Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 13 Jun 1996

Vol. 466 No. 8

Report of Task Force on Travelling Community: Statements (Resumed).

In my earlier contribution I complimented the authors of the report and the general outline of policy, especially on education and health. However, there are other aspects associated with the travelling community that bear re-examination. Are halting sites the answer to accommodation needs? They are not in many cases. Caravans parked on the side of the road or on halting sites are still caravans, with all their inherent dangers of susceptibility to fire and overcrowding. They are not suitable accommodation for large families. Halting sites are a stop-gap measure, not a solution to long-term problems. Housing is preferable and housing for travellers should be provided in a selective manner to induce their integration into the general populace. However, I do not propose large ghettos as they would spell disaster.

The problems of illegal parking of caravans, wandering horses, stray dogs, scrap heaps, generators and refuse must be taken seriously and something must be done about it immediately, otherwise our tourism potential will be lost. Legislation in this area is very poor. Two High Court decisions have paralysed this House in drawing up definitive new legislation on the problems I have outlined. Likewise, the hands of the Garda Síochána are also tied. County and urban district councils cannot act as they would like to solve these problems which have become an irritant within urban and town boundaries. There cannot be one law for travellers and another for settled people. All must be equal before the law. New legislation must give county and urban councils authority to act without having to go to court in connection with every minor decision on illegal parking. The parking of caravans should be prohibited in certain sensitive areas and in areas where they cause danger and harm to the environment.

Anyone reading the daily newspapers will realise that we have a law and order problem. That applies also to the travelling people. Recently we have had problems in Tuam, Galway and Ballina. For too long we have neglected to address the law and order problems in our society. That is also true of drug trafficking. We must act before it is too late. In some cases travellers are under the impression that they are above the law, that they are untouchable, and anyone who speaks out on these issues is regarded as racist by the media and certain church personnel. This is far from the truth. All the settled community requires is that the law be applied in an even-handed way, with due recognition and sensitivity to hardship cases.

The settled community has become frustrated at the lack of progress in dealing with the problems of the travelling community. No one wants to take the tough decisions. However, it is a finite problem and it should be amenable to settlement. Certainly more dole, more ceoil, will not solve the problem. Perhaps the present report will stir Government to act on the travellers problems while being mindful of the rights of the settled community.

I have spoken on health issues and education. Primary care is of the essence, and recording of travellers problems, particularly in regard to sickness, longevity, maternity and the question of intermarriage which has led to the prevalence of inherited conditions among travellers. On the question of education, all citizens have a right especially to primary education. Currently, few travellers continue to secondary or vocational education. We should give them every chance to do so.

Given my right-wing views on certain subjects, I am sure the Minister will expect a right-wing tirade on this. However, I have always felt that the itinerants are the deprived people of this country. They are born handicapped. They are born with their hands tied behind their backs into a society that rejects them. The itinerants here are possibly the blacks or the Red Indians of America. They are deprived from birth, born into a society that is hostile to them throughout their lives.

These people need serious help. Mainly, they need education. Also, the people of Ireland need to be educated to accept that itinerants have the same rights as every other Irish person and are entitled to the same benefits. The hostility I have encountered among the settled community against itinerants is often irrational. Deputy Moffatt, with his medical experience, might be able to offer some psychological reason for that. Perhaps the settled community feels in some way threatened by them.

The itinerants, or the tinkers, whatever one likes to call them — I understand it is politically correct to call them itinerants — also have a responsibility. As Deputy Moffatt said, they are often schizophrenic on the subject of their rights and duties. It is sad to see itinerant children begging in every town, in every city. To see them begging at various stands that they occupy on O'Connell Bridge and 100 yards down the road in Molesworth Street where they take up positions every day under the eyes of the Garda and the political system is very disillusioning and must represent a major shock to tourists. The fact that they are allowed to do this suggests the vacuum in which we on the political scene have looked at the itinerant problem over the years.

The failure of central Government to address this problem over the past 40 years has been striking. Central Government has attempted to foist this problem onto local authorities and councils and has ducked bringing in a national policy to address a problem with which we have lived since the foundation of the State. It is heartening, therefore, to see the Minister's initiative, and the response from most Deputies in this Assembly.

However, I am not fully convinced that the itinerant community play their proper role. What is missing in respect of their position is the concept of personal responsibility. Many itinerants feed off their deprived image and expect one law for the settled community and another for themselves. Some time ago we had a problem in Dundalk which has had a halting site for at least 25 years — it was one of the first towns in the country to install a halting site. I was the closest councillor in Dundalk to it, living about 200 yards away.

Those itinerants never caused any difficulties for me and I never had any difficulty with them. In recent times, however, the overflow of itinerants from the Six Counties has come to Dundalk. They were probably signing on the dole — as most of them were — on both sides of the Border. Itinerants from England, driving cars such as Volvos and BMWs and pulling huge caravans, have come to Dundalk and park anywhere they like, to which I object. The Garda Síochána should have immediate power to remove an illegally parked car or van on somebody else's property. Unfortunately, the Garda do not have that power and must have recourse to the court which is a costly, long drawn out procedure. On one occasion when Dundalk Urban District Council sought an injunction against itinerants abandoning their cars on the inner bypass road in Dundalk it had to go as far as Arklow at a cost of £4,000. These people had driven their cars on the footpath and abandoned them, inhibiting local people from using the footpath on a very busy road. Their Alsatians and ponies and God knows what else were nearby. This is happening time and time again in every town in Ireland and it is high time it is stopped.

The itinerant community does not help its own case by engaging in this type of flagrant abuse and denial of the domestic rights of ordinary settled people. From the evidence of the clan warfare among itinerants in the west, the sense of responsibility, of which I spoke, is missing among their community. The biggest blot on their community is their flagrant disregard for other people's property. Unless central Government does something to tackle this problem by introducing meaningful legislation in that regard, a major catastrophe will occur between the settled and itinerant communities.

Various Governments have sat on the fence but it is time to get off it and do something such as introducing meaningful legislation. No person should have the right to park on someone else's property, whether it is public property owned by the local authority or privately owned, and give them the two finger salute. The itinerant community has given the two finger salute to settled communities throughout Ireland. One of the worst examples of their recklessness was in Deputy Seán Ryan's constituency when a flotilla of caravans, extending for a couple of miles, parked outside Dublin Airport so that tourists and dignitaries were greeted by this spectacle on arrival. Happily, this has been taken care of. Similar scenes are repeated all over Ireland.

I congratulate the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Taylor. He is a man of good public conscience, with the courage to introduce legislation in this area. I agree with Deputy Moffatt that immediate legislation is needed in two areas. The first relates to health, as the morbidity rate among itinerant children is unusually high which obviously had to do with the awful conditions under which they live and, in some cases, are required to live. The second, equally important, is education. I said earlier the public needs to be educated to accept that people who have come from such a deprived culture need time to adapt to the settled way of life. There is no doubt that the perception of itinerant parents of the necessity to attend school is a big deterrent to their children adapting to society.

Halting sites have been criticised but there are pros and cons and I believe the halting site has a role to play in helping itinerants to adapt to settled life. Ideally, the answer is integrated housing but that is a lovely concept not always practical. The eponymous John Smith may agree with what I say but will he agree to an itinerant living beside him?

People accept the need for a dump but do not want it beside them. That will pose problems which cannot be solved overnight. Legislation is needed to assist local authorities to find areas where these people can be accepted and eventually assimilated into the community.

I wish to share my time with Deputy Killeen.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I agree with many of the points raised by Deputy McGahon who sounded a note of realism in the debate. I welcome the comprehensive recommendations in the task force report, covering all aspects of a traveller's life from accommodation to health, education, employment and so on.

I congratulate the members who served on the task force and all individuals and groups who, in a voluntary capacity, gave their time and energy to support travellers' welfare. I fully accept the recommendations of the report which cover comprehensively all aspects of the travelling community's existence and suggests how the various problems which confront them can be tackled. I agree that all positive actions should be taken to improve the lot of these people who, after all, are our fellow citizens fully entitled to enjoy the rights and privileges of Irish citizenship.

I am disappointed that the report seems to take the travellers' nomadic way of life for granted. This is likely to remain the position for the foreseeable future. I am conscious of the many disadvantages this style of living imposes on families, particularly women and children who inevitably bear the brunt of the hardship it entails. Nomadism makes it difficult for them to avail of satisfactory health and education facilities. It also makes it costly for the State to provide the limited services of which they can avail.

The task force could have addressed better ways of encouraging members of the travelling community to settle and forsake the nomadic way of life in their own interests and those of the wider community. I am not saying they should be compelled to change, but in coming to terms with modern life change has imposed itself on many sections of the community. In many cases, encouragement and help from the State was needed to make adjustment acceptable and possible.

Change will also impose itself on the momadic way of life of travellers. If the task force had addressed the problem from this perspective, it might have come up with more imaginative recommendations instead of the same old formula of providing more accommodation, particularly halting sites. This approach failed in the past and I cannot see it, on its own, meeting with greater success in the future.

In the 1960s Mayo County Council, of which I am a member, received a report which stated there were 48 travelling families in the county for whom it was responsible. Since then it has housed 82 families. Despite this progress, according to a recent report, 41 families remain on the roadside and it is projected that this number will increase to 120 by the year 2000.

It is specified in the main recommendations of the report that there is a need to provide an additional 3,100 units of accommodation by the year 2000 for members of the travelling community, including transient accommodation and halting sites in each county. I cannot see this, of itself, improving the welfare of members of the travelling community or solving the problem unless there is strict supervision of halting sites, provision for their maintenance to a high standard and their occupants educated to accept some responsibility for their upkeep and general appearance.

Members of the travelling community should also be educated to shoulder their share of the responsibility to build a better relationship with the settled community. Some form of regulation is needed to control movement between halting sites. As things stand, half the members of the travelling community could decend on a particular county, say, Kerry or Mayo, and place an intolerable and impossible burden on the local authority to provide transient accommodation or halting sites, upseting not only the settled community but those members of the travelling community occupying existing halting sites.

There is a reference in the report to the tensions between the settled and travelling communities and the need for the settled community to allow travellers "to live life in their own way as law abiding citizens side by side with their settled neighbours". These often break out in forthright opposition and downright hostility, described as the NIMBY syndrome, particularly when it comes to the provision of accommodation, especially halting sites.

This attitude is encountered every-where, north, south, east and west and in urban and rural areas. No settled community can honestly say it is free of it. The report is a fair analysis of this phenomenon, tracing its origins to the behaviour of some members of the travelling community, and calls for a greater understanding on its part. Undoubtedly, the attitude of members of the settled community is conditioned by their personal experience of contact with members of the travelling community.

All those interested in improving relationship must recognise the need for an extensive education programme for travellers who must learn to accept that there is no such thing as absolute freedom and that rights are always accompanied by corresponding responsibilities. It is only when the offending elements of the travelling community accept the need for, and begin to practise, socially and environmentally acceptable conduct as they travel from place to place that the relationship between the two communities will begin to improve. Anybody who expects otherwise is only fooling themselves.

I welcome the report in general and congratulate the Minister and all those connected with it. It points to the need for a framework of new legislation to see its recommendations through. I trust that when the Minister is drafting this legislation he will take into account some of the points I have made in this brief contribution.

I, too, welcome this comprehensive report. To some extent, it understates the problems, particularly the problem of alienation. One may get this impression because there is so much in it that it tends to dilute the overall effect. It is, however, useful and one on which the Government can work.

I strongly endorse the attempt to set out a strategy for reconciliation between the settled community and travellers. This is a key question which will have to be addressed on several fronts. The reports sets out a strategy for improving relationships and resolving conflicts.

Like Deputy McGahon, I have difficulty in picking the correct and most acceptable term. When I was younger I was told to use the word "itinerant" instead of "tinker". The term "traveller" apparently is more acceptable nowadays. Interestingly, a generation ago tinkers were held in higher esteem for their contribution, in rural communities in particular. There has been a regression since then.

It has become fashionable — perhaps this is inevitable — to attack the local authorities on the thorny issue of halting sites but they are in an invidious position. On the one hand, they are criticised by the Minister and the Department for their tardiness and, on the other, by local communities when they try to provide halting sites. They are caught in the middle and not protected by a good framework of legislation. Mistakes have been made and insufficient resources provided on numerous occasions.

I cite the experience of Clare County Council as an example. In 1984 it provided a 16 bay halting site at Drumcliffe, near Ennis. Because it is making reasonably good provision for travellers, it has been accused in the interim of attracting travellers to the county. Virtually every Deputy who has spoken in this debate has indicated that the county council of which he or she is a member had a similar experience. It appears that the number of travelling families in Meath, Louth and Mayo is two or three times greater than the number initially expected to be accommodated. It seems people are complaining that travellers are being attracted from other counties, but this is impossible.

When I visited the halting site at Drumcliffe recently five of the 16 bays were occupied. In most instances, the boundary walls were badly damaged. There were several illegal and dangerous connections to the public lighting system. Access panels had been removed from the bottom of lampposts to facilitate these connections leaving them visible and accessible to children. The fences surrounding the property had been breached and horses were grazing on adjoining property. Arising from this, local farmers complained that they were under severe duress.

The people on that halting site feel that they have been abandoned by everyone, particularly the local community. A number of local residents have taken successful cases to the courts and a recent judgement ordered a partial evacuation and clearance of the site. This will create further problems because the people on the site will be forced to seek accommodation elsewhere. The management of the county council states that it has done everything possible to address the difficulties experienced on the site. Some of its employees were attacked and a security firm had to be employed at a cost in excess of £60,000 per annum. In five years, approximately £500,000 was spent on refurbishment, repairs, compensation, legal fees, etc., in respect of that halting site. This does not represent a good use of taxpayers' money when the end result is a site with only five habitable bays.

I do not intend to apportion blame in setting out the history of this site. We must face up to past events and try to learn lessons for the future. The halting site in question began life as a state of the art facility. Undertakings were given to the local community but were not delivered on because no one was in a position to do so. The effect of this is that anyone living in County Clare who has knowledge of that halting site expects to suffer the same fate if a similar site is established in their area. It is only natural that residents of adjoining parishes such as Fountain, Kilnamore, etc., which have been mentioned as possible areas for halting sites, are worried about having the same kind of problems visited on them. They have called on the Minister for the Environment to hold an inquiry in this regard. It would be useful to examine the difficulties experienced on that site in an objective manner to ensure that the problem does not recur.

In my opinion a 16 bay site is too large and some of the difficulties arose because of this. There is a need for better on-site management which is very expensive. This is such a burden on local authorities that the Department of the Environment will be obliged to meet the entire cost over a long period. Where damage is caused — very extensive damage was done in this instance — the tenants or those responsible must be brought to book and charged. Recommendation DR 45 of the report addresses this issue to some extent, but does not go far enough. In the long-term, local authorities will have to be given powers to deduct at source, from social welfare payments, etc., costs arising from this kind of damage. This could equally apply in the case of some local authority tenants. I am informed that there may be a constitutional difficulty about this issue but it must be addressed. Everyone must ultimately obey the same rules and there is an onus on the State to ensure that they do.

The travellers' support organisations in County Clare have been severely criticised. It was claimed that they supported the provision of halting sites and subsequently failed to deliver on promised support measures. I do not accept that this is entirely correct, but there is some justification for such reports. When Clare County Council initially housed many itinerants, it had equally unfortunate experiences. At at least two sites where group housing was provided for itinerants, a huge amount of damage was done. In one instance, the housing was abandoned, refurbished and given to the members of the settled community. However, there are other sites which have worked reasonably well. In that context, it helped that the people entering group housing were better prepared. It was established in advance that the families involved were small and got on well together.

Two traveller families were recently housed in a local authority estate — and one settled successfully but the other caused a great amount of difficulty. The local authority does not have the resources or support systems to overcome the difficulties created by that family. One of the most visible halting sites in the country was situated on the roundabout at the entrance to Shannon International Airport. This did not provide a good impression for people arriving in Ireland. That site is no longer visible but is no less troublesome for being more difficult to see. Due to the experiences local residents had with a small group of the travellers living on that site, everyone in the area is opposed to accommodating them in their communities.

Any local community required to accommodate a halting site or traveller families in the future must know in advance that a workable and sustainable support system will be put in place. I do not believe that this is impossible to achieve, but it is vital that the State be seen to support communities where halting sites are situated. A high level of maintenance and input will be required on such sites for a number of years. Like Deputy Morley, I have a difficulty with the nomadic lifestyle outlined in the report. I agree with the minority report in this regard. I also have grave concerns about the suitability of caravans as long-term accommodation for families.

They are quite unsuitable. The provision of £200 million for transient sites should be the final step. There is much work to be carried out before that stage is reached. The right to travel may have to be connected to an agreement that the local authority area being visited will be notified in advance to enable it to provide some kind of accommodation. An accommodation agency is mentioned in the report. At first glance this seems superfluous, but there may be a role for it. The report does not go into this matter in great detail, however, and I did not obtain a sense that there is a need for such an agency.

The number of families — 1,000 — living on the roadside is much larger than I thought. This problem must be addressed in the near future on an ongoing basis. One of the reasons that there is such a lack of success is that local authorities are caught in no man's land between the Department and local communities. In that regard, the establishment of the interdepartmental working group, which may be able to address the problem, will be very helpful. The travelling community is also referred to in the social housing document. There is a need to increase the pace suggested in that document, because this issue must be dealt with quickly. The document also fails to address the fact that local authorities have been more or less abandoned.

The report makes 167 recommendations on education which generally are very good. From my experience in teaching, it is most beneficial that itinerant families live in one community and have their children attend the school there. This provides an element of continuity in their education. The transient lifestyle militates strongly against this. We must utilise the resourcefulness of travellers and encourage them to play an active role in their economy and the economy in general. Some travellers have achieved this with enormous success. The most disturbing element of the report is the health analysis. It is clear, from the low level of immunisation of children and women's health issues outlined in the report, that fundamental rights have been denied. I strongly support the 33 recommendations relating to health. The positive role played by many traveller women is somewhat understated. In my opinion, they perform heroics in very difficult circumstances. They are a key element to future progress in the area of traveller support and housing.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I compliment the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Taylor, for initially setting up the task force; the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Deputy McManus, the first chairperson of the task force; and Senator Mary Kelly who took over the position of chairperson from Deputy McManus and brought this report to fruition. I thank in particular the representatives of all the groups who made submissions to the task force including members of the travelling and settled communities as well as voluntary organisations who willingly gave their time and energy during the preparation of the report.

It is true that the vast majority of the settled community are appalled at the prospect of a halting site being located near their homes. The arrival of a group of travellers in an area usually provokes panic among the community and a flurry of telephone calls to the local public representative to have them removed.

One of the reasons for this attitude is the investment people make in their homes and the sacrifices they believe they have made in providing a good home for themselves and their families. That is a clear indication of the extent of the problem that must be addressed at national and local level.

This comprehensive report deals with a number of issues including the relationship between travellers and the settled community, the culture of travellers, discrimination, accommodation, health and access to health services, education and training, the traveller economy, traveller women, travellers with disabilities, the need for a co-ordination of services by the statutory bodies and the whole area of sport, recreation, culture and the arts for travellers.

This report is the most comprehensive examination of the travelling community ever carried out in the history of the State. That is extraordinary given the number of reports that have been published in that time. The settlement of travellers is a thorny issue. Most Christian people believe the traveller issue must be resolved but they do not want travellers living near them.

I have been a member of a local authority since 1983, originally Dublin County Council and, since 1994, Fingal County Council. In that period the council has endeavoured to put in place a number of plans to deal with the ever increasing problem of the settlement of travellers. On 10 April 1984 Dublin County Council approved the provision of 14 sites for the accommodation of traveller families in the county. There were 109 traveller families living in Fingal at that time and each site was designed to accommodate a maximum number of ten families.

The council was informed at that time that one of the benefits of building sites which could accommodate ten families was that a caretaker in situ would be provided. I will refer later to what I believe to be the most appropriate site for accommodating travellers.

Following the local elections, that programme was replaced in March 1986 by a new proposal to construct two sites, each to accommodate not more than five families in each electoral area. It was felt that every area should accommodate its fair share of traveller families.

Arising from a report which highlighted the increase in the number of traveller families in County Dublin, a revised programme was adopted in 1992. That decision was made following a great deal of controversy in the general areas of Blanchardstown and Mulhuddart where traveller families had located themselves on private property, roadsides, access roads to industrial estates and sites identified for a town centre. That controversy arose for the simple reason that there were no official halting sites in these areas.

Dublin County Council decided to put in place a temporary halting site in Mulhuddart to accommodate approximately 140 families. Can anyone envisage a halting site accommodating 140 families? I regarded it as a type of corral and I was totally opposed to the proposal. That case eventually ended up in the courts.

There were two sides to this problem. The traveller families had to be accommodated but the people living in these areas did not understand why they should be required to resolve the problem. I use the word "problem" because that was the term used at the time. A new programme was put in place to provide accommodation for up to two families per site. By 1992 the number of traveller families in Fingal has increased to 134.

I acknowledge that progress was made in regard to dealing with this issue. In 1995 approximately 194 traveller families lived in the Fingal area according to the official census taken on 22 November 1994. On the basis of those figures, a new plan was drawn up by the council and it was agreed to set up subcommittees in each area. This was a new approach to the problem. Instead of the council making an overall decision, each electoral area was required to provide two to three additional halting sites or group housing sites.

The report on the plan, which was presented only last week, had been approved by the council but since then there has been a great deal of opposition to it. It was decided, therefore, that if more suitable sites can be identified, the plan may be changed before July of this year.

That is an outline of the efforts made by Fingal County Council to accommodate travellers. In November 1995 there were 19 families in standard housing, ten in group housing and permanent halting sites, 103 in temporary halting sites and 68 in unauthorised halting sites, an increase of 39 per cent from 1993 to 1995. This is a further indication of the problem as traveller families move towards the greater Dublin area which can be viewed in the context of a report in a recent edition of the Evening Herald stating that in the Fingal area there were 68 families; Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown 30 families; south Dublin 71 families; and in Dublin Corporation 74 families, all on unofficial sites. This is an indication of the extent of the problem. On the basis of this report how do we propose to deal with it?

I suspect, from listening to other councillors who are sympathetic in their endeavours to resolve the problem, that they are becoming disillusioned. I doubt if any proposal for a halting site or a group housing scheme has ever been acceptable to the local communities, irrespective of the distance from the settled community. The ESRI report of July 1986 states:

The Irish travellers are caught up in a vicious circle. The more squalid and unsanitary their living conditions the more despised and outcast they become. The more unpopular they are the fewer services are provided for them by the community and they are pressurised to move off. The fewer services that are provided the worse the living conditions become.

The relevant issues are the numbers of children, their health and the health of the mother. I am pleased that under the task force plan every local authority, not just those in Dublin, has to prepare and accept a five year plan to accommodate travellers in their county area. On the basis of the recent figures Dublin local authorities are of the opinion that this is a deliberate ploy by other councils throughout the country not to meet their obligations and to pass them on to Dublin. Having listened to some of my colleagues this afternoon I realise and appreciate they have their problems too. This will be an ongoing problem and difficult to resolve.

The settlement of travellers is the most emotive issue discussed at local level throughout the length and breadth of the country. With the minimum of notice literally hundreds of people will cram various community halls to oppose any proposed site. The anger boils over on any person, politician or otherwise, who makes a case in favour of travellers. Councillors who voted for sites a fortnight ago are now saying they are totally unacceptable.

If this issue is to be successfully resolved it will require a commitment by the settled community and the travellers themselves. The travellers will also have to take on board the views of settled communities. We are all aware of the difficulties in any estate. There is no perfect estate anywhere. There are problem people and people whose children may have been involved in robberies or fights and that is accepted. There is a perception that certain groups of travellers have to adhere to the standard lifestyle. The addendum to the report states that Government policy should include consideration of alternatives to the nomadic way of life in view of:

— the disadvantage of the current lifestyle of the traveller community;

— the changing pattern of work opportunities available to the traveller community;

— the increasing conflict with the settled community which arises mainly from the consequences of the nomadic lifestyle;

— the inordinate cost to the Exchequer of catering for this way of life.

These are issues the travellers will have to address. They must have the support of the social services, the Government, the Departments and the local authorities but they will also have to acknowledge the particular problem that has to be resolved by the settled community and themselves.

Funding for the construction of halting sites is met in full by the Exchequer but there is a major problem in relation to maintenance. People looking at unofficial sites see litter, cars and so on and ask if that is what will be in their communities. To date no funding has come from central Government for maintenance purposes. The report of the task force recommends that 75 per cent of funding would come from central Government but I would like to see 90 per cent of the funding coming from the Exchequer.

The powers will need to be strengthened to prevent other travellers congregating beside official halting sites. People in official halting sites do an excellent job and try to portray a good image.

To show we are moving in the right direction, in Moyne Road, Portmarnock, a permanent halting site for ten traveller families was opened recently by Fingal County Council. It provides all the mod-cons with each bay containing a service block with the normal family requirements of a toilet, shower, electricity, heating, washing machine, sink, a patio area and a space for two caravans for each family. The local community welcomed the halting site; the parish newsletter said it looked very well and suggested people go to see it. Members of the settled community should visit the modern halting sites to see the efforts made.

I compliment the task force. Much work remains to be done but, I hope the settled community and the travelling community can benefit from this report.

This is not a good country in which to speak one's mind because one, may be accused of making inflammatory or misleading statements. It is time we became adult in our outlook rather than deliberately misleading. This is a major problem. One can have as many abstract solutions as one wishes but unless people express their views clearly and honestly there is no hope of solving this difficult problem.

There were not any problems with travellers in County Waterford until about 15 years ago. In a report on the travelling community published around 1980, County Waterford was referred to as being extraordinary in that there were no problems because there were no travellers in the county. There was one travelling family but its roots were in the settled community. Indeed, the remainder of that family is still in Waterford.

However, the problems have arisen in the past 15 years and culminated in an extraordinary statement by a county councillor a couple of months ago which was born out of frustration. It reflected a point of view held by a considerable number of people in the community, particularly in rural areas, because of the activities of a minority of travellers. It is unfortunate but it is the case.

From time to time I asked questions in the House which I felt were pertinent and attempted to help solve the problem. However, I have been criticised for asking them. I asked about the number of traveller families in the country in 1960, 1975 and now — a period of over 30 years. There were about 1,000 traveller families in 1960, about 1,700 in 1975 and more than 3,000 in 1991, the latest year for which figures were available. There has been a considerable increase which has brought with it an increase in the number of problems. There has not been an honest or adequate attempt to solve the problems created by this threefold increase over 30 years.

It is not just the number of families but the size of those families that causes problems. One could attempt to solve the problem with better educational facilities and birth control. Many people in the travelling community would not be aware of birth control devices and methods. A group of unmarried mothers appeared on the Pat Kenny radio programme last week and some of them admitted they knew little about contraception when they become pregnant. The situation could be improved with education on birth control which would be simple and laudable. I know some traveller families which have as many as 12 or 13 children.

In another 30 years time there will be another tripling of the number of families and that will create even greater problems. People should take a logical overview of the situation with a view to solving it. It will not be easily solved but we should size up the problem to see how it should be solved.

The task force report advocates the provision of more halting sites but I do not believe that is a solution. The solution is the rehousing of travellers in permanent homes. However, we cannot build huge estates for traveller families; they will have to be assimilated into settled communities. In rural areas single or double houses will have to be built for them.

In the past 15 years two disastrous halting sites were built in my constituency. There are a number of travelling families who are excellent, well behaved people. However, the transient traveller family is likely to be troublesome. I was approached recently by a traveller with a family of eight who has been living on a halting site outside Dungarvan for the past eight years. He was happy there until two years ago when the urban council increased the number of bays in the halting site from seven to 11. When the existence of extra bays became known the number of families who came to the halting site increased greatly. On some days there were as many as 20 or 25 families being accommodated in a site with space for 11 families. One can imagine the disturbance, filth and vandalism to which the overcrowding gave rise.

This man told me that after eight years at the halting site he was going back on the road. He felt he would be happier camping on the grass margins of roads rather than living in the atmosphere he had to endure at the site because of the disturbance caused by the transient families.

Halting sites should have a fixed number of bays which should be strictly controlled. Many problems derive from sites becoming grossly overcrowded and unkempt.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share