Joint Committee on Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht debate -
Tuesday, 14 May 2013

Traveller Accommodation: Discussion

Chairman

I advise members to turn off their mobile phones, as, if they are left on, they will interfere with the sound system and RTE will not be able to pick up the proceedings.

Today we will discuss the housing of members of the Traveller community by local authorities. I welcome Ms Lorraine McMahon, co-ordinator, Ballyfermot Traveller Action Project; Ms Catherine Joyce, co-ordinator, and Ms Maria Joyce, Blanchardstown Traveller Development Group; Mr. Martin Riordan, county manager and Ms Karina Cremin, senior executive officer, Cork County Council; Mr. Dick Brady, assistant city manager, Ms Celine Reilly, executive manager, and Mr. Kieran Cunningham, senior executive officer, Dublin City Council; Mr. David O'Connor, county manager, and Ms Ann Marie Farrelly, director of services, housing and community department, and Mr. Philip Long, senior executive officer, housing and community department, Fingal County Council; Ms Brigid Quilligan and Ms Brigid Casey, national accommodation officer, Irish Traveller Movement, Mr. Martin Collins, co-director, Pavee Point Traveller and Roma Centre; Ms Anne Burke, community worker, Traveller Visibility Group, Cork. I thank all the delegates for their attendance.

By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the joint committee. However, if they are directed by it to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and asked to respect the parliamentary practice that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against a person, persons or an entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. The opening statement and any other document submitted to the committee may be published on the committee's website after the hearing. Members are reminded of the long-standing ruling of the Chair to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

There are eight groups of delegates. That is a large number and I do not want to get bogged down in opening statements. All of the opening statements submitted have been circulated to members. Therefore, I ask everyone to confine his or her opening remarks to five minutes. That is not a target but a limit. If delegates can make their statements in a shorter time, so much the better. I do not want to stifle debate but to give delegates a chance to speak and particularly time for interaction with members of the committee. It is vital to have ample time for that part of the proceedings. There is, therefore, no need to read in full the opening statements. If delegates want to make a few points without reading their statements, even better.

I propose that we hear the delegates in the following order: Pavee Point Traveller and Roma Centre; Cork County Council; Ballyfermot Traveller Action Project; Blanchardstown Traveller Development Group; Dublin City Council; the Irish Traveller Movement; Traveller Visibility Group, Cork, and Fingal County Council.

Before we commence the discussion, I want to thank Deputy Ellis for raising this issue at the committee. He is substituting for Deputy Stanley. I know Deputy Ellis has a particular interest in this issue, as have all public representatives, but he has been to the fore on this issue and it is because of his contribution that we are all here this afternoon.

The availability and access of domestic accommodation for any individual is a fundamental right. The committee was concerned when it was brought to its attention that there were some issues in regard to moneys that were not drawn down. There may be very good reasons for that. The purpose of this meeting is to share and exchange information around that and to try to come up with solutions and hopefully pass them on to the Minister on how we can address that anomaly.

Money is scarce in the current economic climate but people's housing needs will always be of paramount importance. It is a basic requirement that we as human beings have and we need to be conscious of that as we debate this issue. There may be some problems, administrative or otherwise, in this respect and if that is the case, we can elicit that information and establish a response around that. I am particularly interested to hear what the groups dealing with this issue at the coalface have to say about that. I call Mr. Collins from Pavee Point Traveller and Roma Centre.

Mr. Martin Collins

I thank the Chairperson, Deputies and Senators. On behalf of the delegation, I welcome the opportunity to address the committee on this important issue, namely, the Traveller accommodation crisis. The budget allocated for Traveller accommodation has been greatly reduced but the fact that it has not been fully spent is even more shameful, and my colleagues will say more about that.

I acknowledge and thank Deputy Ellis and the Sinn Féin Party for putting this important issue on the agenda and for shedding some light on it. It is important to put this issue in its broader context. The committee may be aware that Pavee Point recently launched a report, Travelling with Austerity, copies of which I have given to the members and I have more copies if other people want to look through it. This report captures the extent and nature of the cutbacks on Traveller projects and services since the recession began in 2008. Essentially, it exposes the lie that the cuts have been even, balanced and fair across the board, rather they have been disproportionate and draconian. For example, funding for the Traveller inter-agency groups at local authority level has been abolished. Funding for Traveller education supports have been reduced to the tune of 86% and funding for Traveller accommodation has been reduced to the tune of 85%, and my colleagues will say more about that. The budget for the equality infrastructure has been reduced by 76% and national Traveller organisations have suffered cuts to the tune of 63%. Funding for the FÁS special initiative, which was designed to support Traveller employment, has been reduced by 50%. The evidence is set out in the report and it shows that these cuts to Traveller projects and services are anything but fair. The implications of these cuts is that they will only serve to marginalise another generation of Travellers. That will be the essence of their impact. It is even more shameful when we find that the budget for Traveller accommodation, which has been drastically reduced, has not been fully spent, on which members will hear more details shortly.

I wish to deal with two key points. The Government is pursuing a policy, set out in its programme entitled Putting People First, of local government reform. One of the proposals in that programme is to have local development and community development subsumed into the local authority structure. Pavee Point and the other Traveller organisations are extremely concerned about this because it will take away the independence and the critical voice, namely of the Traveller community development projects, which have done innovative work during the past 30 years in dealing with issues of domestic violence, drug addiction, feuding, advocating for Travellers' rights and negotiating with the local authorities. That 30 years of experience, expertise and knowledge that has been built up could be wiped out in one fell swoop, particularly when local authorities have failed to address the concerns and needs of Travellers, about which members will hear more shortly. We ask the Government and this committee to reflect and reconsider the proposal set out in Putting People First whereby local authorities would be given responsibility for Traveller community development projects. We are very concerned about that.

We call for the establishment of a national Traveller agency. It is clear that both the local and national institutions of this land have failed to implement a policy that would give rise to favourable outcomes for Travellers. In that context, what is needed is a separate independent national agency that would be mandated and would have the proper resources and legislative backup to implement Traveller policy across the board, not only in the area of accommodation but in respect of education, health, employment and equality. I ask the committee to give that proposal serious consideration. The evidence during the past 25 years tells us that the infrastructure in place in terms of institutions of this State has failed to address the needs of Travellers in any cogent coherent way.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Collins for that. I call the representative from Cork County Council.

Mr. Martin Riordan

I will be brief in my contribution. I circulated an opening statement, to which there are two parts, that I would like to emphasise. The council welcomes the opportunity to respond to correspondence we received from the committee which indicated that there were concerns regarding the drawdown of funds in the period 2007 to 2013 and I might deal with that first. It is important to understand how capital allocations are provided by the Department and how they are drawn down. In the submission we provided to the committee we indicated some detailed figures to explain the drawdowns, how they are arrived at and how the spend in a particular year reflects the activity in that year.

Performance in addressing the accommodation needs of Travellers is not best measured based on the drawdown of funds but in the effectiveness of the response to the needs on the ground. To measure drawdowns against allocations is to miss the measure of progress. There is a need to respond in a flexible and sensitive way to the developing needs and preferences of members of the Travelling community and that is expressed and managed at a local level through Traveller accommodation plans. It is though those five-year plans that we can best draw conclusions as to whether we are making progress.

In regard to drawdowns against allocations, I emphasise that capital allocations are provided on a yearly basis and may be rolled over because a project did not proceed at a pace or it was no longer needed or the circumstances on the ground had changed. For the period 2007 to 2013, in the case of Cork Council the total figure is €5.8 million, which is a total of allocations rather than the total of what is available to spend. We outlined in the submission that €3.4 million of that figure, which is the vast majority of it, would have been in respect of a previous accommodation plan for 2007 to 2008 and, of that figure of €3.4 million, €2.2 million reflects a rollover of an allocation for a particular project. There has been a rollover in respect of two allocations and the moneys would not have been spent on two occasions. It is important that the members of the committee understand that an allocation cannot simply be added up over five years; if a project does not take place in year one and the allocation is rolled over in year two, it does not mean resources are available in the second year.

We outlined in a particular case that an allocation or application for €2.2 million was sought. The council's housing directorate working with the Travelling community involved in that case found a solution which resulted in standard housing solving the issue and a specific house purchase. In that case what was initially a project with an allocation against it was resolved over time in consultation with the Travelling community resulting in the allocation of a standard house, which was funded from a different source, and a specific house purchase.

Another case example is outlined in the submission which shows that an allocation of €1.4 million was sought over three years and after protracted negotiations with the families concerned, their needs were met through standard housing and a specific house purchase. The total spend in that case was €355,000 odd. The allocation of the actual spend is not representative of whether a solution was found at a cost against the allocation.

In those two cases we are seeking to outline, rather than be judged based on the allocation of the drawdown, whether the assessment on the ground was effective in responding to those particular needs. I hope that, in summary form, outlines the council's position in respect of allocations and spend. I may come back to that issue if the Chairman so requests.

Legislation requires us to plan for and forecast the needs of the Traveller community in consultation with the Traveller community over a five-year period. At the beginning of the current Traveller accommodation plan for 2009 to 2013 we would have forecast a need for 122 families. However, that changed over time. One makes a forecast at a particular point in time but the need changed during the course of the five years. A current assessment of the identified need shows 69 families are in need of accommodation, 64 of whom have stated their preference for standard social housing or a single house purchase. Through the local Traveller accommodation committees we are responding to the need expressed on the ground. Considering that the highest percentage of need is for standard social housing and in view of the fact that the standard social housing allocation to the council has been reduced from €40 million to €2 million to €2.5 million it will be a challenge to match the stated needs of Traveller families for standard housing as against the allocations we expect to receive in the coming years. Anything the Oireachtas or the Department can do to increase the allocation for standard housing would assist in meeting that need.

During the period 2009 to 2013 Cork County Council met the needs of 45 Traveller families through the allocation of 30 standard social houses and four single house purchases. The Traveller accommodation plan which is adopted locally would indicate that we are meeting those needs as expressed by the applicants themselves. It is important to draw the committee's attention to the fact that while there are capital allocations which indicate an apparent underspend, the actual spend, and the revenue budget for the same years for the management and maintenance of Traveller accommodation, is €3 million, approximately €400,000 to €500,000 per annum.

Currently we are progressing our assessment of housing need for 2013 which should provide another picture of the position regarding all our housing applicants, including the specific accommodation needs of Traveller communities. Later this year, in accordance with the law, Cork County Council will adopt, in consultation with the Traveller community, a Traveller accommodation plan for the next five years. The basis on which the council or any local authority should be judged, I submit, is its performance against the accommodation plan adopted locally in consultation with the Traveller community. I hope the submission we have made to the committee outlines the council's performance in this area.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Riordan.

Ms Lorraine McMahon

I am the co-ordinator of Ballyfermot Traveller action project and will make a presentation on behalf of the Traveller representatives on Dublin City Council Local Traveller Consultative Committee. Dublin City Council's assessment of need to inform the current Traveller Accommodation Programme 2009-2013 identified that there were 345 families resident in Traveller specific accommodation or on unofficial sites in the city council's area. Some 74 of those families expressed a wish for standard housing while the remainder of 271 families indicated a preference for Traveller specific housing, that is, group housing schemes or halting sites and bays, highlighting the high demand that continues within Dublin City Council for Traveller specific accommodation. In addition, there are 161 young adults over the age of 18 years within the 345 families. The plan estimated that an additional 52 units of accommodation would be required. In developing the plan it was agreed to increase the accommodation stock for Traveller families within Dublin city to 397 units of accommodation. At that time 266 units were available and, therefore, the deficit was 131 units of accommodation to be delivered through the current Traveller accommodation programme. The key targets in the programme to meet the identified need were a commitment to build 118 units across the city, to provide the other 13 accommodation units through casual vacancies, transfer to standard housing or single house purchases and a commitment for a significant number of refurbishments and upgrades in various sites.

Progress has been made by Dublin City Council on the current Traveller accommodation programme, particularly in the area of refurbishments and upgrades, including housing extensions, installation of windows and doors and upgrades to day units. Emergency facilities such as water and sanitation have been provided for some families. That was not a target in the Traveller accommodation programme but was provided mainly due to a lack of progress on the new builds. While progress was made, we have grave concerns particularly in regard to the lack of progress on new builds. While there was a commitment for a new build programme of 118 units, none of those units was built. This meant that Traveller families were, in effect, left homeless, resulting in significant overcrowding at various sites, and health and environmental issues. There continued to be a lack of basic facilities, such as water, sanitation and electricity, for many families thus forcing them to move into standard housing and private rented accommodation. We contend that being forced into standard housing and private rented accommodation contributes to the erosion of Traveller culture. Travellers do not choose to live in sites in these deplorable conditions which have a detrimental effect on their health. They choose Traveller specific accommodation as their right under the Housing (Traveller Accommodation) Act 1998.

From the perspective of Traveller organisations on the local Traveller accommodation consultative committee, we identify three key areas as contributing to the barriers to progress. We contend that a significant non-drawdown of funding or underspend of more than €12 million within Dublin City Council from 2007 to 2012 had an impact on the lack of progress in the delivery of new accommodation. We acknowledge that another barrier to progress was site management issues at various times. There have been some serious issues of anti-social behaviour in the past at various sites but that has not been pervasive across all sites during the life of the Traveller accommodation programme. However, the actions of a minority, which impacted on the majority of the communities, have had detrimental impacts on the community and blocked progress because the whole community has been penalised. The lack of linkages within the local authority between the local Traveller accommodation consultative committee, the housing strategic policy committee and other relevant structures has an impact on the lack of progress because if there is not a transparent system for monitoring accountability, how is progress managed and monitored?

To focus on one area, Labré Park in Ballyfermot was the first Traveller specific housing scheme built by Dublin Corporation, now Dublin City Council, and opened in 1967. Some of the families who moved into Labré Park in 1967 are still there. In some families there are four generations. A redevelopment project which has been promised for Labré Park completed all the planning procedures in 2006. A commitment in principle was given by the Department to progress pending a response to queries in 2008. We accept the plan did not progress due to serious anti-social behaviour during the period 2008 and 2009.

However, during this period Ballyfermot Traveller Action Project and other members of the Traveller inter-agency committee repeatedly called on Dublin City Council to convene a meeting to look at the escalating problem within Labré Park. However, our calls for a meeting were not heard until we went to see the city manager at the time, Mr. John Tierney, in the summer of 2009. He intervened and called a meeting of all the stakeholders and the situation in Labré Park began to turn around by the end of 2009. While there are issues on the site, as is the case on any estate across the city, these are all manageable and do not block progress to a redevelopment plan.

Today in Labré Park there are 39 families, some of whom have been living there since 1967. They comprise 95 adults and 66 children and young people under 18 years. Nineteen families live in houses, but 20 live in trailers while awaiting permanent accommodation. Some have been waiting for more than a decade. Three families have been waiting 15, 16 and 17 years, respectively. Some 43 adults and 53 children are living in trailers, of whom eight families, including 20 children of preschool and schoolgoing age, still have no access to basic services such as water, sanitation and electricity.

Under the current programme, there is a commitment to provide 22 units of accommodation at Labré Park. For the past two years we have been consistently led to believe no funding is available to advance this plan, but we now know that has not been the case. We hope to have our questions answered as to the reason it has not been the case for part of the time. The situation of families living without a water supply or sanitation cannot be allowed to continue. The non-provision of promised projects and accommodation must not be repeated. Travellers must be afforded their basic human right to access water and sanitation. They should be afforded their right to culturally appropriate accommodation, as per the Housing (Traveller Accommodation) Act 1998.

Ms Catherine Joyce

I thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to speak at this meeting. I will focus on the role of the local accommodation consultative committees and their lack of willingness or ability to deliver accommodation programmes.

I emphasise that we are in the third round of a five year programme for local accommodation plans. The national statistics show that as many Travellers are living on the side of the road or in need of accommodation as there were when the plans were initiated. We must question why the money is being returned when there is still such a need for accommodation, Traveller-specific accommodation in particular.

From our experience in Blanchardstown, the local accommodation consultative committees are not productive; they are not meeting needs and are certainly not addressing the issue of Traveller accommodation. We ask for an independent review of the committees to examine their ineffectiveness in dealing with Traveller needs. I concur with Mr. Collins in asking for an independent agency to represent the accommodation issues for Travellers because the local authorities are not able to do so. The failure to spend the money allocated for Traveller accommodation is evidence that the accommodation has not been and will not be provided.

I work in the Fingal County Council area. We have made significant improvements in the delivery of new accommodation units. However, these new units are part of the previous plan rather than the current programme. For example, recent sites have been provided in Barn Lodge and Stockhole under the former five year programme. I ask where are the new builds under the current programme and where is the willingness to provide accommodation for the families in need.

Unfortunately, the Fingal County Council area has one of the largest remaining temporary sites in the country, at St. Mary's in Cappagh field, which has been in existence for more than 15 years. The families concerned do not have access to electricity, proper sanitation or rubbish collection services. They have been waiting for permanent accommodation for 15 years, either in mainstream housing or Traveller-specific accommodation. There is serious concern because their accommodation needs are not being met. The local accommodation consultative committees are designed to allow Travellers and the local authority to agree on plans for accommodation and review their implementation. They also monitor their maintenance and upkeep. However, the local authorities and the local accommodation consultative committees do not deliver. We asked what funding had been allocated for the maintenance and refurbishment of sites. The response was that the local authority could not provide that information for us or the local accommodation consultative committee representative who represented our organisation. If we are unable to obtain that information at the level of the local accommodation consultative committee, I ask who can obtain it and where can it be obtained. We need to know how much funding is being allocated for the maintenance and upkeep of sites and the timeframe involved. Where can we obtain that information if it is not available at the local accommodation consultative committee?

If the local accommodation consultative committees are the mechanism to be used in the delivery of accommodation for Travellers by the local authorities, how are local organisations to survive if we are to be integrated into the local community development structures of the local authorities in 2014 or 2015? How will it be possible for us to address the myriad issues relating to deficits in education, training, accommodation and health, if these are within the remit of the local authority? Local authorities in general and Fingal County Council, in particular, have proved that they cannot deliver in providing accommodation for Travellers. We are very concerned as to whether they will be able to deliver on all other issues relevant to Travellers.

In 2013 families are living in local authority areas and do not have access to toilets, water or electricity. What will be the position at the end of this programme because the review will only cover previous programmes? No new accommodation has been built under the current programme.

The McDonald family live in the Dunsink area. They have been waiting for ten years on the local authority housing list. They have been identified by the local authority and it has been agreed that accommodation will be provided for the family group. As recently as two months ago, the families were told the accommodation which was to be provided in a mainstream housing estate would not be provided because the local authority was reviewing the position. The rationale for the decision has not been explained to them by the local authority. More than €7.5 million has been handed back by Fingal County Council, while families are still in need of accommodation.

I would like answers to these questions from the representatives of Fingal County Council who are present.

Mr. Dick Brady

It is fitting that this subject is being dealt with today, having regard to the cycle of the Traveller accommodation programme. It is good to see a real debate under way which I hope will filter into the development of the programmes mentioned. Dublin City Council is committed to the provision of top quality Traveller accommodation, with well maintained physical environments and of a type and in areas desired by families in need of such accommodation. Our recently carried out needs assessment indicates that 66% of families seeking accommodation have expressed a desire for standard accommodation.

The successful implementation of a Traveller accommodation programme is not solely the responsibility of the local authority. I will speak about timely implementation of the programme. A successful programme requires the support and goodwill of the Traveller community and also that of potential neighbours and local communities. It also requires the advancement of other facilitating schemes such as public private partnerships in order to achieve the timely provision of accommodation.

What has happened over the years is that difficulties have arisen in some of these areas and they have significantly delayed projects. It is a cause of great frustration to those working in this particular field that, within the Traveller community, there continues to be an element of anti-social and - dare I say it - criminal activity which has destroyed hard won Traveller-specific accommodation and facilities and which has resulted in fear among, and the threat of violence to, vulnerable members of the Traveller community. It should be noted that in the Dublin city area over the timeframe about which we are speaking, 79 units of accommodation and three community centres have been lost or destroyed due to this activity. During that time, we have spent in excess of €1 million on clean-up from industrial scale dumping.

There are two questions which arise. My colleague from Cork explained the first which is the false nature of trying to deal with allocation spend in a cumulative fashion. It is not a way to look at spend. He explained that, so I will not go into it in any great detail. The other is the reason for underspend. Again, if one looks at the submission the city council has made, there are valid reasons for that underspend which are clearly set out. In regard to the amounts of money spent by the city council, on the capital side, it has spent in the order of €3.7 million over the period of time but it spent €18.5 million in the same period of time. The total spend by the city council over this period of time has been €22.2 million.

The city council is committed to the provision of quality accommodation and a quality physical environment and will work with the LTACCs and the local advocacy groups to try to address the issues which have to date stalled and prevented planned developments going ahead and have seen the destruction of existing homes. Resolving these issues requires a holistic determined approach from all sides and the council will not be found wanting in this regard. To this end, the council intends to carry out a full review of its operational methods and procedures this year.

Ms Brigid Quilligan

Ms Brigid Casey will make the presentation on behalf of the Irish Traveller Movement and I will follow her and summarise with some recommendations.

Ms Brigid Casey

As a spokesperson for the Irish Traveller Movement, this is a great opportunity to talk about the national Traveller accommodation strategy, which has been in place for the past 13 years. It estimated that there are 40,000 Travellers in Ireland - 36,000 in the Republic and 4,000 in the North of Ireland. The task force was put in place in 1995 and it recommended that there was a need to provide 3,100 units of accommodation. The Government made a commitment, through the national Traveller accommodation strategy, to invest in culturally appropriate accommodation to meet the needs of Travellers. There was no cap on investment for the accommodation nationally but there was very little progress in delivering the accommodation strategy.

Some 1,200 units in permanent halting sites, 900 units in group housing schemes and 1,000 transit bays were to be provided. Unfortunately, this was not carried out. What has changed since the task force on Traveller people? Legislation was put in place - the Housing (Traveller Accommodation) Act 1998. This legislation was to improve the conditions for Travellers and we believed it would protect our nomadic way of life as Travellers. Under the Housing (Traveller Accommodation) Act, each local authority is required to provide culturally appropriate accommodation in all its forms, including halting sites, group housing schemes, standard housing and transit accommodation. Some 849 units in total were provided between 2000 and 2011.

The role of the national Traveller accommodation consultative committee is to advise the Minister on the most appropriate measures for improving Traveller accommodation. Local Traveller accommodation consultative committees are made up of representatives from local authorities, Traveller representatives and local Traveller groups. Each local authority has an obligation to develop local Traveller accommodation plans. There were plans for 2000-04, for 2005-08 and 2009-13. They should be preparing the plan for 2014-18.

Ms Brigid Quilligan

In terms of recommendations, as members have heard from Ms Casey and other representatives from different areas, the situation for Travellers has never been worse in terms of accommodation. We have great legislation and great plans but they are not implemented. In fact, I must correct myself, we do not have great plans because at a local level, some of our plans are not as ambitious as they need to be given the needs on the ground. We know many young Travellers are not even being assessed for needs. They are not registering for accommodation because they are being told by council officials, social workers and others on the ground that they can apply for Traveller-specific accommodation but it will not be built in their lifetimes, so they may as well apply for standard housing. Effectively what is happening - despite legislation to protect our culture and way of life - is that people are being assimilated and are being told there is no other option. This was in the boom times - prior to the budgetary cuts we are discussing today. That is to set a bit of context for members and those in the Visitors' Gallery.

Even in the boom times, Travellers' needs were not met, despite consultation after consultation. I see Travellers here from north Cork, Kerry and Fingal. Travellers are consulted until they are blue in the face but the fact is that they are not listened to. We heard issues around anti-social behaviour. There is anti-social behaviours but Travellers are expected to police themselves while no other community is expected to do so. The onus should not be on members of any social housing scheme to police the other residents of the scheme. Poor management of sites, poor layout of sites and poor design of sites leads to anti-social behaviour. There is an element of criminality in every culture and, unfortunately, there is an element of criminality in ours but it is a very small minority. As Ms McMahon from Ballyfermot pointed out, a whole community can be penalised for the actions of a few.

Some of our recommendations going forward are as follows. The current structures are simply not working, or have never worked. A national Traveller agency needs to be put in place to address all policy issues relating to Travellers. All budgetary cuts in future need to be Traveller-proofed. Traveller education, Traveller accommodation, the Traveller community development sector and every area of our life has been impacted severely by the austerity measures. The cuts and the austerity measures against Travellers have been disproportionate and Pavee Point's report, published last week, proves that.

The Government must provide a legislative framework to monitor the development of the Traveller accommodation programme because, despite the best efforts of Travellers on local Traveller consultative committees, Travellers on the national consultative committee and the local authorities, there have been very poor outcomes and Travellers are living in appalling conditions. Comprehensive needs assessments need to be carried out. Not only do they need to be carried out on people in Traveller-specific accommodation but they need to be carried out on people who are in rented accommodation because most of our people have been forced into private rented accommodation and standard accommodation through lack of choice.

When new units of accommodation are being built local authorities should take into account the sustainability of the development. That should include the design, size, location, infrastructure and management. We need to move away from building 10 ft. walls on the periphery of towns.

We know from initial research that a lack of planning and depressing surroundings are a significant factor for Travellers deciding to leave accommodation and damaging the accommodation. Traveller conflict exists. Traveller voices need to be heard when it comes to the allocation of accommodation in their areas and Travellers should not have to police themselves. As Ms Catherine Joyce pointed out, we need to know what budget is available for Traveller specific accommodation in our local areas.

Finally, a comprehensive analysis for the underspend needs to be carried out. The voices of Travellers who have been involved in consultation for years must be included. They have been left to deal with broken promises. Travellers still live in appalling conditions and are rearing their grandchildren in the same place they reared their children. Why was the money not spent? The answer given by the councillors thus far seems logical. However, having dealt with the people who were consulted for years on successive accommodation plans their answer does not wash with us.

Chairman

I thank Ms Quilligan. I call Ms Chrissie O'Sullivan from the Traveller Visibility Group Cork.

Ms Chrissie O'Sullivan

I thank the Chairman and the committee for the opportunity to speak today. In a few short words I shall convey the anger, hurt and betrayal that my community has experienced and is experiencing following the revelation in an article printed by The Corkman newspaper of an underspend of nearly €6 million in our area. That happened at a time when many Traveller families live in deplorable conditions. Many Traveller families must live in overcrowded facilities and in the yards of their parents. Many Traveller families, particularly young Traveller families, have been forced into rental accommodation. They must deny their Traveller identity in order to secure private rental accommodation, a situation that has huge impact on the lives of young Travellers.

It is a constant battle in our area to convey the amount of Traveller accommodation issues in our local authority to three different local Traveller accommodation consultative committees, LTACCs. My county council area is divided up into three divisions, the south, north and west Cork council divisions, and each area has its own LTAC committee. Travellers try hard to participate in and convey the reality of living there to these committees.

I would like to add to the views expressed earlier today about the lack of success at the LTAC committees. My area has three LTACs but there is no joined-up thinking. The three committees never meet and have not adopted a joint policy approach to deliver Traveller accommodation. Subsequently, we have failed miserably to deliver Traveller accommodation in my area.

I shall outline an example from my area in the south Cork County Council area. In 1991 a group housing scheme was built for seven Traveller families and 22 Traveller families have come out of those seven houses in the past 22 years. All of the families have been forced into standard accommodation. I say "forced" at a time when within less than half of a mile of the group housing scheme there was a site in a state of demolition for in excess of 18 years. The demolition was taking place in order to refurbish the site when a Traveller family moved in that consisted of parents and their ten children. It was only this year that the family's accommodation needs were met. They had to wait 18 years. That happened at a time when eight of their ten children have married and left home. The family had to live all of the time on a site that resembled war torn Beirut. I am ashamed to say that I am on a committee that presided over that situation for 18 years. At the time there was €6 million available to spend and I refer to just one area. Every year in north Cork many Traveller families were told that there was no money and numerous official complaints will be lodged as a result. The families were told that they could ask for Traveller-specific accommodation but they would, in time, be provided with a standard house. We are now faced with many frustrated Traveller families who have been left with no confidence in the system. If we could table a motion of no confidence then I would do so tomorrow morning. Travellers have no confidence in Cork County Council to deliver a Traveller accommodation plan because it has failed miserably to provide for my community. The same experience has been repeated throughout the country.

Why is a budget handed every year to a local authority that cannot plan, develop or spend the funding but returns the money? If the local authority was a commercial company then the Government would not award it a tender to spend a yearly budget because it cannot deliver on its promises. Local authorities who fail communities cannot be sanctioned in this country. My community has been failed when it comes to Traveller accommodation and we are beyond talking. The rhetoric that takes place at these committees is stomach turning at times. I apologise if I sound passionate and angry but I want to convey the anger felt by my people the length and breadth of the country, particularly in my area. At a time when the country is broke we hang our heads in shame because we cannot today, tomorrow and probably not for the next ten years deliver on Traveller accommodation. The troika tells us every other day on the news what we must cut back on and what to do for our communities in order to keep our heads above water. We are drowning. We are on the Titanic and we are simply shifting deck chairs as far as Traveller accommodation is concerned.

I shall ask the Chairman my question again. Why do we consistently give a group of people, including myself because I am a representative in the area, a budget they cannot spend or deliver with? Surely someone took the decision that there was no need to spend the money in the area and someone, administratively, took the responsibility to return the money. This all happened at a time when I had to tell my community, day in and day out, that there was no money available. There were also times when there was no social worker available in my area so there was nobody to answer calls about the matter. In my area two social workers were on sick leave for two years and nobody was available to replace them. Therefore, nobody could answer the calls made by members of my community. I took the issue to the LTAC committee again. We are joint partners around the table but Travellers are silent partners because no one has listened to us. We lodged a complaint about the matter with the LTAC and were told it would be dealt with but it has not been. Families rang me up asking me to do this and that but I am powerless in a system that was set up by settled people for settled people. My group cannot ask Travellers to do something, all we can do is convey the message. We are powerless and have no sanction. All that we can do is say "please, this is what needs to be done". We, as Travellers, have actively participated in every committee that we have been asked to attend but we have not benefited. Nobody can show me a committee that we have refused to participate in. My group has not seen positive effects in our community. We need answers at this point. We do not want to read newspaper articles in The Corkman that leave us wondering how an underspend can happen under our noses. I thank the Chairman.

Chairman

I call the final speaker, Mr. David O'Connor, Fingal County Council.

Mr. David O'Connor

I shall deal with the two questions posed by the Chairman on the money issue and housing needs.

I shall repeat what my two colleagues, Mr. Dick Brady and Mr. Martin Riordan, have said about the money side of things and give an example. If one simply adds Fingal County Council's yearly allocation, dating from 2007 to 2012, it would amount to €14.25 million. Then if one subtracts the drawn down sum of €6.6 million for the same period it would look like we had not spent €7.65 million. That is simply not true. Many of these schemes were in the programme year on year. For example, planning permission may not have been granted or a scheme could be tendered for successive years yet the Department continued its commitment. The Department's adherence to its commitment made the county council look like it had not spent the money. That is simply not the case.

I shall outline three schemes that were built in my area between 2007 and 2012. The total allocation for the period was €11.75 million but the actual cost of the project was €6.9 million, a difference of €4.6 million. That proves that it was simply not the case that the money was inadequately drawn down. The money was fully drawn down and no money was given back. It is the simple way that the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government does its sums that makes the council look like it did not spend the money and that is not the case.

In response to the accumulated accusations about what it is we do, that we are not fit for purpose and, to paraphrase what was said, that we cannot spend, plan and deliver, that is patently not the case. The commitment of the local authority in the period between 2007 and 2012 is shown by the fact that the drawdown of capital was €6.69 million. In the same period day to day spending amounted to €8.3 million in maintaining sites which we have done to the best of our ability. When I joined Fingal County Council in 1995, we had a scheme of 12 houses which had received a national award. There are now two houses in that scheme because it has been repeatedly demolished and repeatedly rebuilt during the years and we are at the loss of ten of the units. Mr. Brady outlined a similar situation in the city. We have to cover the running cost of these schemes. There is stealing from the electricity supply and constant dumping. We had one instance in the northern part of the county where a site had been invaded and we had to spend €300,000 in having the site cleared. We would much prefer to spend the money on providing permanent accommodation for everybody concerned.

It is particularly difficult to deal with Traveller issues, although I am not characterising Travellers as being difficult. The issues are complicated and far more complicated than normal. For example, there are extended family issues and preferences to stay within a certain radius of where people are located at present.

I do not accept that Travellers' voices are not heard. They are and constantly being listened to. It is unfair to characterise us in such a way that we are not listening to them. If Travellers believe there is another methodology, perhaps there is an agency that might deliver more effectively across a range of areas. We do not have responsibility for some aspects such as health and education and they should not tar us with the brush of non-delivery when we do our level best at all times to provide services.

The last point with which I wish to deal in my short summary, the full detail of which is contained in our submission, is the issue of preferences. In our Traveller survey we asked people to list their first preference in terms of the ideal accommodation for them. We asked 327 families, 48% of whom expressed a preference for standard housing. I do not accept, therefore, that there is ethnic cleansing, that Travellers are being pushed away from their culture. Some 29% expressed a preference for group housing; 12% expressed a preference for halting sites, while 11% expressed a preference for other accommodation such as rural houses. We have provided rural houses in the face of some very vociferous complaints by local people. We have stood by the Traveller people. I do not want to mention the place name of a scheme, as the Chairman asked us not to name places, but time and again there was an extremely strong anti-development campaign against the scheme. However, we stood by it and councillors, to their credit, voted it through, confident that the Travellers who were going to be accommodated there would look after the place. It has been looked after to an extraordinarily good extent. A very small number of people are creating a problem and making life difficult for us all, but we are certainly not the enemy. We are not incapable of spending or planning - the contrary is the case - and we are more than capable of delivering, but we need to do it in concert with each other. We do not need to argue with or accuse each other in that regard.

Chairman

I thank Mr. O'Connor.

Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú

Tá céad míle fáilte roimh an toscaireacht agus tá áthas orm go bhfuil sí in éineacht linn inniu. Is mian liom buíochas a ghabháil léi toisc an cur i láthair a rinne sí.

I sincerely thank the representatives for a professional, reasoned and measured presentation which I am sure all members found very informative. I have had experience during the years of dealing with council officials who did their very best to do what was right, not only for the Traveller community - I do not want to make distinctions - but for all sections of society. The representatives are right to protect their culture and identity. Very often the Traveller community does not get the credit we as a nation owe its members for the work they have done in keeping our culture alive. When the Cashes, the Dorans and other members of the Traveller community travelled from fair day to fair day and community event to community event, they brought with them, as educators, their traditional music, which they passed to others. Traditional music would not enjoy the status it has in Ireland or among the diaspora were it not for the distinctive role played by the Traveller community.

It is important that we realise that members of the settled community are very often responsible for anti-social behaviour. I will not mention towns either, but I know of streets in certain towns where members of the settled community have caused havoc and their neighbours have had to complain and the appropriate authorities have had to intervene. Likewise, if members of the settled community cause major damage involving great cost, often running into millions of euro, we do not tell the rest of the members of that community that we cannot help them. That is from where I start in my response to what I have heard. I fully accept what the officials are saying and know the difficulties they face, but this is bigger than a local issue. It must be raised to a national level because to a degree there is still racism in the country, about which there is doubt. It is not simply a matter of being afraid of who one's next door neighbour will be; often one does not know anything about the person coming from the Traveller community. The person concerned could be exceptionally industrious, have leadership material and so on. Those who have such a mindset, without knowing the family involved, suggests to me that to a degree there is racism, which is not right or acceptable. We must revisit this issue urgently.

On the issue of unspent moneys, I accept what the officials have said about the efforts they have made and the money that has been spent and so on, but the unspent moneys - 70% to 80% of the allocations made - cannot be left floating in the air because if there was a similar situation in providing accommodation for members of the settled community, there would be an outcry. The Traveller community are very much part of our society. I wonder if a suggestion could be made by the committee to the effect that this issue should be reviewed at Government level or by one Department and that information could be gathered independently. I must compliment Pavee Point on the report which is excellent and very helpful, but if we need an independent report, we should seek it and raise the issue to that level. In other cases where delegates have appeared before the committee, we have revisited issues and examined what progress is being made. Some of the representatives have been exceptionally passionate. Why would they not be as this issue affects their lives and those of their children and future generations? It would be good if they did not feel this was a talking shop exercise. We should allow for a number of months, during which we could receive reports from all councils and identify the issues involved.

Where councils have difficulties I am not trying to underestimate those as I have had dealings with officials down through the years who bent backwards to do their best. The gentleman on my right is correct that there should not be a row. If we are to help the Traveller community to get their rights - that is all they are seeking - we will not get them by confrontation but by being seriously committed and focused on finding a solution. We should not be disillusioned as huge progress has been made in many areas and should be used as a foundation. However, we need to look higher than the local authority to assess precisely the situation. By all means, take this report and what we have read in the newspapers on board, and listen to the Traveller community again and to the officials. The way in which the representatives have assembled the facts and put them forward in such a measured manner is a good start arising from today's deliberations.

Deputy Dessie Ellis

I thank the councils and the Traveller community representatives for their input. An open and frank debate on what is happening is long overdue. I believe the Traveller accommodation programme has not delivered for various reasons. It has been admitted by the three local authorities present that the money has not been drawn down. I raised the issue with the Minister who pointed out that the local authorities were not drawing down the money to deliver on Traveller accommodation. Therefore, it was the Minister who brought this matter to our attention. We have to ask why this is happening. I think we put all our eggs in one basket when dealing with many issues in the Traveller community. When talking about housing accommodation we tend to focus on one in particular. The whole mechanism of getting that money is so archaic that one has to go backwards and forwards to the local government fund. We have to wait period after period and the money is literally running out in this period. The issue I have dealt with for many years is the lack of housing. There is a massive housing crisis for the Traveller community. What we are doing is pushing those people into private rented accommodation or ordinary local authority housing. I am insulted by the word "ordinary" as housing should be specific to the needs of Travellers. That is the purpose for which the money was provided by the Minister, not the money that is being drawn down for other local authority housing. Dublin City Council's budget for maintenance for the whole city last year was an insult to the Traveller community. I realise times are tough but we cannot expect the whole city to be maintained for a small sum of money. We need the regeneration programmes.

Ms Catherine Joyce mentioned St. Mary's in Cappagh field. I am familiar with St. Mary's for the past 15 years. That accommodation is well past its sell-by date and needs to be rebuilt. St. Joseph's is another example where we have had families. The accommodation has been refurbished but the reality is that there is a need for a regeneration programme and to put Traveller-specific accommodation in place. Some people may want a halting site or group housing. Avila Park is a very successful group housing scheme. As stated, the McDonald family in Dunsink Lane has been promised accommodation many times. I do not know how many times I have spoken about this in Fingal in recent years. We built Shelly Park where one family remains in state-of-the-art housing that could be refurbished. I am aware it was with Focus Ireland and I know the whole history of what happened in the area. In Dunsink Lane, the Traveller community was isolated against my wishes and those of politicians and the local authorities. Fingal County Council and Dublin City Council have to answer as to why they agreed to block off and isolate Travellers in Dunsink Lane. It was criminal and caused terrible conflict between the communities which resulted in riots. A community cannot be treated in that way. Dunsink Lane is an archway from Finglas to Castleknock for people who were driving to alleviate traffic but it never made sense. That is the type of discrimination that has been experienced by Traveller communities. A mechanism must be found to draw down the funding much faster and there must be alternatives. We cannot concentrate on one specific area and one specific site on which to work. We must have an alternative to move on rather than get bogged down on one.

The overcrowding issue has reached ridiculous proportions. We have a housing crisis across the board and a major housing crisis in the Traveller community and the issue must be addressed. We have to stand up to some local authorities who send the message that they will not build any more Traveller accommodation. That has happened. Other councillors have acted in a racist manner by targeting Traveller people and their families. That is unacceptable. Unless that mindset is tackled, we will be back here for the next ten years arguing the issue. Nobody disputes there are anti-social behaviour problems. I know there are anti-social behaviour problems in the Traveller community, right across the board, but that is no excuse for not dealing with them. The Garda should be able to deal with families. To put pressure on families to deal with them is to put them in the front line. One would not be asked in any other community to put people on the front line. The Garda was told that the gardaí are the people who will do this. We need to look at the Traveller accommodation programme and draw up a decent plan that makes sense and will deliver because so far it has not delivered.

Chairman

I thank Deputy Ellis.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I thank all the representatives for their presentations. As there is much to take on board I think some of it will be for another day. It goes without saying that basic sanitation and a roof over one's head is a fundamental human right. I reiterate what Deputy Ellis said in that there is a major housing crisis. Unfortunately, people could be pitched against each other in that housing crisis because many are forced into temporary arrangements whereas a permanent arrangement would be in their long-term interest. There are approximately 100,000 families on housing waiting lists with little prospect of a permanent solution, much of which is related to the current financial situation. We did not get to a housing waiting list of 100,000 households in the past couple of years; the list has built up over a period.

I have a few questions for the local authorities and Mr. Martin Collins. In regard to the drawdown of funds for refurbishments I am aware from my area, which is not represented by the local authorities today, that there are some vacant houses which are reasonably good but need to be upgraded before they can be re-let. It appears there is a battle with the Department to release funds for that purpose while at the same time people are in private rented accommodation. That does not make sense. It is a silo-based approach where reasonably good housing could be allocated to a small number of people.

It might be small numbers but, at the same time, it is there. Is that kind of pattern happening in the other local authority areas also?

Language can be used such as "returning funds" rather than "not drawing funds down", which can misrepresent a situation, and I do not believe it is in anyone's interest that the situation is misrepresented. We need an honest assessment of what money is available to be used to deliver on the programme. One can often find the Department is almost trying to present it as if the local authorities are not doing something, and that this somehow gets the Department off the hook.

If Travellers, for example, opt for traditional housing, I presume this will come out of the general allocation for housing and, in fact, it cannot be drawn down under Traveller-specific programmes. If there are 100,000 people on the waiting list, the chances of being housed are remote given that no houses are being built. Is it a question that we are not drawing down funds that are actually there? This is an issue I simply cannot get my head around. I am watching what is going on in my area, and it does not seem the money is available to be drawn down.

My other point concerns the national Traveller agency. I completely accept there is a cross-agency requirement, whether in regard to health, education, training or other issues, but we have a terrible habit of fragmentation. Has it been worked out how a national Traveller agency would work with agencies that are in place at present and which the witnesses might feel are not delivering? What would that Traveller agency do differently? I would be curious to know how it would work and deliver differently. We tend to take a very silo-based approach to things, and that is not just an issue for Travellers. For any group that has a need that goes beyond a housing need, we tend not to be able to put those agencies together.

Chairman

The first question concerned the drawing down of funds. The Cork county manager explained it in a way that was not clear to the committee. Is it a question of the funds not existing or is it the inflexibility of the Department in regard to the funding? I might direct that question to the Cork county manager. What was the second question?

Deputy Catherine Murphy

For standard housing, funds cannot be drawn down under the Traveller-specific programme if people opt for traditional housing. We might be double counting in this regard.

Mr. Martin Riordan

I will start with the second question. In the case of Cork County Council, if one contrasts the drawdown of allocations for what we call standard housing, for want of a better phrase, in recent years we have drawn down more than the allocation because of our activity levels. Where Travellers are accommodated in standard housing, that is a charge against the standard housing allocation, so it will not appear under a Traveller heading. I am interested in the comments I have heard. Our understanding from the consultation is that Travellers are expressing a preference for that type of housing. I have listened to what has been said and, if that is not the case, then we have a problem at local level to make sure people express their views, because that is how we plan for the future. If we are told that the majority of Travellers are seeking standard accommodation or specific houses, that is what we are planning for. However, if that message as to what is required is not getting across to us at local level, it is important that it does.

The spend against standard accommodation housing is from the normal housing allocation fund but, unfortunately, that allocation has reduced drastically in recent years. We would have peaked at approximately €40 million a year on standard housing but we are now down to some €2 million to €3 million each year, so the building of standard housing has slowed down, and this needs to be addressed in the future.

I tried to summarise the submission in view of time constraints, so members might look at it in more detail. The message from our experience is that, if all the allocations are added up for whatever number of years is involved, it is not a simple mathematical exercise because all of that money was not available over that period of time. I tried to explain in the submission that we had a particular case where the allocation was €1.1 million, which was to resolve a particular problem. That was repeated the following year and, therefore, it appears in the mathematics as €2.2 million. If we look at the actual solution of that problem, however, it did not require €2.2 million. The point I would make is that the solution was found and the money was not required to solve that problem. Therefore, to judge the county council against it is not a mathematical judgment but, instead, a judgment as to whether the needs of that Traveller community were met. Given those needs were met with standard housing and a specific house for an awful lot less, in terms of Exchequer funding, I would suggest that money was not available because it was available for a particular problem and, as the problem was resolved at a lesser cost, we would move on to the next required solution.

Chairman

With regard to the report from Cork County Council, there is a record of refusals since 2007. There were three in south Cork and one in my own area of west cork, but there were nine refusals of standard local authority houses in north Cork. Is that nine houses that were turned down? Why was the figure so high in north Cork compared to other parts of the county?

Mr. Martin Riordan

It was nine houses that were turned down. It is important to put on record that the Traveller community is not the only community that refused houses. This was put into the report to show that we are offering houses that we think meet the needs, but they are not in all cases acceptable to the applicant. However, that happens equally on the settled community side. We are trying to match a housing need. An offer is made and it may be refused for certain reasons, but it shows we are actually trying to offer houses and to match them to what we on the committee understood as the accommodation needs of the Traveller community, as they expressed them to be. When we offer houses, they can be refused for various reasons based on the particular house and the particular family's view as to what their needs would be. There is generally a demand for a larger house and, in many cases, a larger house with some area of ground around it. In the current housing accommodation situation, such houses do not come up that often, so it is very difficult to match one need against the other.

Mr. Martin Collins

With regard to Deputy Murphy's point on a national Traveller agency, the Traveller organisations have put a lot of thought into this and tabled proposals to both the Traveller policy division in the Department of Justice and Equality and to the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. That was about eight or nine years ago but, while they merited consideration, they were refused out of hand. Given the gravity of the situation in which we find ourselves, I believe it is worth exploring this area again. While there is too much detail to go into here today, we would be willing to explore it further with this committee and others who may be interested.

The Housing (Traveller Accommodation) Act 1998 only puts a legal obligation on local authorities to carry out an accommodation needs assessment in their catchment area in consultation with Travellers and Traveller organisations. While it is questionable whether that happens, the fundamental issue is that there is no legal obligation to actually implement the plans. That is the problem. There is a legal obligation to adopt a plan, and I have no doubt that, just like on the last three occasions, when coming to the fourth one, every local authority will adopt a plan. However, the problem is that the legislation is quite weak and there is no legal obligation on the local authorities. The Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government and others need to look at this because it is an opt-out clause for local authorities. That is the fundamental issue. In the absence of the implementation of those programmes, there is no sanction on local authorities, so they cannot be held to account. The legislation is very limited and weak, which is an issue we all need to examine.

I heard a lot of points made about anti-social behaviour and criminal activity. Ms Brigid Quilligan from ITM made the point that we do not have a monopoly on that as it exists within every community.

It is important to bear in mind that we are not abdicating our responsibilities in that regard. Many Traveller organisations the length and breadth of the country work with An Garda Síochána, take part in joint policing committees and are on local community safety forums trying to find solutions and strategies to address anti-social behaviour. For example, Pavee Point Traveller Centre worked with Dublin City Council in 2009 because - interestingly for one of the biggest local authorities in the country - the council did not have letting criteria for Traveller-specific accommodation. There was no transparency or accountability to show why one Traveller family was allocated accommodation above another. The council did not have this but it worked with us and we developed letting criteria so Dublin City Council now has a points system for Traveller-specific accommodation. In Finglas we work with the gardaí and Michael Collins, a colleague of mine, works with the local safety forum. Trojan work is happening to try to address these issues.

This conversation, appropriately enough, is taking place during Traveller pride week. We are not playing the victim but we do not want to be confrontational. We want to work in co-operation and partnership with the local authorities because we all have a vested interested in this and want to do the right thing. Last week at the launch of Traveller pride week we were celebrating the achievements of our own people. John Joe Nevin was in attendance in the Pillar Room in the Rotunda, as were Kelly Mongan who came second in "The Voice of Ireland" and the captain of the Irish girls under-17s football team were there. All of these achievements are a direct result of the very important work that Traveller organisations are doing the length and breadth of the country. We want to celebrate the achievements of our people. If what is proposed in Putting People First, the Government's policy on local government reform, comes to pass the Trojan work that has been done on community development by local Traveller organisations will be abolished at the stroke of a pen. We are very concerned about this and we ask this committee to use whatever influence it has to ensure that when it comes to the implementation of that policy document Traveller organisations are allowed to retain their independence and autonomy to continue the work we have been doing for the past 30 years.

Ms Brigid Quilligan

I thank Senator Ó Murchu for his comments, and Deputies Ellis and Murphy. They display a great understanding of our issues and what we are up against. Martin Collins hit the nail on the head when he touched on the fact that we are willing to work with local authorities. Somebody from one of the authorities, or it might have been Senator Ó Murchú who mentioned that we should have a collaborative approach and we have that. We are at every venue and forum. With our very limited resources we punch far above our weight. We prepare for meetings, we turn up and I am here as a Traveller today to say that my voice is not heard. People’s voices are not heard. The Travellers on the panel here with me would probably say the same. We are working at national level but people at local level need accommodation; they are in a very vulnerable position. They try their best to liaise with the local authorities and have their voices heard. In one area in north Cork I have witnessed how over many years people have been involved in consultation processes over and over again. They are promised accommodation and then told there is no budget for the accommodation. A bit of innovation and creativity is needed.

One of the biggest barriers to the development and implementation of Traveller accommodation, education and every other area is the lack of will and understanding. This needs to be named here in our Oireachtas. However hard the officials work, and I appreciate they are working, Travellers on the ground, their organisations and representatives are working doubly hard with fewer resources and are still not being heard. We would meet the officials more than half way and always have done so because our people are in crisis. Our suicide rate is six times the national average because of our living conditions. We are a people in crisis and we are fighting for our lives. As Martin Collins said this is Traveller pride week and we celebrate it with pride.

The Government has an assimilation policy. It can be called any other name but that is effectively what is happening. Our people are being forced into estates and private rented accommodation when there is legislation to protect them and money is sent back although people's needs are not met. We have told people over and over again what our needs are. We have been consulted to death yet we are still being forced into private rented accommodation which is no solution. In the Irish Traveller Movement law centre and the accommodation team and no doubt in the local groups we find that after one or two months in private rented accommodation young couples or families are evicted. They come to us for support because neighbours do not want them there. Their children cannot put their toys in the yard, and are being bullied and called names. They are deemed a problem from the minute they walk into the estate. Private rented accommodation is not a solution for Travellers and that needs to be heard.

Ms Catherine Joyce

I concur with what Ms Quilligan has said. Private rented accommodation is a huge issue in our area and some Travellers opt for this only because long-term permanent Traveller-specific accommodation is not a real, viable option. Travellers such as the MacDonald family in Dunsink Lane have been on the accommodation list for the past ten years. The local authority has committed to providing accommodation for them yet they have not got basic accommodation ten years down the line. They live on a site with no electricity, portable toilets and no proper sanitation and I cannot understand why the local authority, whatever way they dress it up, is sending back over €7 million or not drawing it down from the State budget and at the same time this family is in dire need of accommodation. The local authority has acknowledged this.

In our local authority area there is a serious situation because 28 families are on unauthorised sites, 17 are sharing accommodation with a family member or their parents. They are effectively homeless. They are not homeless individuals but homeless families. They are not on the local authority accommodation list because they are on unauthorised sites or doubling up in somebody else's bay or unit of accommodation. That is not just our case, it applies in the rest of the country. There are serious problems with Travellers being identified in the first place. It is not possible to plan for numbers to be addressed if the numbers are not acknowledged in the first place. How can the need in ten years time be predicted if the present need is not accurately counted now?

In answer to Deputy Murphy’s question about how accommodation would work if we were to take it out of the hands of the local authorities, I would put it simply, the National Roads Authority had the power to put a road through the Hill of Tara because it was identified as a road that would give access to people from Meath and the north Leinster area. That road went ahead regardless of objections and the court action taken to prevent it. An accommodation unit should be given the power to do the same thing for accommodation. It would need to work with the local authority on that provision but it needs to be able to say that there are X families in an area and X units are needed, they should be provided now, the budget is there and available and should be used to do that. There are mechanisms. We have long looked at the possibility of taking it out of the hands of the local authority or out of its control because we see consecutive plans not being implemented and the budget not spent. The numbers of Travellers either on unofficial sites or forced into private rented accommodation is increasing all the time. While people around this table might say that it is an option it is not an option that Travellers would take if they had a choice. They take it only because there is no alternative.

Local authorities have committed to doing things for Traveller organisations or for individuals over many years but they have not been able to deliver. In the greater Blanchardstown area we worked with the local authority to develop a plan for a Traveller resource centre and ten years later that has not been implemented. We worked with the local authority. It gave us the funding to do the research for the resource. We worked with the local area partnership company on how it would meet the needs of the community as well as those of the Travellers. That resource centre has not been provided and budgets have not been drawn down to meet the needs of Travellers. Not one Traveller site in the greater Blanchardstown area has a community resource centre or facility.

The local authority has ignored its plans and the resource materials available to it to implement its plans to address a need that has been identified not only by us but also acknowledged by it. There is a concern about the lack of implementation of accommodation plans and the lack of a commitment to make such provision. There are local authorities represented in this room that are doing well. Fingal County Council has been able to deliver in the provision of accommodation, but it is not delivering in the maintenance or upkeep of sites or the provision of new builds. In 2011 and 2012 it did not provide for new builds; in 2010 it provided ten units and in 2009, ten units. Since 2009, therefore, some 20 new units of accommodation have been provided in our local authority area. For me, the rationale or reasoning for sending back money when these are the only units that have been provided does not add up.

Ms Chrissie O'Sullivan

As representatives, it can sometimes sound like we are the voices of dissent. However, we are in this role as people who want issues to be raised and our voices to be heard. Some 20 years ago Mr. Martin Collins and I were on the national task force for Travellers. It is quite scary to be sitting here 20 years on talking about the same issues but in a much tighter context. At the time I had very young children at home in Cork; now I have very young grandchildren. In our community generations change quickly, much quicker than for settled people. Our young people get married and form a family unit at a very early age. We are seeing new generation after new generation and there has been little or no systematic change in the overall policy.

The task force's report was visionary for its time and gave us a huge platform and a huge framework, from which came the Traveller health units and Traveller accommodation units around the country. The Traveller health units are to the fore and doing tremendous work in supporting local Traveller organisations. They employ local Traveller community health workers and push primary health care issues at every level in terms of the delivery of the health message to Travellers. We are doing tremendous work in a co-operative way with the units. This is in stark contrast to what has happened with the Traveller accommodation units set up at the same time. We are pushing an open door when it comes to the Traveller health units, but we are hitting our heads off a cement wall when it comes to the Traveller accommodation units. However, I do not want to sound too negative, but there is huge room for improvement and co-operation. It does not bear thinking about that we could be here in 20 years time talking about the same issues. I certainly will not be here; I will not be coming back and should hope I would not have to. However, there is that possibility if we continue in this stagnant way where nothing changes. We have the rhetoric and reports. While it might sound at times as if we are the voices of dissent, we have the hard facts, the numbers and reports. Mr. Collins has a report on the impact of the austerity measures and how our community has been disproportionately affected by them. We are its voice.

I urge the committee to examine a more inclusive way of engaging with Traveller organisations on what is the best way forward. In truth, in some areas the policies to date are not working. I could not put it more strongly. However, I am hopeful people here have a commitment and want something to work. It makes no sense that we have resources and that there is co-operation, yet something still is not happening. It was Mr. Collins who said it was very hard to implement something when there were no consequences for not doing so. That is the fundamental point. When I was a child, no driver wore a safety belt. My father used to laugh at drivers who wore a safety belt. Not in 1 million years would I get into a car now and drive without wearing a safety belt. There is a sanction and a follow-through where one does not do so and people developed such a mindset very quickly. It is similar to the penalty points system. If someone knows a sanction will be imposed, things will be done and people will change their behaviour. That is what we need. We need a sanction that can be imposed on local authorities. One of the council representatives said some local authorities were performing well. We need to share that information with his or her colleagues throughout the country to see how we can work together to push this forward.

Chairman

I thank all of our guests. Does Deputy Dessie Ellis wish to make a final point?

Deputy Dessie Ellis

I want to know what we are doing. Are we going to pass on the report? What is the next step?

Chairman

I was about to discharge the delegates and then discuss the action we would take as a committee.

Deputy Dessie Ellis

I am not here to attack the local authorities, some of which are doing a good job. I have a great relationship with most of the people involved, but many of the issues outlined are not being tackled in a cohesive way. The point that some local authorities are carrying out their functions better than others is fair. That is an issue the committee might explore.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Dick Brady, Ms Brigid Casey, Mr. Martin Collins, Ms Karina Cremin, Mr. Kieran Cunningham, Ms Ann-Marie Farrelly, Ms Catherine Joyce, Ms Maria Joyce, Mr. Philip Long, Ms Lorraine McMahon, Mr. David O'Connor, Ms Chrissie O'Sullivan, Ms Brigid Quilligan, Ms Celine Reilly and Mr. Martin Riordan. We will have a discussion once they leave, but they have given us unique insights into the issues involved. We will discuss how we can respond to them as a committee, but I thank them sincerely for the manner in which they have engaged with us. It has been of major benefit to us.

The joint committee went into private session at 4.10 p.m. and adjourned at 4.30 p.m. until 2.15 p.m. on Tuesday, 21 May 2013.