asked the Minister for Local Government whether he intends to ensure that local authorities provide temporary accommodation for itinerants pending the provision of permanent sites.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Accommodation for Itinerants.
37.
Following my recent announcement of Government policy in regard to itinerants, I have requested local authorities to give their early attention to the provision of serviced camping sites for itinerants and to furnish a report to my Department on the action which they have taken or propose to take in the matter. In addition, discussions have been held with the local authorities principally concerned. I am awaiting the reports from the local authorities.
Can the Minister say if he has the power to take any action in regard to the suitability of the present site at Cherry Orchard, or has he any powers to see that the local authorities find a suitable alternative site?
I have no direct powers or controls in regard to the site in question, but we have had pretty continuous contact with the local authorities concerned. I have expressed my view in regard to allowing the site to be used for some further time. The local authorities are endeavouring to find a suitable alternative site to accommodate those who are on the Cherry Orchard site at the moment.
In the event of the local authorities refusing to take any action, what does the Minister intend doing?
I shall ask the House for the power to see it is done.
Will the Minister enforce it?
There would not be much point in asking for it if I did not intend to use it, but I do not think that will arise.
Does the Minister consider it fair or reasonable that one local authority should be asked to undertake an undue share of the resettlement of itinerants?
Which local authority?
County Dublin.
Now we know where we are. Before any provisions were made that particular local authority had been inquiring from the Department—and I am sure if we went back over the records we would find they had been inquiring through the Deputy —about certain facilities. Now that the minimum facilities are being made available through the Department, the same local authority, according to Deputy Clinton, are not prepared to go ahead.
The Minister is quite wrong.
I hope I am.
We are prepared to do our share, but no more than our share, and every other local authority should be compelled to do the same.
I want to get this quite clear. This thing must be started somewhere. The situation is that if we were in a position to provide good facilities in one particular place not only would we have to look after those already there, but there would be an influx from other parts of the country. I am alive to that problem. The problem is pressing in some places but we must make a start somewhere, and that does not mean we are in any way ignoring the legitimate fears these people have that they may be making more trouble for themselves.
Would the Minister say if it is the intention of the Government to make use of the evidence they have that some people have expressed the preference to live in certain areas? Is it the intention to ask the various local authorities to provide sites for the families already in the areas?
Certain people have expressed preferences to remain where they are, but in so far as preferences are concerned, those are matters about which we are trying to gather information at the moment from the local authorities: information as to their habits, if you like; where they go; in what numbers; and where they would wish to make a stand, and so on. All that must be taken into consideration together with preferences expressed by people who want to go to a particular county. The councils will have something to say about that as well. If the local authorities approach the matter on the basis that we are going to do something about it we could very likely do a lot quite quickly, but if some of them continue to think that by doing nothing they will be allowed to continue to do nothing the whole problem will be made much more difficult.
In view of the fact that it is recognised as a national problem, would the Minister consider a 100 per cent grant rather than a two-thirds subsidy?
To throw the Deputy's argument back at him, why should people who are not affected be asked to contribute to those who are most affected? That is putting the Deputy's argument in reverse.