I move amendment No. 10:
In page 17, line 9, to delete "one quarter" and substitute "one third".
Other Questions. - Housing (Traveller Accommodation) Bill, 1998: Report Stage (Resumed).
Amendment No. 9 not moved.
A commitment was given to reconsider this amendment which seeks to increase the representation of travellers or their representatives on local committees. The Bill provides that the members of a local authority cannot exceed half of the membership of the committee and that the representatives of local travellers and traveller bodies should not be less than one quarter of the membership. This leaves a maximum of one quarter for local authority officials.
This committee composition is designed to achieve a fair working balance between the groups represented. The large representation of members is in view of the need to allow representation of different electoral divisions and urban districts within the functional area of the appointed authority. It should be noted, however, that as traveller representation should not be less than one quarter, there is scope for higher representation by travellers or traveller bodies. The existing provision is designed to allow maximum flexibility to authorities, particularly where travellers are not willing to participate in such a committee or where there are fewer travellers in the functional area of the authority.
May I take it, therefore, the Minister will not accept the amendment?
I will not accept the amendment.
Mr. Hayes
The Minister's response is disappointing. This proposal stemmed from a submission from the Irish Traveller Movement which represents most of the traveller bodies. It believes that to achieve a proper balance on the committee at local level, traveller representation should be increased from one quarter to one third. Notwithstanding the arguments I made earlier about the extended composition of resident and community organisations on local committees, I encourage the Minister of State to reconsider this proposal. It is not good practice on Report Stage to refuse to accept amendments discussed on Committee Stage which strengthen the legislation. This is not a major change. Many of the groups who made submissions to us requested it. I urge the Minister of State to reconsider the matter.
(Dublin West): I urge the Minister of State to accept this amendment. For decades travelling people were ignored and were not consulted on their accommodation needs. Society as a whole, as well as the travelling people, paid a price for that. So-called solutions were foisted on the travelling people, which were neither suitable nor acceptable from many points of view. Therefore, strengthening the travelling people's position on consultative committees such as this is absolutely essential and will reap good rewards. The more representatives of the travelling community who are involved in drawing up their accommodation needs, designs and sites — and in overcoming the problems that unfortunately arise between them and settled people in some instances — the more it will be a real factor in overcoming those problems. With that in mind I support the amendment.
I apologise for having been delayed in returning to the House. I was attending another meeting. The composition of the local committees is a very important issue. On Committee Stage we had a debate on the relative strengths of the different component parts. It is quite clear that those people outlined in section 22(1)(c) as "representatives of local travellers and traveller bodies" should have a significant voice.
Since the Minister of State has not accepted the previous amendment from Deputy Hayes on a specific voice for resident groups, the three component groups will be local authorities, travellers' representatives and officials. It is important that the travellers or their representatives should not be intimidated by being in too much of a minority. One third of the overall membership is a much more acceptable proportion than one quarter. In terms of voice and representation it is a little bit more acceptable to be outnumbered two to one than three to one. I hope the Minister of State has had a chance to reflect upon that reasonable request from the traveller movement. I hope the Minister of State will accept the amendment in the spirit that I know he wishes to bring to the Bill.
To take up Deputy Howlin's point, it would be a pity if we were to see this as a two to one representation because that is not the purpose of the local consultative committee. Everybody, including public representatives, officials and travellers' representatives, is there to deal with this problem which, we all agree, has gone on for far too long.
Section 22 states that the number of "representatives of local travellers and traveller bodies. .. shall not be less than one quarter of the membership of the local consultative committee". There is no reason it cannot be higher.
We know it will not be, though.
That would be at the discretion of the local authority. It is important for a clear message to go out that this is not about a two to one representation. I hope all the representatives, whether they are public representatives, officials or travellers' representatives, will be there to try and deal with a problem that has gone on for too long. We are trying to deal with it now and I hope we can do so effectively.
I am sorry the Minister of State has not changed his view since Committee Stage. While he made a valid point in saying this matter should not be seen as "them and us", we are providing for representation. Section 22(1)(c) refers to "representatives of local travellers and traveller bodies". It is intended that they should be representative. I suggest that representative group should comprise at least one third of the overall, which is not an outlandish request.
On Committee Stage I asked if we were dealing with a group on women's rights, would it be necessary even to put an amendment that one third of the membership be women or their representatives? Would it be the case for any disadvantaged group? If we were talking about a group providing accommodation needs for people with a physical disability, would their representatives not have a significant proportion of the overall membership? It would not even be an issue, so why is it an issue in relation to the representatives of travellers?
I appeal to the Minister of State to think again about this matter and to accept the amendment in the spirit in which it is moved; to bring a balance to the consultative committees at local level so that, while we have a balance in terms of representation, the voices of those most directly affected by the legislation — the travellers — will be heard with significant force. That can only be done by having sufficient numbers.
It is not good enough to say there is a possibility the representation will be higher than the minimum allowed for. In reality we know that what is allowed for will become the norm. I hope I am not wasting my efforts on this matter and that the Minister of State is still open to accepting the arguments I am trying to put forward.
There is adequate provision in the section for dealing with this matter. There is flexibility in relation to an official representation at local level, if it is so desired.
Is the amendment being pressed?
Yes.
Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 11 arises from Committee proceedings. Amendments Nos. 11 to 14, inclusive, may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 19, lines 10 and 11, after "persons" to insert "for any period not exceeding 2 years".
All the amendments we are taking together were discussed on Committee Stage. They are all essential towards ensuring that the Bill — and the intentions of both the Oireachtas and the Minister of State — works to best effect.
The amendment seeks to insert the words "for any period not exceeding 2 years" in relation to the length of time families are housed on sites with limited facilities. As I said on Committee Stage, it has been reported to me — and the Minister with responsibility for housing has not denied this report — that families have been housed on such sites for up to 18 years. By definition, these sites are intended to be of a temporary nature. It is reasonable to expect that a period not exceeding two years should be inserted into the section. Otherwise, people will have to endure inadequate and insufficient facilities for the greater part of their children's developing years.
On Committee Stage, the Minister of State mentioned a period of five years as being the normal time frame of individual plans. I indicated that I would welcome his amendment if he wished to put a very high threshold of five years on the legal period of time that travellers could be accommodated on these inadequate sites. In the list of amendments I see the Minister of State has not put forward his own amendment to follow through on the suggestion made on Committee Stage. I can only assume he is fixed on the idea that people can be condemned forever to these sites. That is not the spirit of the Bill or the intention of the Oireachtas or the Minister. The Minister is loath to put in primary statute a legal requirement that people are not accommodated in inadequate facilities such as those for which we are making provision. They are meant to be of a temporary nature.
Amendment No. 12 seeks to put an upper limit on the number of families that can be accommodated on a single site. I suggest 20 should be the upper limit. We had a long discussion on Committee Stage about situations where scores of families were accommodated on an individual site. The Minister has accepted that is not good policy. He indicated on Committee Stage that 20 would be a large number of families to accommodate on a single site. Yet it looks as if we will not legislate to forbid sites accommodating more than 20 families. This has been suggested by the Irish Traveller Movement whose members are experts in this area and who are fully aware of the tensions that can be created if a large number of families are accommodated on an inadequate site. I reiterate my concern about this matter. I do not see why we cannot legislate for it, particularly when all parties agreed to it on Committee Stage. It is wrong to think this matter can be catered for in the guidelines the Minister proposes to issue for which housing authorities may have regard but which may not have the force of law. That is an inadequate way of dealing with the intentions of the Oireachtas in this matter.
Amendment No. 14 seeks to broaden the definition of limited facilities beyond the extremely basic definition in the Bill. Section 28 states:
"(7) In this section—
‘sites with limited facilities' means which, having regard to the temporary nature of such sites or the short duration [18 years] of periods of use, have sufficient water, facilities for solid and liquid waste disposal and hard surface parking area for caravans.".
I suggest that these three requirements be extended to include "and such other facilities as are reasonably required". These three requirements are too basic even in a definition of basic facilities.
I am concerned that we will make the mistakes of the past if we do not put in primary statute, not in guidelines which may or may not be followed, our intention that families who use sites with limited facilities will not be there for long periods of time. I have suggested two years as the upper limit. I am open to the Minister's suggestions for an alternative period if he thinks it should be slightly longer. I have suggested that no more than 20 families should be accommodated on any single site and that we broaden the definition of limited facilities to include things which are basic and essential for good human living.
(Dublin West): Amendment No. 13 outlines the extra facilities which should be provided on the sites referred to in section 29. Section 29 deals with the provision of temporary halting sites for travelling people who are awaiting transfer to a permanent location. It also deals with transient sites, which are set up for groups of travelling people who may be passing through or in an area for a particular period. Transient sites have not been developed by local authorities. If transient sites were developed, properly managed and well looked after, it would help to resolve many of the problems facing the travelling and settled communities in certain areas.
The problem with temporary sites where the travelling people are waiting to be permanently accommodated is that they remain the same for years and years. It is not adequate that families and individuals are obliged to live in these temporary sites and that the only facilities provided are cold water and sewage and waste disposal. It is shameful and shocking that some temporary sites in this city are shanty towns because of the lack of facilities. That situation must be urgently addressed.
We must insist on a higher level of facilities. The only extra facilities I want are electricity and public telephones. No one could argue against the fact that electricity is a basic necessity. It is not a major task to supply the bays in the sites with electricity. Meters could be found which would suit the location and circumstances. "Pay in advance" meters are used by the ESB and these would be suitable in such cases. Travelling people need generators. However, they are not satisfactory in places where families live together because they are noisy, dirty and dangerous, particularly if there are children in the area. Electricity terminals must be properly installed. The Government should indicate this to the local authorities through this Bill.
Public telephones are also a necessity. Many of these sites are not immediately adjacent to places from where people can telephone. It is essential that people have access to a telephone, particularly in emergencies or if old people or children suddenly become ill. It is a condemnation of this society that many children in these sites get more diseases than children in the settled community. The type and location of the telephone can be discussed with the people on the site. It will depend on whether there is a caretaker and on the arrangements at the site. Many of these sites are far away from places where such facilities are available. The minimum the Government should do is indicate there is some basic level of so-called civilisation to which travelling people are entitled and should have as a right. I hope the Minister of State will accept this group of amendments.
As explained on Committee Stage, the difficulty with these amendments arises from sound legislative practice developed over years of experience with inserting too much administrative detail in primary legislation. I assure the Deputies there is no difficulty with the practice or the intention behind the amendments.
However, there will always be the extenuating or exceptional case which a local authority could legally be prevented from dealing with if the primary legislation is too rigid or detailed.
The inclusion of the definition of "sites with limited facilities" is an enabling provision to allow the Minister to issue guidelines on the level of services and facilities to be provided on such sites. Guidelines for these sites are already being drafted in consultation with the National Traveller Accommodation Consultative Group on which travellers are represented. The proposed guidelines will detail a range of services appropriate to different situations ranging from basic services at roadside encampments, services where families have to move to a temporary site where the existing accommodation is being redeveloped and services and facilities at sites where longer stays, pending the provision of permanent accommodation, are envisaged. It is proposed these guidelines will contain a range of matters of detail not appropriate for inclusion in primary legislation including appropriate references to the need to avoid stays by individual families for any longer than four or five years; the number of bays to be allowed on sites and the level of services to be provided on such sites. Guidelines in relation to transient halting sites, which come within the definition of sites with limited facilities, will also be prepared in consultation with the National Traveller Accommodation Consultative Group.
Regarding amendment No. 13, I expect the level of services to be provided at transient sites or longer term temporary sites would at least be of the level proposed in the amendment. However "sites with limited facilities" also covers a situation where temporary facilities have to be provided during the redevelopment of a site or the construction of a new site. It may not always be feasible to safely supply electricity in such circumstances. Such a supply may not be necessary as travellers generally have their own electricity generators when they are travelling. Also, it may not be feasible to provide a public phone in these circumstances. Again in many cases it may not be necessary because of the availability of mobile phones. There have also been problems with maintaining public phones on sites for caravans and, in some cases, this service has had to be withdrawn because of recurring vandalism. In addition, I am not aware of any other statutory requirement on a local authority to provide a public telephone as part of its accommodation.
There is a drafting defect in Deputy Higgins's amendment as refuse collection is already covered by solid waste disposal. In view of the above it would not be appropriate to accept this amendment.
I am not surprised, but I am disappointed the Minister of State has not changed tack since Committee Stage. My strong personal view, which I indicated, is that a good deal of important work is taken from primary statute law and put into regulations and guidelines, subject to the drafting skills of civil servants but not amenable to discussion in this House in the normal course of events. It is our duty to set the law. That is what we are elected to do. If we believe people should not be accommodated on such sites with limited basic facilities for years on end, then we should state in the law that this is our intention. The guidelines are all well and good and, as section 29(6) states, the Minister may issue guidelines and the housing authority shall have regard to such guidelines, but in terms of real effect unless we put a binding legislative provision in place in that regard, they are legislatively meaningless. The points made by Deputy Higgins and me are important and basic and I will press my amendments.
(Dublin West): The Minister of State said there should not be a detailed outlining of the facilities to be provided, but that is contradicted by section 29(7) which details a number of facilities, including sufficient water, facilities for disposal of waste and hard surface parking. Why is it all right to detail those and not the few other basic necessities I outlined in my amendment? We could not have much more basic needs than the need to have access to electricity and a public telephone. It would not be acceptable in any other development that they would not be included as part of the infrastructure. It is essential that those basic facilities are provided in apartments, flats and any type of shopping area but particularly in areas where people live. Why make an exception when it comes to travelling people?
I note what the Minister said about generators. As I outlined, generators, especially at night and in the winter are not a satisfactory answer where there are reasonably large groups of people, whether ten, 12 or 15 families living in several caravans. Generators are unsatisfactory and noisy. An electrical supply to terminals that can be accessed by the families is the most basic necessity. I will be disappointed if the Minister insists on rejecting this amendment calling for such facilities.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 19, line 42, after "sites" where it secondly occurs, to insert "accommodating not more than 20 families".
Amendment put and declared lost.
(Dublin West): I move amendment No. 13:
In page 19, lines 44 to 47, to delete all words from and including "have" in line 44, down to and including "caravans" in line 47 and substitute "shall have sufficient water, electricity, refuse collection, public telephone, facilities for solid and liquid waste disposal, and hard surface parking for caravans for each family unit".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 19, line 47, after "caravans" to insert "and such other facilities as are reasonably required".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 21, between lines 42 and 43, to insert the following:
"(d) where, in the opinion of the Minister, a housing authority has fulfilled its obligations under section 16 of this Act and there are no vacancies in any site in its functional area nothing in this subsection shall prejudice the absolute power of that housing authority to serve notice on a person to remove the said temporary dwelling.'.".
Of the several amendments fairly comprehensively rejected on Committee Stage by the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, I chose to resubmit only this one on Report Stage. I did so because it is fundamental to the success of this Bill if it is to achieve its aim to take travellers off the roadside. This amendment fundamentally seeks to change the Bill because, as it stands, it is open-ended. It places a limitless responsibility on local authorities to provide for all travellers so that no matter how many sites any local authority has provided, it still has responsibility to provide accommodation for any and all travellers who may turn up unannounced even though they may already have been allocated a site elsewhere. To most rational people, it would appear that an obligation on local authorities to provide a halting site must be matched by a similar obligation on the part of travellers to use the halting sites which have been provided and at least not to vacate a site without first ensuring that there is a site available before they travel.
Unless the Minister introduces this requirement, we will continue to see the spectacle of illegal roadside encampments, children uprooted from school and the continued confrontation between the settled community, the travellers and the local authorities and this badly needed Bill will have failed in what it sets out to do. If the Bill is passed in its present form, it will inhibit progress in the provision of accommodation because not only is there no incentive for local authorities to proceed with their accommodation programmes but there is a disincentive. The local authorities see, even when they have provided for their indigenous travellers, that they have limitless responsibility to continue to provide accommodation as long as travellers can move at will around the country. It will also increase public resistance to the halting site programme.
I am sure all Deputies, including the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, and the Minister of State, Deputy Dan Wallace, are aware that there is great resistance to halting sites. Indeed, this Bill would not be necessary if there was no resistance. Only if we can guarantee an end to illegal halting sites will we have any hope of convincing the public to accept permanent sites.
I said yesterday that even the most reasonable people, those who are most receptive to the concept of providing halting sites, are gobsmacked when they hear that not only have they to provide permanent accommodation but also a choice of holiday accommodation throughout the country. I have heard it said again and again by members of the public that this is political correctness gone mad. It is wrong to enshrine this right in legislation and it is wrong to mislead travellers into believing that such a provision can or should be made. It is not good enough to throw our hands in the air, as did the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, and say travellers will travel. Of course they will travel and they are entitled to travel, but they are not entitled to wander.
Even if it were a reasonable provision, it is not a realistic one. It is simply impractical to ask a local authority to have largescale facilities ready and vacant on the off chance that any number of travellers may turn up unannounced even though, and not withstanding the fact that, they already have permanent accommodation elsewhere and despite the fact that the local authority in which they are located has already provided a comprehensive network of halting sites for travellers.
It is also unrealistic and impractical, particularly in the Dublin urban areas where there is already a shortage of land, where there is already a drift of travellers to those areas and where there is huge resistance to the provision of halting sites, to expect local authorities to provide the required network of halting sites.
It is not unreasonable to ask travellers to pre-book a site. It is a small curb on their behaviour but all of us, if we must live cheek by jowl with one another, must accept some curbs on our behaviour so that we can live in harmony with others. It is reasonable to ask them to pre-book a site before they leave the permanent site which they have been allocated.
I have little expectation of this amendment being accepted, given the response of the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, to it yesterday, but I ask the Minister of State, Deputy Dan Wallace, to listen to the import of this amendment and make provision, if not in legislation at least by way of later regulation, to set up a national co-ordination body which can facilitate the booking of sites before a traveller leaves an existing one.
As was explained on Committee Stage, amendment No. 15 is meaningless as it does not link in with any of the existing provisions in relation to follow-up action by the housing authority.
Apart from this technicality, I have an objection in principle to the purpose behind it. The Deputy appears to be suggesting that there should be some kind of quota system under which housing authorities would be obliged to accommodate their share of travellers and, once accommodated, there should be no further obligation on any authority to accommodate any additional traveller families. This could not be accepted by any Administration.
There are implications here for the right to free movement. It is also proposed to impose restrictions on a section of the community but not on all. If travellers wish to change their place of residence, that is their right. However, in doing so they must accept the consequences of loss of any priority on waiting lists which had been built up with previous authorities or no provision being made in the five year programme of the current authority in which these are situated. However, the choice to move must remain for whatever reason the traveller deems it justifiable to do so.
There are also difficulties from a resource point of view. The effect of the proposed amendment, if properly drafted, would mean that the Minister would have to investigate in the case of each unauthorised encampment whether the housing authority has implemented its accommodation. This could take a considerable amount of time and render redundant the question of serving a notice by a housing authority. It is envisaged that the need for accommodation programmes will be ongoing based on the most recent assessment of needs, which have been carried out periodically.
The amendment would also involve the Minister in local issues in an unnecessary and bureaucratic way contrary to Government policy of devolving greater powers to local authorities.
Therefore, unfortunately I cannot accept the amendment.
I do not believe it is true that what I am suggesting in this amendment is asking more of or placing greater restrictions on travellers than on the settled community. The settled community do not travel without making some provision for when they arrive. That is all I am asking; I am not saying that there should be a limit on local authorities' responsibility. What I am saying is that if travellers have a site, they should ensure there is a site for them to move to before they move. It is possible to produce a swapping system if there is national co-ordination.
At present, co-ordination is not possible and it will not happen under the Bill when enacted unless the Minister introduces changes. At present, travellers have realised that it is wiser not to apply for accommodation to a local authority because they feel they have a right to wander. They will go on doing that as long as they are given to believe that it is their right. They will never be off the roadside and there will never be a programme of accommodation throughout the country. I ask the Minister to take that on board.
I support Deputy Mitchell. The travelling people are the black community of this country and they are deprived from birth. I welcome the initiatives which are being taken to help make their lives easier. Their lives are not easy but they themselves do not make them any easier. Side by side with helping them, they should be made aware of their responsibilities. They are their own worst enemies.
I come from Dundalk, a town which has been to the forefront in providing halting sites and integrating the travellers into the settled community. It is one of the leading examples here. Many local authorities have not done their best or held back on that commitment because of the antipathy of the settled community towards the itinerant people. I welcome every effort to make their lot an easier one. However, side by side with the desire to help should be an obligation on the travelling folk to accept responsibility for their actions.
No group should be allowed to park willy-nilly on the public highway and defy everybody. That is one of the reasons the settled community is so antagonistic towards them. On the Dundalk inner by-pass, the national primary route between Dublin and Dundalk which has the heaviest traffic in the country, these itinerant people regularly park their fancy Volvos and wagons causing a hazard to traffic using the road. In doing so, they are aware of how long it takes to get the council to take them to court. A mechanism should be introduced in this House to enable local councils to tow them away immediately where they are a traffic hazard. This would go some way towards offsetting public antagonism to itinerant folk.
As it is now 5 p.m. I am required to put the following question in accordance with an Order of the Dáil of this day: "That Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed".
Question put and agreed to.