number of these will be advanced in the first iteration of the new rolling five-year plan.
I am satisfied that the best possible military facilities are available, taking into account the priorities and available resources. I am also satisfied that any improvement to military facilities that has been identified as necessary has been provided for.
On the Government's obligation to those serving in the Defence Forces, it is imperative that their physical environment and living conditions be up to standard. The Minister of State should be able to walk into any barracks or living quarters in the country and say he would be happy to sleep or work there. From personal experience of having slept and worked in many of those barracks, I can tell him that he would not be able to do that today. It is not acceptable that it is okay for members of the Defence Forces to live and work in conditions that are not acceptable to ordinary, everyday citizens.
The Minister of State mentioned that the built infrastructure programme is based on operational requirements and priority needs. A priority need is for one's workplace not to be cold, damp, falling apart or falling into dereliction. However, that is the situation in many barracks and living quarters. I suggest that the Minister of State initiate a review of the structures and living quarters in every barracks to ensure that he is satisfied, as I do not believe that he actually would be satisfied by their current condition. Will he initiate that review of the living conditions and working environment of Defence Forces personnel?
We have set out a rolling plan. I agree with the Deputy that I should be able to accept the living conditions of members of the Defence Forces for myself, but she will understand that, from 2008 until the past two or three years, there was little investment in some of those living quarters.
I wish to give the Deputy a flavour of some of the projects which are at various stages, from design to construction. A €10 million project is under way at the Defence Forces training centre in the Curragh, while €5 million will be provided for the construction of new gymnasia at Sarsfield Barracks in Limerick and Stephen's Barracks in Kilkenny. At Cathal Brugha Barracks, €3.7 million will be spent on block refurbishment. In Costume Barracks in Athlone refurbishment of the cook house and dining hall will be undertaken at a cost of €3.3 million. A sum of €3.1 million has been provided for the accommodation blocks in Pearse Barracks in the Curragh. Upgrade and refurbishment works on the apprentice hostel at Casement Aerodrome will cost an estimated €2.8 million while at the naval base in Haulbowline, €2.4 million will be spent on the upgrading of fire detection and fire fighting systems. The upgrading of two blocks of accommodation at Cathal Brugha Barracks will be undertaken at a cost of €1.8 million, while the upgrade of the accommodation facilities at the Defence Forces training centre in Connolly Barracks will cost €1.7 million. That gives the Deputy a flavour of the investment that is taking place.
The Minister of State said in his opening remarks that he was satisfied that the best facilities are available. I do not understand how he could possibly say that when he does not know the condition of the barracks across the country because his Department has not reviewed them. If the Department allocated €35 million for refurbishment and building projects in 2017, how can the Minister of State stand over a budget of less than half that amount for this year? The Department spent €35 million in 2017 but the Minister of State has just said that it will spend only €14.2 million in 2018. How will that possibly be sufficient? How can the Minister of State justify that in view of the fact that there has been more money available to spend in the last couple of years? We know that the barracks are not up to scratch so how can the Minister of State justify a budget for this year that is less than half of what it was last year? The Minister cannot possibly stand in this Chamber and say that he is satisfied that the best facilities are available. Neither can he say that the accommodation available to those serving in the Defence Forces is up to scratch because it is not and if the Minister of State asks the serving members living in the accommodation, they will tell him that. A review needs to take place in order to determine the state of the buildings. The longer a building is let fall into dereliction, the more costly it will be to repair. In that context, it is actually in the interests of the Department's budget to fix things sooner rather than later.
To be clear, I said that at the end of 2017 some €35 million worth of projects were at various stages of implementation ranging from design to construction. I did not say that €35 million was spent in 2017. I wish it was so but unfortunately, that was not the case. A number of years ago the Department sought a review of all accommodation for members of the Defence Forces. We are now in a position where we have funding available to spend on accommodation blocks in various barracks around the country. I said that some €14.2 million has been provided for the delivery of these projects in 2018 but during 2017, €35 million worth of projects were at various stages of implementation ranging from design to construction. I do not want the Deputy to be under the impression that I spent €35 million in 2017. That figure relates to the range of projects-----
Is the sum of €14.2 million in addition to the aforementioned €35 million?
A sum of €14.2 million has been provided for the delivery of these projects in 2018. I would be the first to acknowledge that a number of accommodation blocks in different barracks across the country are not up to standard but we are bringing them up to standard. It is a matter for the Defence Forces themselves and it is up to the officers commanding, OCs and the general officers commanding, GOCs, in each brigade to bring issues to the attention of the Department and to prioritise the works that are needed.
2. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence his plans to carry out a medical or health audit of serving and former members of the Air Corps similar to that undertaken in Australia in order to identify those that may have been exposed on an ongoing basis to toxic chemicals during their service. [3490/18]
Given the possibility that there is a major health scandal hidden in the Air Corps due to bad health and safety standards, is it not logical that an audit or survey of the health of serving members and ex-serving members be carried out to determine the scale of the health problems in Ireland, similar to the survey that was undertaken in Australia when that country became aware of serious exposure of serving members to deadly chemicals?
As I have stated previously in this House, the health and welfare of the men and women of Óglaigh na hÉireann is a priority for me and my Department. In this regard, a number of processes are already in train relating to reviewing health and safety procedures in the Air Corps. First, as the Deputy is aware, in September 2016, I appointed an independent third party to review allegations made in a number of protected disclosures relating to health and safety issues in the Air Corps which were received in late 2015 and early 2016. The report of the independent third party review was received by my Department in June 2017. Although the report found that the Defence Forces' regime appears to be capable of meeting statutory requirements, it makes a number of observations relating to documentation, health surveillance and exposure monitoring. It also notes that the Health and Safety Authority, HSA, is the appropriate statutory body to deal with such matters. I sent the report to those who had made disclosures for their views and I am considering the next steps in the process having received those views and in the context of ongoing litigation.
Separately and in parallel to the independent review, following an inspection in 2016 the Air Corps has continued to work with the HSA to improve its health and safety regime. I have been informed by the military authorities that the HSA has formally noted the considerable progress made to date by the Defence Forces towards implementation of a safety management system for the control of hazardous substances. Subject to completion of the improvement plan, the HSA investigation is closed. However, it must be noted that Air Corps health and safety is a matter of ongoing monitoring, supervision and adjustment. The Air Corps is fully committed to implementing improved safety measures that protect workers from potential exposures to chemicals and will ensure risks are as low as reasonably practicable.
Regarding inquiries conducted in Australia, as I indicated to the Deputy in my reply to Parliamentary Question No. 849 of 7 March 2017, I am informed by the military authorities that there are a number of published reports and ongoing studies relating to Australian personnel who were exposed to chemicals while conducting a particular maintenance task on a specific aircraft programme. As such, the military authorities have advised that it would be difficult to draw a direct comparison between the Irish Air Corps and the Australian air force.
I accept that progress has been made in improving health and safety in the Air Corps since these issues were first raised with previous Ministers and with the relevant authorities. I am not seeking comparisons with Australia but am alluding to a process undertaken in that country which has not been undertaken here on foot of the Department becoming aware of a serious scandal. The event to which we are referring is historic and I hope that nobody in the Air Corps today is being exposed to dangerous chemicals in the same way that personnel were exposed in the past for 20 or 30 years. Australia is but one of a number of countries that have identified major flaws in their health and safety regimes. When the Australians identified those flaws, one of the first things they did was to conduct a survey of serving and ex-members to determine their health status so that they could take any steps necessary to address their needs and to prevent any future problems. My question is not related to the O'Toole report or to anything else. It is solely concerned with the health of those who served in the Air Corps who are suffering hugely.
The Deputy is correct that the Air Corps event to which he refers is historical in nature. The HSA has been very involved in ensuring the health, safety and well-being of members of the Air Corps, as I have already outlined. It is working to make sure that what happened in the past will not happen again.
As I have already said, protected disclosures were received in late 2015 and early 2016. One of the first things I did on taking office as Minister of State in May 2016 was to appoint an independent reviewer who met those who had made the protected disclosures.
I published the final report and sent it to the people who made the protected disclosures. They have replied to me and I am considering my next steps. I have been given a suite of options from my officials. I will make a decision on what option I will proceed with to make sure that we take seriously the allegations made by the personnel who made the protected disclosures.
All the O'Toole report dealt with was whether the procedures were in place to deal with whistleblowers. This is not about the whistleblowers or the cases before the courts at the moment. The State is fighting them tooth and nail and I think it is on the losing side. If those are set aside, there are quite a number of other members who gave service to this State, through the Air Corps, who are suffering catastrophic health problems. Most of these, they believe, are related to the chemicals they were exposed to such as trichloroethylene and others which cause not only minor problems such as ulcers or lethargy, but major heart defects, birth defects, and a range of respiratory and intestinal complaints. It is affecting them in the same way as poison.
Is the Minister of State, Deputy Kehoe, concerned about the health of former members of the Defence Forces? We should not forget that the Defence Forces, and the Minister of State, still have a duty of care to those who previously served even though they might be in civvies now. They are still answerable to the State in terms of the defence laws. Is the Minister of State concerned and does he believe it is worthwhile finding out what happened? That has not been the task of Mr. O'Toole or anybody else to date.
There is a duty of care. I have taken this issue very seriously and I outlined the process that I put in place upon my appointment. I met with the whistleblowers, the personnel who made the disclosures, and I listened to their concerns. I will act on the concerns they outlined to me in writing upon being given the review. Deputy Ó Snodaigh said there are quite a number of people. I have already indicated in the House that the State Claims Agency is currently managing seven claims taken against the Minister of Defence for personal injuries, alleging exposure to chemical and toxic substances while working with the Air Corps in the period 1991 to 2006.
It would be inappropriate to comment further on the litigation cases that are going forward. However, I am taking the people who made the protected disclosures on this issue very seriously and also the duty of care that I have as Minister of State with responsibility for defence. I assure the Deputy that I will make the right decision on whatever recommendation I make next.
3. Deputy Lisa Chambers asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence when he will appoint an independent chairperson to commence the review of the Defence Forces conciliation and arbitration scheme; the reason the appointment had not been made by the end of 2017 as committed to the Defence Forces representative organisations; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3628/18]
My question was to ask when the Minister of State, Deputy Kehoe, will appoint an independent chairperson to commence the review of the Defence Forces conciliation and arbitration scheme and why that appointment was not made by the end of 2017, as he had committed to doing to the representative associations. I now understand that since I tabled the question last week, the Minister of State has confirmed that an independent chairman, Mr. Gerard Barry, will be appointed. Following on from that, can the Minister of State outline the timeline within which he envisages that this review will be concluded?
The conciliation and arbitration scheme for members of the Permanent Defence Force provides a formal mechanism for the Permanent Defence Force representative associations, PDFORRA and RACO, to engage with the official side. Having regard to commitments made under pay agreements, members of the Permanent Defence Force can make representations in respect of their pay and conditions of service through their representative bodies.
Since its inception in the early 1990s, the scheme has provided the framework to progress many successful negotiated agreements between the management of the Defence Forces and PDFORRA and RACO. However, there have been many changes in the industrial relations landscape in the intervening period. I now consider it timely and appropriate to conduct a fundamental review of the scheme to ensure that it remains efficient and effective for all parties. In this regard, I previously announced my intention to initiate a fundamental review of the conciliation and arbitration scheme for members of the Permanent Defence Force.
In advance of initiating the review, I have been considering a number of possible approaches and giving consideration to the terms of reference. I also wanted to ensure that the review would be facilitated by a chairperson who would not only be independent, but would also bring knowledge and expertise to the assignment. I informed the representative associations earlier this week and I am officially informing the House today of the appointment of the chairperson. I am respecting the House by informing it of the appointment of Mr. Gerard Barry to chair the review before announcing it publicly. Mr. Barry has many years of experience in the field of industrial relations, having served as chief executive officer to the health service employers agency and on the board of the Labour Relations Commission. As chair of the review, Mr. Barry will seek input from all parties to the current Permanent Defence Force conciliation and arbitration scheme, including the Department of Defence, the Defence Forces, the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, PDFORRA and RACO. The chairperson will meet with all parties collectively and he may, if he deems it appropriate, meet with parties to the review individually. There will also be wider consultation with other stakeholders.
The final report is to reflect the agreed position of all parties at the end of the process. Where agreement cannot be reached, it will be open to the chairperson to make recommendations if he so wishes. I have directed that the chairperson provide a report to me not later than six months after the start of the review.
I think I might have beaten the Minister of State to it in informing the House of Mr. Barry's appointment. Nevertheless, I welcome the progress on this issue. When the Minister of State, Deputy Kehoe, was asked about this on "Prime Time", he said he did not think that it would be independent if we had RACO and PDFORRA sitting around the table. I am glad that he has moved from that position and that he now recognises that both representative organisations need to be present. I am glad that they are present. I welcome the appointment of Mr. Barry to the position of chair and I wish him well in his work.
The Minister of State is overstating the success of the current system that is in place. It has proved very challenging for the members serving in the Defence Forces. While the Minister of State now says that he considers it timely and appropriate to conduct a review of the conciliation and arbitration scheme, I put it to him that he only considers it such because he has been put under severe pressure by myself and others, and the representative associations, to carry out that review. Will the Minister of State confirm when the review will actually start? If it is to conclude within six months of the start date, when is that start date?
I was put under pressure by nobody. I am very much my own man. If the Deputy listened to any of my replies in the House earlier, she would have heard me indicate that I wished to have some form of review of the conciliation and arbitration scheme. One thing I did was to listen to the representative associations, both PDFORRA and RACO. When I went to the PDFORRA conference in late 2017, it was not expected that I would attend. I said that I was going to carry out a full review of the existing conciliation and arbitration scheme and I am happy that will happen.
I am glad that the Deputy's contacts within the representative associations are alive and well and that she beat me to it this morning. However, I point out that I did not issue a press release on this. I respected the House and the Opposition spokespersons and I informed them during defence questions today that I have appointed Mr. Gerard Barry. I have asked Mr. Barry to meet the Secretary General and the Chief of Staff prior to starting the review. However, I expect that the review will start within the next week. I met Mr. Barry for quite a considerable time last week. I went through my own thoughts and feelings on the existing scheme and I asked him to report back to me within six months. I have every confidence that Mr. Barry will carry out the review and report back to me within six months.
When the review is concluded, it might be prudent and appropriate for the House to have a discussion on that matter. I await the review with anticipation.
Can the Minister of State confirm whether a military covenant, similar to that contained in the UK legislation and giving a commitment to the armed forces, will be included in the final agreement relating to industrial relations? The reason I ask - I know that the representative associations have raised this matter with the Minister of State - is that a member of the Defence Forces is a very special type of employee. Members of the Defence Forces forgo many of the rights the rest of us, as employees, take for granted. I will outline the key rights a member of the Defence Forces forgoes. They are: he or she is subject to military law 24-7, 365 days a year; the provisions of the EU working time directive do not apply to him or her; he or she has an obligation for duty 24-7, 365 days of the year; he or she can be posted anywhere, at any time by order; membership of a trade union is prohibited, and, by extension, affiliation to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU, is prohibited; industrial action is prohibited; and a mandatory early retirement age is imposed on him or her.
For the reasons I have outlined, a military covenant enshrining in legislation the special status of a Defence Forces employee has been called for by the representative associations and their members for a very long time. I very much support this. Can the Minister of State give a commitment that such a covenant will be included in the new review?
I will not give any commitments today on the outcome of the review. However, I have left the terms of reference broad enough for some of the issues that Deputy Lisa Chambers has outlined to be brought to the attention of the independent reviewer. It is totally up to both representative organisations to bring forward their views and thoughts on the special status the Deputy believes members of the Defence Forces have. The review of the conciliation and arbitration scheme is being conducted in the context of the current pay talks. We cannot go outside the public service pay agreement. However, there are other areas within that and there is scope within the terms of reference to bring those issues to the attention of the independent chairperson.
4. Deputy Mick Barry asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the number of engine room artificer vacancies that exist in the Naval Service; his plans to fill same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3489/18]
I wish to ask the Minister of State about the number of engine room artificer vacancies that exist in the Naval Service and his plans to fill them.
The Government is committed to maintaining the strength of the Permanent Defence Force at 9,500 personnel, as set out in the White Paper on Defence.
To achieve this, there is significant ongoing recruitment. In 2017, a total of 751 new personnel were inducted into the Permanent Defence Force. These comprised general service recruits and cadets and specialists for the Army, Air Corps and Naval Service. As of 31 December 2017, the strength of the Permanent Defence Force stood at 9,173 whole-time equivalent, WTE, personnel.
There are 85 appointments in the establishment for engine room artificers, ERAs. These range across ranks from warrant officer, senior chief petty officer, chief petty officer, petty officer and leading seaman. The military authorities have advised me that there are currently 13 vacancies, all of which are at the petty officer rank.
The Defence Forces recruit ERAs internally through the trainee technician scheme and, at times, externally through the direct entry scheme. There are 29 ERAs in training, seven of whom are expected to qualify as petty officers during 2018. The filling of further vacancies will continue to be progressed.
Other specialist posts, such as those relating to pilots, air traffic controllers and certain technicians, are presenting challenges in the context of recruitment and retention. I have previously acknowledged this fact, which is reflective of the current economic circumstances and attractive job opportunities in the private and commercial semi-State sectors. The extensive professional training that such specialists receive within the Defence Forces makes them very attractive to these sectors. This is not a unique challenge for the Defence Forces and it is also faced by military forces elsewhere.
The Public Service Pay Commission is further examining the issue of the recruitment and retention of specialist personnel within the Defence Forces, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Service Stability Agreement 2018-2020.
I am addressing the issue of specialist vacancies throughout the Permanent Defence Force with a range of recruitment methods including direct entry competitions for specialist positions. The scope to further expand direct entry is being considered. I have also directed civil and military management to develop proposals to facilitate former Permanent Defence Force personnel with appropriate skill sets to re-enter the Defence Forces.
Following acceptance by the Permanent Defence Force representative associations, the pay increases available under the Lansdowne Road agreement were applied to the Defence Forces. I amdelighted that both PDFORRA and RACO have also signed up to the Public Service Stability Agreement 2018-2020, which is an extension of the Lansdowne Road agreement. The new agreement provides for further pay increases of between 6.2% and 7.4% over its lifetime.
I remain committed to maximising recruitment of capable personnel, developing serving personnel and achieving the best personnel and skills combination to ensure the Defence Forces retain the capacity to operate effectively across all roles.
The Naval Service has eight ships. How many of them can put out to sea at any one time? My information is that because of unresolved staffing shortages, the maximum number that can put out to sea at any one time is six. The shortages in question relate to artificers and others. In other words, 25% of the Naval Service is docked at any one time due to staff shortages that the Department and the Minister of State, with whom the buck stops, have failed to resolve.
The Naval Service announced a competition for engine room artificer positions in 2012. Unable to attract suitable applicants, it ran another competition in 2013. In 2015, the direct entry process for engine room artificer vacancies was announced. Does the Minister of State not accept that the pay for this grade, and other equivalent technical positions in the Naval Service and other branches of the Defence Forces, needs to be increased? That is the key issue. It needs to be increased to a level that at least matches comparators in other areas of the public, semi-State and private sectors.
In the first instance, Deputy Barry's information is absolutely incorrect. We have eight ships and they are operating at present. I met the new flat officer commanding of the Naval Service, Commodore Mick Malone, recently. I congratulate him on his appointment and wish him the very best of luck. Yes, there are vacancies. I acknowledge that we have vacancies, and we are working towards filling those. There are quite a number of people in training for these positions. There is no restriction to training whatsoever. We are training people to our full capacity, but I would be the first to state that there are vacancies. However, let me state that all eight ships are fully operational at this moment.
We have a difference of opinion on this issue and I think we should get to the root of it. I have said that my information, over which I stand, is that only six of the Naval Service's eight ships can put out to sea at any one time. I asked the Minister of State if that was the position. He huffed and puffed and said that my information was wrong, but then proceeded to indicate that the ships are all capable of operating at present. That is not quite the same thing. I will ask the Minister of State again. Are we in a position to put all eight ships out to sea at the same time or are we incapable of putting 25% of our ships out as a result of staff vacancies, which he and I know have arisen as a result of the issue of low pay? Moreover, is he going to address this matter?
I stand over my information in the same way that the Deputy has stated he will stand over his. There is a difference of opinion. I have no problem with that whatsoever. I have differences of opinion with many people. That is the way life works.
This is an important matter.
I met the flag officer commanding recently. Eight ships are fully operational and I am quite satisfied with that. I also stated that we have a number of vacancies and we are filling them.
5. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the status of non-serving Defence Forces personnel residing in accommodation in the Curragh Camp; the position regarding the maintenance of the accommodation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3640/18]
My question relates to the status of so-called "overholders" at the Curragh Camp. Deputy Clare Daly and I raised this issue in 2013 with the former Minister, Alan Shatter. The Ceann Comhairle raised it in June 2015 and Deputy Fiona O'Loughlin raised it in December 2016. After four years since Deputy Clare Daly and I first raised this issue, will it ever be resolved? Will the Minister of State provide an update, particularly on the maintenance and upkeep of the accommodation in question?
In the past, military regulations provided that married quarters could be allocated to serving personnel upon request and subject to availability. However, this no longer applies and the Department's long-standing policy is to withdraw from the provision of such quarters.
Personnel who leave the Defence Forces or who vacate a property which had been assigned to them are required under regulations to return vacant possession of that property. It must be noted that the majority of those to whom such property was allocated have observed this requirement. Where the property is not vacated, those remaining in the property, be they the former serving member or the spouse and children of the former serving member, are classed as overholding.
Overholding continues to be an issue within the Curragh Camp with the continued unauthorised occupation of 23 houses by civilians. The Department will continue to seek to regularise this matter up to and including the recovery of vacant possession. In deciding on any course of action, the Department always takes into account the particularities of each individual case, such as if the occupier is elderly and the circumstances in which they became overholders.
The Department assists in whatever way it can in order to resolve cases of overholding without recourse to legal action. While securing alternative housing is a matter for the individuals concerned, when requested to do so, my officials provide whatever assistance possible to support such applications. As I have stated previously, each case of overholding is dealt with on an individual basis. However, it is important to remember the Department does not have a role in the provision of housing accommodation for civilians.
In general, former married quarter properties which have been vacated have been found to be in extremely poor condition. Many of these properties fell far short of what is required for family accommodation. They would require significant investment to bring them up to a habitable standard and the more derelict ones have had to be demolished.
When maintenance issues are brought to the attention of the Department concerning properties occupied by overholders, they are assessed by a competent person. Any matters of a health and safety concern are dealt with in collaboration with the occupants. All other matters are considered in the context of the status of the occupants as overholders.
The situation regarding the occupation of Department of Defence property by civilians is under review and it is hoped this will be concluded in the near future.
Both the Minister of State and the former Minister, Deputy Coveney, previously acknowledged in the Chamber that there are a number of vulnerable residents in accommodation in the Curragh Camp. The truth of the matter is that the Department is managing these houses into decline. There are some difficult circumstances prevailing to which the Department is turning a blind eye. I accept the Department is not responsible for the supply of housing. However, there needs to be some joined-up thinking in this case. We have a housing crisis. Accordingly, accommodation alternatives outside of the camp for the people in question are not an option.
The Minister of State claimed it will cost a fortune to do up these houses. I beg to differ. Of course, it will cost money to make them habitable again. However, with a bit of joined-up thinking, does the Minister of State believe that should be the way for the State to go? Is he not concerned that some elderly people in bad housing in the camp may have a bad experience which will reflect poorly on the Department of Defence?
Each overholder case is assessed individually. A decision on how to proceed is made based on the facts of each case. We are sensitive to the specific vulnerabilities which may exist in such cases. The Deputy may have an individual case which he might prefer to raise with me privately rather than in the Chamber. I would be more than happy to look into it for him.
The property management section in the Department assesses each case on an individual basis. If the people involved are elderly, they are treated sensitively, as well as in a practical way. I must repeat that the Department of Defence is not a housing association. I am in favour of moving away from this situation. My number one priority is investing in accommodation for serving members of the Defence Forces.
I accept the Department is not in the business of supplying housing but it still has a legal and moral obligation to the remaining residents in the buildings in question. I do not want to be making a big deal over the individual complaint I have had from an elderly woman but I will correspond with the Minister of State on it.
I find it an incredible approach for the Department to engage in a tactic which is nothing short of managing the decline of these buildings. I had a discussion on this issue with the former Minister, Alan Shatter, four years ago. Then, Deputy Clare Daly and I went through several of the houses in question to see the condition in which they were. Those old redbrick houses were well built. I would rather be fixing them than many of the houses built since then. Although the Department is not in the business of supplying housing, given that the housing crisis reflects on every aspect of the Government, the Department should be obliged to make good use of these buildings. The idea that we do not want anybody living in the Curragh Camp any more is incredible. One would swear the Russians were going to invade us and that we need a military camp with no people living in it. The Minister of State can take my word for it that no one is going to invade us. No one would be bothered.
Is the Deputy in touch with the Russians?
The Minister of State needs to take a different approach to how the Department manages the decline of these housing units.
I am glad no one is going to invade us any time soon.
Just as well, as we have only six ships.
The Deputy stated the Department has a legal obligation in this regard. It has no legal obligation whatsoever.
What if a serious incident occurred?
The Department does not make any profit on the occupation of married quarters. The housing stock is generally old and the Department has found in assessing vacated housing that substantial investment is needed to bring the stock up to the required standard for letting. This would not be cost-effective in the long term. When properties become vacant, they are withdrawn from use for several reasons, primarily because it is the Department's policy to withdraw from the provision of married quarters. We have moved on if one makes a comparison with the position 50 years ago, when we were obliged to provide married quarters. The Department is not a housing agency and is not responsible, legally or otherwise, for providing accommodation for members of the Defence Forces.
I remind the House that half the time for questions has been used on priority questions. I do not want to be interjecting all the time but I am asking Members and the Minister of State for their co-operation.
