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.