Skip to main content
Normal View

Joint Committee on Key Issues affecting the Traveller Community (2023) debate -
Thursday, 1 Feb 2024

Traveller Accommodation: Discussion (Resumed)

I remind members that they must be physically present within Leinster House to take part in the committee meeting. I will not allow members to take part in this meeting if they are not on the grounds of Leinster House. The evidence of witnesses physically present in Leinster House is protected by absolute privilege. Witnesses should not criticise or make charges against any person by name or in such a way that will harm them or their identity. I propose that we publish the opening statements and submissions on the committee website. Is that agreed? Agreed. I suggest we invite our witnesses to speak for five to ten minutes and allow members to ask questions. Is that agreed? Agreed.

A lot of work has been done over recent months. Today's meeting is our 14th, since the committee was set up, looking at accommodation and trying to achieve small and doable goals as a committee. We have done a lot of work. We have invited in Cena, the Cork Traveller Visibility Group, the Irish Traveller Movement, National Traveller MABS and National Traveller Women's Forum. We have also invited in Pavee Point and other local authorities. Here today we have delegations from Mayo County Council and Cork City Council. They are very welcome and we look forward to the conversation.

I propose we start with Mayo County Council and then Cork City Council. I invite the witnesses from Mayo County Council to make their opening statement.

Mr. Tom Gilligan

I thank the Chairperson and members. Tomás Ó Giollagáin is ainm dom. I am the director of services with Mayo County Council. Táim anseo inniu le Eileen Corcoran, Traveller accommodation officer, and Derek Walsh, Traveller accommodation liaison officer.

We thank members for the invitation to attend today’s meeting to discuss policy matter relating to accommodation for Travellers, including matters relating to the caravan loan scheme for the Traveller community, and implementing the recommendations featured in the final report of the Joint Committee on Key Issues Affecting the Traveller Community.

Local authorities have general responsibility for the provision of housing, including the provision of Traveller accommodation, and are governed by the Housing (Traveller Accommodation) Act 1998. The preparation, adoption and implementation of our Traveller accommodation plan is a key requirement of Mayo County Council. Mayo County Council, as a housing authority, provides a range of supports and homes to people with a housing need, including Traveller-specific accommodation. Mayo County Council works in partnership with approved housing bodies, Ireland’s charity sector and other stakeholders to assist Traveller families to ensure their accommodation needs are met via standard local authority or AHB housing, group housing and halting sites. Mayo County Council also supports accommodation provided through subsidisation via the rental accommodation scheme, RAS, or housing assistance payment, HAP.

With regard to the number of traveller households in the county, Mayo County Council's annual count for 2023 of traveller households and their accommodation indicated that there were 472 traveller households in the county, 297 of which were in standard accommodation. The breakdown of the 297 figure is as follows: 220 are in either local authority accommodation or approved housing body tenancies; 76 are in supported tenancies in the private sector, through HAP or RAS; and one is living in long-term leasing. The remaining 175 traveller households are broken down as follows: 11 are in specific accommodation; 25 are in emergency accommodation; 36 are sharing; 48 are in private ownership; 31 are in private rented accommodation; and 24 are in other accommodation.

The Housing (Traveller Accommodation) Act 1998 places a statutory obligation on local authorities such as Mayo County Council to prepare and implement a traveller accommodation programme. Our programme specifies targets to be met during the period 2019-24. This can be seen at appendix 1 of the opening statement.

It is the policy of Mayo County Council to provide for the accommodation needs of Travellers, as far as is reasonable and feasible, using the full range of housing options available to the council. In the provision of accommodation, priority will be given to members of the Traveller community who were born in the county and who have lived in the county continuously, or who, having returned to the county, have lived in it for a continuous period of one year, or who, having moved into the county, have lived in it for a continuous period of not less than three years.

With regard to the equality action plan, on 30 June 2023, pursuant to section 32(1)(b) of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission Act 2014 in relation to traveller accommodation, Mayo County Council was requested and submitted its equality action plan. The council has identified actions to be progressed at this time pursuant to the plan. Implementation of same is a matter for the council. The commission welcomed timely implementation to be undertaken in a transparent manner. On 28 November 2023, the commission advised us that it is now at an advanced stage of consideration of the equality action plan and will provide feedback in respect of the plan in early 2024. That plan, with regard to the framework of equality plan, is broken down into three main frameworks on engagement and partnership in planning, organisational equality, and data collection, transparency and protection.

As part of our corporate plan 2019-24, advancing the implementation of the provisions contained in the Traveller accommodation programme is listed as a corporate strategy. This strategy is included to ensure the delivery of a corporate objective, which is "to ensure that every Mayo family can live in a dwelling of good standard, located in an acceptable environment, at a price or rent they can afford." The county development plan, which was adopted up to 2028, states that it is an objective of the council to take reasonable steps to secure the implementation of the Traveller accommodation programme in the county.

On our accommodation policy, the council recognises and will have regard to the distinct cultural identity of Travellers in the provision, maintenance and management of accommodation for the Traveller community. Accommodation in social housing is allocated transparently and equitably on the basis of need and in accordance with the council’s scheme of letting priorities and having regard to good estate management practice, achieving a social mix within areas, compatibility of families, anti-social behaviour, social and previous accommodation history and house size requirement.

With regard to achieving good estate management and achieving a social mix, the council, in keeping with the wishes of the vast majority of Traveller families, avoids an over-concentration of Traveller families in any one housing estate. It is considered by the council that a reasonable balance in this regard currently exists within social housing estates in the county. It is the policy of the council to ensure that this balance is maintained.

Casual vacancies in social housing and transfers within the existing council housing stock are assessed on the basis of the scheme of letting priorities. With regard to design, the council has regard to the specific housing needs of Travellers in the design of social schemes in as far as is practicable.

It is recognised that the keeping of horses is a tradition, which continues to be practised by some Traveller families. Such families are required to make their own arrangements for the acquisition of land for grazing purposes and be prepared to provide for the rent or purchase of this land.

As for group schemes and single houses, the programme provides housing for Traveller families through the development of group schemes specifically developed for Traveller families and through the development or acquisition of single instance housing, as appropriate, where funding is available. There are ongoing developments within these schemes at present. The council actively encourages and facilitates Travellers who wish to avail of privately funded accommodation through incremental purchase scheme.

I will not go through all of the other aspects but I will highlight the areas of voluntary housing, new family formations and returning families. With regard to the private rented accommodation housing assistance payment, HAP, Mayo County Council, through the Traveller accommodation liaison officers, continues to assist and support families in securing private rented accommodation where reasonable accommodation is available. The provision of private rented accommodation is one of the methods used by the council to meet the targets in its programme. Every effort is made to ensure the families have access to rent supplement and to sustain families availing of the scheme. As with all applicants who are currently availing of RAS or HAP, they can go onto the Mayo County Council transfer list.

The RAS and leasing schemes have made significant progress since the last programme. They are now accepted as a mainstream social housing support offering a high standard of accommodation with medium-term security of tenure and on a differential rent basis.

As regards refusal of housing, it is our policy to allow two refusals of reasonable offers of accommodation, recognising and taking into account any personal issues.

Homelessness is now a common experience for many Traveller families and a particularly fast-growing trend across all local authorities. Mayo County Council is taking account of this in its current and future plans.

In accordance with section 8 of the Housing (Traveller Accommodation) Act 1998, as amended by the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009, Mayo County Council gave notice of its intention to carry out an assessment of the need for accommodation for Travellers prior to the preparation of the Traveller accommodation plan. We invited submissions but to date none have been received.

On programme delivery, it is the intention of the council to communicate the requirements of the programme and to co-ordinate efforts within the county to ensure the success of the plan for the statutory period up to 2024. The council promotes the provision of Traveller-specific accommodation by voluntary groups operating within the county. There will be an annual review of progress on the implementation of the programme in addition to the statutory reviews after three years.

In appendix 1 of our Traveller accommodation programme, TAP, for 2019 to 2024, projected need is indicated to be 100 units. With regard to appendix 2, the summary of the position from 2019 to January 2024, members will see we exceeded the target and the figure now stands at 126. This figure includes transfers to meet the changing accommodation need of the families concerned.

Go raibh míle maith agaibh and támid sásta ceisteanna a fhreagrairt.

I thank Mr. Gilligan. I am sure there will be time for Ms Corcoran and Mr. Walsh to contribute as well. I thank Mayo County Council for its presentation.

We will now move on to Cork City Council. Members visited Spring Lane on 12 November 2021. One of the purposes of having Cork City Council before the committee was to get an update on Spring Lane. I invite Mr. Geaney from Cork City Council to make his opening statement.

Mr. Brian Geaney

I thank the Chair and members for the invitation to attend the Joint Committee on Key Issues Affecting the Traveller Community. I am the assistant chief executive of Cork City Council, and I am joined by my colleague Mr. Niall Ó Donnabháin, director of services, housing operations. We welcome the opportunity to meet the committee to discuss policy matters relating to accommodation for Travellers and the progress made by Cork City Council in improving the living conditions of the Traveller community in Cork city.

The council also welcomes the final report of the Joint Committee on Key Issues affecting the Traveller Community published by the previous committee and recognises that Traveller accommodation is a priority that needs to be urgently addressed.

Cork City Council is fully committed to improving the quality, standard and availability of suitable accommodation for Traveller families across Cork city and works in partnership with families, advocacy groups and agencies to help ensure this can be achieved.

Cork City Council has a dedicated Traveller accommodation unit responsible for Traveller accommodation issues, which comprises six full-time staff members who work with approximately 520 families who live in Cork City and engage with the city council. The Traveller accommodation unit engages with families daily, has dedicated clinics to address their accommodation needs and has a dedicated Traveller liaison officer in place since February 2023 who alone has dealt with over 3,500 engagements to the end of last year. The role of this unit is to implement the Traveller accommodation programme, which has been drafted and implemented under the Housing (Traveller Accommodation) Act 1998 and which will deliver Traveller-specific accommodation, standard housing and improvement works for the Traveller community following an assessment of needs survey conducted with the Traveller community. The city council has commenced work on the 2025-29 Traveller accommodation plan and will engage extensively with families, advocacy groups and all key stakeholders to ensure the completion of a robust and comprehensive blueprint for Traveller accommodation across Cork City for this five-year period.

Since 2021, Cork City Council has drawn down approximately €5.2 million of Department funding for improving conditions for Traveller families living in Cork city, including site improvement works, fire safety works, replacement mobile homes, roll-out of the caravan loan scheme, purchase of properties, provision of welfare facilities, etc. In addition, Cork City Council is currently developing five projects across our sites in line with the 2019-24 Traveller accommodation plan, with approved funding in the amount of €1.6 million to be spent. This is separate from the funding required to realise the planned redevelopment of the Spring Lane and Ellis’s Yard halting site on the northside of Cork city.

This leads me to the issue raised by the Chair at the start of the meeting, that is, the redevelopment of Spring Lane and Ellis’s Yard. The city council has carried out extensive engagement over the last two years with the residents of Spring Lane. A stakeholder engagement specialist has been engaged from the outset to work directly with the residents on each resident’s long-term housing needs and requirements. The proposed design of each house, site layout and family grouping of houses have been discussed with each family, which has proved very beneficial in securing buy-in, building trust and identifying key issues throughout the process. While lengthy and resource-intensive, this form of direct consultation is necessary and will hopefully lead to better outcomes in terms of greater co-operation throughout the planning process, build phase of the development and future management of Spring Lane.

The intensive family-specific consultation process has informed the proposed layout of the Spring Lane and Ellis’s Yard site and the design of each residential unit. The necessary associated design work, on-site surveys, environmental assessments and internal and agency consultation are now complete. As a consequence of these efforts, managed through our dedicated project implementation team, a detailed proposal has been completed for 27 new housing units between Spring Lane and Ellis’s Yard. Stage 2 funding was approved by the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage in recent days, on 29 January 2024. It is the council’s intention to commence the formal Part VIII process without delay.

I turn now to the Traveller participation and engagement initiative. The welfare and well-being of the Traveller community is a high priority for Cork City Council. As part of a wider Traveller participation and engagement Initiative, the Traveller accommodation unit has rolled out two pilot projects to Travellers in Cork city in the last year. The first was a child-led creative arts-based project across six creative workshops that explored the themes of home, identity and culture in terms of how the participants view how their Irish Traveller culture is reflected within their community and their own sense of identity. The second pilot focused on the development of a culturally inclusive tenant participation programme. The programme focused on community building and networking, tenant rights and responsibilities, communications and feedback channels, customised participation options and collaborative decision-making. We are assessing the effectiveness of the programme through feedback from participants and we will use this feedback to refine and adapt the programme to better suit the needs of the community. Both programmes were participant-led and flexible in their approach to aid their effectiveness. The council’s Traveller liaison officer is also a member of the Cork city equine initiative steering group and the children and young persons services committee. In addition, there is a "keeping young Travellers well" sub-group. The Traveller accommodation unit will also carry out health impact assessments on any large developments for Traveller families going forward.

This brings me to the national caravan loan scheme. The city council has been part of the national caravan loan scheme since 2021 and since then, it has administered 31 loans to members of the Traveller community. The scheme has been beneficial in giving families the option of purchasing their own mobile home on a preferential loan basis. Cork City Council has experienced strong interest in this scheme and has a waiting list, with 29 applications across the city. The city council was allocated the following loans during the period of the national caravan loan scheme: in 2021, there were 15 loans to the value of €464,795; in 2022, there were ten loans to the value of €400,000; and in 2023, there were six loans to the value of €238,440.

Cork City Council welcomes the scheme and will continue to offer it, considering the interest from Traveller families. However, it feels that a review should be undertaken, taking in the views of families, advocacy groups and local authorities to address the following issues: the unit cost of €40,000 is insufficient to allow the purchase of new mobile homes of suitable size and quality; the number of loan allocations should be increased where strong demand from families is being experienced; the cost for works required to facilitate the mobile home on-site, such as civil works, utility connection costs and any fire safety works required should be covered by the scheme; and the types of accommodation that fall within the scheme should be broadened to allow for the option to develop modular-type homes and residential standard mobile homes as a more suitable and sustainable alternative.

In conclusion, Cork City Council is determined to fully implement the current and future Traveller accommodation programmes and has committed, and will continue to commit, significant time, resources and investment, with the support of the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, to achieving this goal. The council is confident that despite the serious and complex challenges involved, this targeted and focused approach, together with the co-operation of other key agencies and Traveller advocacy groups in a unified effort, will help to achieve quality accommodation outcomes for Traveller families across Cork city.

I thank the witnesses for that information. It is interesting that the funding has been given for stage 2, which the committee welcomes. As I do not want to continue talking, I will hand over to the members to ask any questions they may have for Mayo County Council and Cork City Council. I call Deputy Buckley.

Good morning to all of our witnesses and I thank them for coming in. From my accent, they will know I am from Cork and not from Mayo, so I will concentrate on Cork.

A number of years ago, I sat on the Cork County Council Traveller committee. This issue has been going on for a long time. I welcome the news that the stage 2 funding is on track and also the other information given in the opening statement. We have discussed this at the committee and we knew there were specific issues with regard to Spring Lane. It was a question of communication more than anything else, and when there is no two-way communication, things can go belly-up very fast. I welcome Mr. Geaney's statement that the engagement was lengthy and resource-intensive and that this form of direct consultation was necessary. Of course, it was. To go back to the early part of the statement, Mr. Geaney mentioned that the city council listened to each family and this was based on their specific needs. It is brilliant that we are coming to that stage. I know it takes a lot of work and that has to be commended.

Fair play to Mr. Geaney for being totally honest in his statement when he said that €40,000 is totally inadequate as a loan. I would like to know how we, as a committee, can assist the council to increase that.

We have spoken here in numerous meetings about thinking outside the box. Mr. Geaney mentioned modular homes. Are they a better long-term option? He also mentioned the residential standard mobile home, which would cost well over €40,000 a pop.

I commend the witnesses on the unified effort in the city council. I hope it is the same with Cork County Council. It is a difficult job. How can the committee help? Mr. Geaney made a couple of recommendations. He said that, given costs, €40,000 was insufficient. He also said "The number of loan allocations should be increased where strong demand from families is being experienced". Is the council being restricted from increasing the amount of loans? Is there a problem and a way we can assist?

If there are red-tape issues, can the committee assist the council with that? This is not about a picking competition. It is about the committee trying to assist the council and being a link to central government. We need honesty as well as clarity. With honesty, we can be the stepping stone to assist any county or city council in moving things forward.

Let us be frank: the loan is not good enough. From what I have heard here from Cork City Council, it wants the loan allocations increased. There must be a problem if the council cannot increase the amount of loans given out. What is the problem there? If we can assist, it should just tell us how.

Why it is so hard to get extra allocations of loans out? Should each specific application for accommodation be assessed on the basis of need, in other words, there should not be a limit of €40,000 for a substandard mobile home? How do we get over that hurdle? If the witnesses think, realistically, the minimum should be €80,000 or €100,000, just tell us so we have it on the record. We can then tell the Government that things have to change and this is what the ballpark figure is. The council cannot do its job and assist the people without resources. There is no point going in with a half bottle of milk when it needs a full bottle.

Mr. Niall Ó Donnabháin

I appreciate the Deputy's commentary on Cork and the work we have been doing in the past number of years with the Traveller community across the city and particularly in Spring Lane. It has shown us that is the level of engagement needed to get to the heart of what is required. I hope it will bear fruit as we go through the process of Part VIII and beyond. It is a significant milestone in terms of the funding we have got from the Department. It is not an insignificant amount of money to provide for the first phase of Spring Lane and Ellis's Yard as a development option.

In relation to the loan scheme, we have given effect to 31 loans. We put ourselves forward as part of the initial pilot in 2021 with very few other local authorities. That has been rolled out over two successive periods in 2022 and 2023 at national level. To be fair to the Department and the Department of public expenditure and reform, that is being reviewed. We are happy to buy into and commit to that process because sometimes it has to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. Having a rule limiting the loan to €40,0000 or €80,000 is not really the answer. It is more to do with the specific requirement, which involves family size, conditions and the long-term plan or otherwise. Forty grand might be sufficient for the needs of a smaller family for a short period while a long-term proposal is being put in place, so it needs to be worked on that basis.

Because we were out front on this in 2021, it built a momentum and a buy-in from the families. That speaks to the amount of engagement we are having with the families. It is what is available at the moment and we are implementing Government policy. We have 29 applications in reserve, further to the applications allocated last year. In 2021, we had 15 and last year we had six. The difficulty is we started at a higher number, that raised an interest and, as a result, we have six allocated. We are always available to work with the Department on taking any additional funding or allocation available but for a city of Cork's size with all the families we need to deal with, there needs to be a degree of discretion on that which we can work on with the Department. We would feed that into any review going forward.

I will read out some of the letter we got from the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell. It is important we have it on the record.

I am pleased to inform you that following an examination of the Stage 2 application for the redevelopment my Department recently granted Stage 2 approval to Cork City Council for a budget [...] of €17.9m.

I thank the Minister of State for working with the committee and allocating that funding. Before passing over to members, I wanted them to know how much the budget was.

I will start with Cork. I welcome the progress made on Spring Lane but the obvious question that arises in my mind is when the problem commenced. When did the council know Spring Lane was deficient and substandard? How many years has it taken to get from there to here? I agree with consultation but there is also a reality if it goes on and on. Every night the consultation is going on, somebody is sleeping and living in cold, miserable conditions. It is important to understand when this started.

When the consultation was going on, the council would have had a fair idea of the shape of what it was going to do. There should have been, as far as possible, parallel processes going on. I deal with many Travellers and the one thing they want is a decent roof over their heads. Mr. Geaney is saying the council will commence Part VIII. Can he confirm it is Part VIII and not any other planning process that is involved? What happens if the Part VIII goes to the council and the elected members decide to defer or not to pass? The chief executive has the power to overrule that and just get on with it. What assurances will we get here today? I keep thinking of the Travellers in this area living in substandard conditions, going to bed every night and getting up every morning to substandard conditions. I do not think any of us would like to live in those conditions.

Has the council done an inventory of Traveller trailers in the city, an audit to find out the number that are substandard? I define "substandard" as meaning ones that are patently substandard but, as well as that, any that are more than seven years old. Any trailer more than seven years old does not have the thermal qualities required for 365-day living. We need to know. I do not buy into this thing about rationing it out from Dublin. I have fought this endlessly in the Dáil and in this committee. It is rationing out what should be a fundamental right to a decent place to live. It is very small money nationally because Travellers are a very small community nationally and many Travellers live in standard or purpose-built housing. A very small percentage of a very small population live in trailers but they are entitled, like everybody else, to a decent roof. This is a problem we could solve in one year.

Second, what is the view on the amount of the loan, which I understand is €40,000, that only buys a second-hand trailer? If we take it that a trailer has a seven-year life, buying a three-year-old trailer means it has a four-year life and we have to come back again to have another long battle to get trailers. What is the view on the amount and fact that it does not buy a new trailer and have any representations or submissions been made to the Department outlining the fact that this amount is totally inadequate? Has the issue of a standard rent been discussed? Is there a differential loan on these trailers or is it standardised at €20? What happens if there is a fixed building, as is the case on some halting site where a fixed building is attached to trailer? They are paying rent on the fixed part of it. Some of them have a kind of kitchen and whatever that is fixed, and they sleep in the trailer attached to it. Is double rent payable in that case? I know technically it is a loan but, at the end of day, it is money out of the community's pocket. I am delighted the local authority said that the €40,000 is insufficient. We back it the whole way on that issue because it has been raised time and again at this committee and in the Dáil. Does the local authority agree that this should be sorted in just one go - audit, assess and get it - and be done with this issue of substandard trailers once and for all? Money is being spent, rightly, on housing but as a proportion of the total housing, this is minuscule. This is a solvable problem, one that can be solved very fast because this does not take massive years of planning permission and so on, but could be done in a very short timeframe. Much of the problem up here at the moment is not about getting money. For a long time, getting money was the problem. The problem often now with capital expenditure is getting it spent.

I live in the neighbouring county very near the border with County Mayo. On the front page of the council's report, it states 175 traveller households are living in other accommodation. In the appendix I see there is one halting site in the county - in Castlebar as I understand it.

Mr. Tom Gilligan

Officially.

Officially, yes, we will come to the information but I think that is included in the other figure, is it?

Mr. Tom Gilligan

It is in the front, sorry.

Maybe I am missing something.

Ms Eileen Corcoran

At the beginning, it states, "11 in specific accommodation". That relates to nine families in a Traveller group housing scheme and two families on the halting site.

Are there only two families on the halting site?

Ms Eileen Corcoran

Yes. We have put in a submission for works on the halting site but at the moment it is under review, for the whole halting site to be-----

What is on the rest of the halting site?

Ms Eileen Corcoran

-----renovated. There are two sections to the halting site and the families that were on one part of it have actually decanted off site due to family issues at the moment. However, they are willing to go back on when the site is renovated.

Ms Eileen Corcoran

They are in a house at the moment.

What is the capacity? What is the capacity, if it was at full capacity?

Ms Eileen Corcoran

There were seven bays on it. At the moment we are looking to provide maybe housing. We have put in a submission for mobile homes because the family was not interested in the actual caravan loan scheme. There is currently a solid structure where there are, as the Deputy spoke about, cooking and washing facilities. There was a demountable dwelling structure for each of the bays. Those are now at the end of life so we need to replace them. The first submission we put in was for further demountable dwellings but they are not funded. We welcomed the news that they would fund modular accommodation. I would look favourably upon modular dwellings. We went back to the families about that. Now we are investigating the possibility of revamping the whole site on a phased basis but putting in the one plan, looking for the one submission for funding and possibly looking at putting houses instead of the modular homes.

Is this with the agreement of------

Ms Eileen Corcoran

Yes, with agreement.

How long would that-----

Ms Eileen Corcoran

It would be a combined site basically that may be part transient and part halting site. There may be two transient bays.

I have one question and I will then turn to Cork. How long, in real time, is it estimated to take between planning, design and up and down to the Department? I do not know why there so much going up and down. The county council should be given its money just as semi-State bodies are and spend it and if a mess is made of that, then it can account to the members and the auditor. Constantly going up and down to Dublin is controlling. That is way it works at the moment until we change it here. I accept it that is our responsibility. Taking all of those hoops into consideration, how long will it be before we sort out this issue on accommodation?

Mr. Tom Gilligan

I thank the Deputy. We had numerous conversations in this regard and Zoom calls, which negate the issue of going up and down to the Department. Once we get confirmation on the design and get on-site, we probably will have it done within 18 months to two years.

Will Dublin have to confirm that design?

Mr. Tom Gilligan

Absolutely, Dublin will have to confirm that. We are fortunate in Mayo in that we have our own team of architects as well but we will be-----

Are the Department's architects in Dublin somehow better qualified than Mayo's? Did they go to better universities or something?

Mr. Tom Gilligan

We are lucky as we have many highly professional and highly qualified architects but we will be following the process and ensuring that everything is done in accordance with process. Everything will be done as well with consultation with the Travellers.

I know that. I have faith in Mayo County Council but it amazes me. The same thing happened with the water schemes. They went to Uisce Éireann. Billions of euro went to that and it was told to go off and do it. The same thing happened with roads but now they give big lump sums to TII and off it goes and does it. There seems to be a nanny-state attitude to local authorities that holds things up for ordinary people. Does Mr. Gilligan agree?

Mr. Tom Gilligan

We work very well together. There is good co-operation.

Does Mr. Gilligan think there is a need for all this? Could Mayo County Council not design and build it up to standard without the Department telling it how to do it?

Mr. Tom Gilligan

The system works very well, there is good collaboration and it is good to get feedback if there are issues. I would not say it holds up the scheme.

I have been around a long time. I was on a local authority and my experience is that every time a file is moved, it takes time, there are questions and delays. All I ever think about when all this is happening and everything is going to be done perfectly, there are people desperately waiting. According to the figures in the report, 34 families are living on the roadside.

Ms Eileen Corcoran

By the roadside means there is a mix. Some are beside family homes.

They are in caravans. They are in irregular situations to put it mildly, which are very poor.

Ms Eileen Corcoran

Yes, that is true.

Are there any living by the roadside on unofficial halting sites?

Ms Eileen Corcoran

Yes, there is an official halting site.

Are there people living on unofficial halting sites?

Ms Eileen Corcoran

Yes, there is an unofficial halting site as well.

Are many families there?

Ms Eileen Corcoran

It is all an extended family.

The real need is easy enough to project because of family formation. There is a big demand because there is an overhang of 34 that are in informal arrangements and not in HAP, RAS or private rentals, which would be HAP nowadays because very few people get rent allowance from social welfare. In addition, another 44 are coming on stream. There is a big demand. What plans are there to meet this demand? Did the last TAP say it was not going to have anybody in what is being defined as roadside? Was that delivered on?

Mr. Tom Gilligan

Our last TAP delivered on and exceeded our targets. Our corporate plan outlined an important statistic, and it was brought up, that 1% of Mayo citizens identify as Travellers, so that is what we are working on with regard to the county development plan. When the Deputy said it is a small number, he is right. It is a small number in the overall context of the population of the county.

We have the following in Galway and everywhere. We have endless plans - a group plan, TAPs and whatever else. We see it not only with Traveller housing but generally. The problem is that it only seems to get bigger; it does not seem to get less. People come into my office homeless and many of them are Travellers. I think it is 50% of those in Galway. There are many people on the streets and they are homeless, which is what the witnesses call on the roadside. The council had a TAP, a Traveller plan. It would have had one up to 2019 and then another one from 2019 to 2024. Did the one up to 2019 finish and the county still wind up with a large number of Travellers living on what the witnesses define as roadside?

Ms Eileen Corcoran

Can I answer that?

Yes. We will then move to Cork City Council to respond to the Deputy, after which we have to move on to somebody else because of the time.

Ms Eileen Corcoran

In Mayo at the moment, we only have four families on an unauthorised site seeking the group housing scheme. Everybody else is seeking local authority housing. Previously, we managed that mainly through acquisitions as well as other housing supports such as RAS and the HAP scheme. That 34 is a very fluid number. It is usually due to new family formations, where family members in a house get married and their first step is nearly into a caravan until something else becomes available for them. That seems to be the way it has happened. In respect of those 34, even now, a month later, we do not have 34. There will be different families in the main than the ones who were on the previous TAP. It is a fluid number we are trying to solve in the methods they are looking at for themselves.

Mr. Brian Geaney

I wish to answer some of the questions on the history of Spring Lane, and Mr. Ó Donnabháin might come in on some of the issues the Deputy raised about the caravan loan scheme.

The history of Spring Lane is fairly well documented. It is more than 30 years old. Ten families initially moved in but that grew probably fivefold over the past three decades or so. Over those years and in more recent times, there has been much replacement of mobile homes, provision of welfare units and so on, but we fully accept the site needs to be redeveloped. It was part of the previous Traveller accommodation programme which was approved by our own council.

When was that approved?

Mr. Brian Geaney

It was approved in late 2019. The principle of redeveloping Spring Lane was approved at that stage. Just for the committee to know, when that Traveller accommodation programme was going through public consultation, it attracted nearly 1,000 submissions, primarily from people from the Ballyvolane area who live in close proximity to the Spring Lane site.

Were they opposing housing-----

Mr. Brian Geaney

There were issues raised in respect of, we will say, the current site as it is and any future plans to redevelop it. There was a fear among the local community that the site was going to be expanded as part of the council’s plans for the area, which is not the case.

I do not want to come in here but I have to. When Mr. Geaney says “local community”, is that the locals from the settled community or the Travellers themselves?

Mr. Brian Geaney

There were a number of submissions both from the Travellers themselves but primarily the largest number of submissions were made by the settled community in the Ballyvolane area.

People come in with written letters. The system should not judge by volume but by the validity of the objection. We know this because sociological studies prove this. It is an absolute fact there is a prejudice against Travellers. These are objective studies. Presumably, many of those did not make valid planning points about accommodation that would overrule this absolutely urgent need for decent accommodation for the Traveller community, which impedes education, lifestyle choices and everything into the future.

Mr. Brian Geaney

I am raising that in the context of the Deputy’s next question on the Part 8 being approved by our own members. Despite the number of submissions received and the number of concerns raised by some people in the settled community, the Traveller accommodation programme was approved by council with the principle of the redevelopment of Spring Lane. I do not want to predetermine the council not approving the Part 8. It would be unfair for us to speculate on that. We work very closely with our own members and council. In the past two councils, no Part 8 for a housing proposal has failed. We will work with our local council, the Traveller community in Spring Lane and the settled community with regard to the consultation for this Part 8 process, which will be presented to our own council for decision. It would be unfair to speculate that the council would not approve it.

I am not speculating. I do not have a clue what it may do. The council might pass it the first time. I believe all of us in life have some contingency plans if it happens that it goes the other way. I have been disappointed, where it has gone the other way in other councils, and this is something that has happened around the country, that the chief executives have not used their powers to move this on, because where urgent housing is needed and people are living in subhuman conditions, I do not believe we can afford to have it held up. I will be straight in saying that, in those situations, if neither acts, the Government should act to ensure housing is for all, as our slogan says.

Mr. Brian Geaney

We take it that this will be presented to the council following the public consultation. It will go to a vote in the council and we hope it will be approved. If it is not approved at that stage, we will have to examine what options are open to us. As Mr. Ó Donnabháin outlined, Part 8 will be advertised fairly shortly.

We will have to move swiftly along to give other members the opportunity to come in. I have some good questions to ask at the end. I call Deputy Stanton.

I welcome the witnesses and thank them for their badly needed work in this challenging area. I visited Spring Lane a number of years when I was a Minister of State and representative for the area. I agree that it needs considerable work. I have never seen anything as demanding or bad. I wish Mr. Geaney luck with moving on in that regard.

Public consultation and Part 8 have been mentioned. When is the public consultation going to start and is there a time limit on it? When will the Part 8 consideration be put to members for a vote?

Mr. Brian Geaney

I will bring in Mr. Ó Donnabháin on the specifics.

Mr. Niall Ó Donnabháin

The Deputy's question also speaks to the question asked by Deputy Ó Cuív about where we stand at the moment. We got confirmation of stage 2 funding on Monday. Our commitment to the process is shown by the fact we have been building this in the background. To return to Deputy Ó Cuív's point about timelines, we have not been waiting. We have been working in the background and doing all the relevant engagements with the local Traveller accommodation consultative committee, LTACC, and the advocates. There has been considerable engagement. I know there is upset about the amount of communication that is likely to register through the Part 8 process. However, we have been open with the public and everybody involved because the project has to get done from everyone's perspective. In that context, we go forward now. A critical part of the Traveller accommodation programme, TAP, and its roll-out was that we agreed to engage in a formal consultation process, as we have done with the families. Before we go anywhere, we are engaging with the families themselves to tell them what is happening and where we are going with it. We need everybody on board so that everybody has bought into the same concept, which we hope is the case with respect to the families. The advocates, LTACC and ward members will be the same. From a consultation point of view, before we go to public consultation, which is a minimum of six weeks, we will brief the public. It will allow the public to come to us during an open session day to go through the documents and drawings, exactly what we are doing, why and how. We will roll that out and be specific. My experience is that at public consultation, time is ticking and people are trying to mobilise a response. In this case, we are going to be out in front of it in advance of the public consultation and kicking off. People will be afforded the opportunity for a full day to come in and discuss issues with our design team, a full project implementation team of architects, engineers and us. What will then likely happen is that those community or residence groups will come together and through that dedicated consultation period of six weeks, we will meet with those groups-----

Did Mr. Ó Donnabháin say "six weeks"?

Mr. Niall Ó Donnabháin

That is correct. There is a minimum period of six weeks for public consultation on Part 8. It can take longer if one wishes but we are working to a tight timeline. We would be looking to bring our Part 8 for Spring Lane for council approval on 13 May. That is the expectation.

I thank Mr. Ó Donnabháin. I will ask about the caravan loan scheme. We have had discussions about the scheme at the committee and it was put to us by others that a caravan rental scheme would be a better option. Given the two local authorities have a lot of experience on the ground, how would they feel about that proposal? People rent local authority houses all the time and pay a differential rent. It seems to me strange that people have to buy, rather than rent, a caravan. Would the representatives of Mayo and Cork councils care to comment? We have heard that proposal in the past. Would it be a better way to go or is it best to stay with what we have?

Mr. Niall Ó Donnabháin

It is an interesting question that speaks again to the issue of differential rent, how we apply it and how the loan is managed. It is obviously done on a preferential basis that does not reflect the full value but is instead means tested against the capacity of the family involved. If a rental aspect were to be rolled out, it would have to be of a different standard. It would have to be of a more robust, sustainable and long-term standard because to be fair to anybody, if you are renting and trying to pitch a social house allocated to any member of the community versus a mobile home, you would have to go to a more robust form and new-build structure that the family accepts and wants. We would then work a scheme around that from a rental point of view. The current scheme could not be worked into a rental scheme because the figure available is insufficient to drive the quality of the accommodation that is needed. That is my view.

Have Mr. Gilligan or Ms Corcoran any comment? I note, by the way, that in one submission, I read that there is demand in Mayo for a caravan loan scheme. Am I correct on that?

Ms Eileen Corcoran

No, there has not been.

There has not been.

Ms Eileen Corcoran

No.

Mr. Tom Gilligan

There have been a lot of inquiries.

Ms Eileen Corcoran

There have been inquiries.

The council did not draw down any funding in that regard.

Mr. Tom Gilligan

We have not yet received any applications.

That is interesting.

Mr. Tom Gilligan

I concur with my colleagues from Cork about the rental option. Given the value of the loan and the robustness around the scheme, I am not sure. It might be interesting to try as a pilot scheme to see if it would work. However, I am not sure it would. It might be something the committee could recommend as a pilot scheme with one or two local authorities and we could see what happens.

Mr. Niall Ó Donnabháin

That brings us to the modular aspect, which we talked about earlier and which is a matter we are actively considering. It is interesting that there has been no significant demand in our local authority. There are 31 loans allocated and 29 applications at the back end. As I referenced earlier, that is a feature of the fact that we have been in the process since 2021. Traveller families are becoming more aware of and used to it. The Deputy asked about a rental scheme. Perhaps an alignment with the modular prospect at a pilot level, as Mr. Gilligan mentioned, could be interesting.

Local authorities are renting houses all the time.

Mr. Niall Ó Donnabháin

That is absolutely so.

Mr. Niall Ó Donnabháin

It is the same prospect.

It is the same idea.

Mr. Niall Ó Donnabháin

It is a prospect.

I will ask about the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, report and work. It has made a number of recommendations to both local authorities and I am sure our guests are probably aware of that. For Cork, IHREC referred to ensuring the assessments of need for future TAPs include an estimate of the number of Traveller families and households for whom accommodation will be required at the commencement and conclusion of the programme and the need for sites, as required in the legislation. It also referred to the need to ensure accurate statistical data and stated that future surveys should be carried out with peer researchers, Travellers and so on. It also identified the need to ensure a process of identifying locations for smaller halting sites and to ensure the council and Traveller community engage with each other. What is the relationship in Cork between the Traveller community and the council at the moment? Perhaps the witnesses would also comment on the IHREC recommendations.

Mr. Niall Ó Donnabháin

I think the relationship with the Traveller community is good. It has progressed substantially in recent years across the full community and not only with the residents of Spring Lane. As mentioned in the briefing report to the committee, we meet Traveller families on a daily basis. Our Traveller liaison officer has dealt directly with a phenomenal number of engagements and our Traveller accommodation unit would deal with that on a much bigger level. As has been mentioned by many contributors, considering the number of Traveller families we have, engagements must be bigger and more involved in respect of the needs and wants of what is required.

We will always be a local authority. What we are doing with our Traveller accommodation units and Traveller liaison officers, as is the case for Mayo County Council, is to broker more of an engagement at an early stage. As we mentioned in our briefing report, we have been trying to give effect to things at an earlier stage and to break the cycle of this being just an accommodation piece. We are trying to work across the community in the long term and some of the things we have outlined have been helpful in that regard. Certainly from our perspective, relationships have improved. The communication piece can be strained and difficult because of the issues we are confronting but there is a commitment from Cork City Council to address these issues. As we show form with the likes of the Spring Line site, it gives confidence to the community that we are there with not just another plan but with a defined direction and outcome in mind. That helps.

I have two other brief questions, after which I will stop and allow my colleagues to come in. I could keep talking about this topic all day because it is so challenging and interesting. I raise the issue of Traveller-specific accommodation. IHREC seemed to indicate that the issue has not been given the attention it should be getting from both local authorities. I know it is challenging. I am sure the witnesses have read the recommendations in the IHREC report.

My second point may not be in their area.

In my previous work, I came across a number of places that had after-school clubs and homework clubs for Traveller children who went there to do homework and that kind of thing. This meant that when they went into school the following day, they were up to speed with what was needed. They had got some encouragement, help and support and it worked very well. It meant that the dropout rate from school reduced dramatically. However it does need accommodation or somewhere to do this. Are the local authorities are aware of this? Is it something they could support by providing a premises where this can happen, were the Department of Education looking for one? Has there been consultation between the Department of Education and the local authorities on this issue? I have seen it in action in a few places and it is really impressive.

They are my final two questions and are for both groups.

Ms Eileen Corcoran

In relation to the after-school service, that was a feature on the halting site in Castlebar for many years. Unfortunately Sr. Margaret, the nun who ran it, has retired and there were changeovers in the families on the site. I know the social workers who are part of our Traveller accommodation team would say it was very worthwhile. I think the Deputy is right and I agree with him on that.

Is it something the local authority would support if the Department of Education came knocking?

Ms Eileen Corcoran

Yes.

Okay, that is good to hear. I thank Ms Corcoran Are there clubs in the city council area at the moment?

Mr. Niall Ó Donnabháin

Not specifically that I am aware of in the context of the Department of Education. I do not doubt that it is available in certain schools, in particular on the northside, located next to the Traveller sites. It is certainly something the local authority believes works very well at the very young Traveller bases.

That is also my experience. Regarding Traveller-specific accommodation, can I get a comment from both witnesses as to what the challenges are? What are they doing in that respect?

Mr. Niall Ó Donnabháin

From our point of view, the schemes we are designing with the families involved are culturally appropriate and Traveller-specific. Whatever phrase you want to call them, they are based on the needs of the families. As for constantly putting a label on them of being Traveller-specific they are based on the families' needs and what their requirements are. There is a very different type of design, for example, for what the council is putting on the original Spring Lane site compared with what it is putting on the Ellis's Yard site, because certain Traveller families want standard housing. In our case, we will allocate standard housing on that basis and a choice of aesthetic systems is available for that. It is incorrect to label it as being Traveller-specific. It is all housing, depending on need and on requirement.

Ms Eileen Corcoran

I agree with everything that has been said. In County Mayo, a lot of the families are looking for standard housing but we have drawn down a certain amount of funding for Traveller-specific accommodation. If that could be increased across the board it would help, as everyone can agree that it has been harder to get private rented accommodation for Traveller families. We need better quality houses. We have bought a lot of houses in Mayo since 2015, over the last two plans, but they have not been highlighted as being Traveller-specific because not all the money came from that direction. If the committee could do anything to ensure more money for standard housing coming through as Traveller-specific, it would help a lot of families and a lot of the 34 families we were talking about, as that is what they actually want.

I thank the witnesses.

Mr. Tom Gilligan

To concur with my colleague in that regard, we probably do not get enough credit in that area. People look at the specific Traveller-specific accommodation funding element but we do go above and beyond that as well, as Ms Corcoran mentioned, in relation to standard housing. That probably does not get the recognition it should.

Where does the Traveller accommodation budget come from?

Mr. Tom Gilligan

It comes from the social housing investment programme, SHIP.

Everybody had an entitlement, subject to means and all the rest, to a local authority house. The Traveller-specific element was to allow for those who wished to retain the idea of living within their own community and was separate. Another thing that I am a little bit wary of, and I have been dealing with people for a long time, is that people come into my constituency office with any problem, they tend to go with the option they think is most likely to succeed, not necessarily their favourite option. There can be certain bias created for the choices people make and I would say the Chair might have better experience of this than I have.

To be fair, we must move on to Deputy Joan Collins.

I thank the Chair and I thank the witnesses from Mayo County Council and Cork City Council for their attendance. We all agree that the housing issue is a serious issue for the settled communities, the Travelling community and any other community. It is a crisis issue and it has not happened overnight. The role of this committee is to hold the local authorities' feet to the fire, not so much about what has not happened up to now but what can be done into the future. I have a question for Cork City Council. The witnesses mentioned that there are 520 families who live in Cork city and who engage with the council. How many official halting sites and how many unofficial sites are there in Cork city? In the overall development plan of the city, does the council have specific areas zoned in the development plan for housing for the Travelling community? In its specific Traveller accommodation programme, does it have plans for moving out of here? Earlier, it was mentioned that Spring Lane originally started off with ten families but has increased fivefold, which means 50 families. Twenty-seven new housing units are being built in Spring Lane and Ellis's Yard, which means there could be perhaps 23 other families. Where do they go? Is provision being made for them?

What sort of future planning do the councils in Mayo and Cork have in mind for the families in the Travelling community? I note that Travellers are 22% more likely to become homeless. The number of homeless Travellers is much higher than in the general community. Even though they are only 1% of the population, it seems crazy that despite all the avenues we have now and even though there is more consciousness about providing housing for the Traveller community, improvement depends ultimately on how we deal with this. I think 27 new homes is brilliant. It is fantastic that we have got to this point and that the Part 8 process should be only a six-week process. Hopefully, building on that site will start over the next period of time. As I said, however, there are 23 other families. Essentially, what is the city council doing in its development plan to deal with the future and for those families that are there at the moment?

Likewise in Mayo, we cannot continue at a very low level of building homes on halting sites. As for the worst thing that can happen, which the witnesses will agree happens everywhere - the Irish went to Kilburn and to other places in England and other nationalities arrived in England as well - is that each community tends to track their own community. They come in and live in short-term overcrowded rented housing and then that becomes an issue. There is no doubt but that in those 27 new housing units, family members will probably move in with the residents unless they have somewhere to go. What I am saying is a that a housing plan for halting sites around the city or for housing schemes around the city has to be in place in order that the community knows there is not going to be more overcrowding in their homes.

I want to tease that out with the witnesses and see where they are going with that. How far ahead are they thinking in the context of housing for the Travelling community?

As Deputy Ó Cuív said, we are probably buying mobile homes that are three years old. They only last seven years if people are living in them 365 days a year. They need to be replaced every seven years without cost to the families if that is where the families want to live. We need to make finance available for that.

That covers what I wanted to ask between the development plans and Traveller accommodation programmes. Cork has a Traveller accommodation plan for 2019 to 2024 and Mayo is preparing a draft Traveller accommodation programme to commence in 2025. I would like to get feedback on that please.

I am calling Deputy Mitchell now because she has to go to the House in a few minutes.

My first question is for the representatives from Cork. I welcome that the funding for Spring Lane is available. It is terrible that it has taken this long to get it. I was on the previous committee along with Deputy Collins. We visited Spring Lane and to say we were shocked at the conditions people were living in there is an understatement. If everything goes to plan, when will the whole thing be completed with people living in suitable conditions? I have concerns about the conditions right now. What work has been done to date in Spring Lane to improve the conditions for those living there?

My next question is for both councils. The Traveller accommodation expert review recommended a Traveller accommodation agency. It was also recommended by the previous version of this committee. I would like to get both councils' view on that.

Mr. Niall Ó Donnabháin

I will first deal with Deputy Mitchell's questions if she needs to leave. I ask her to clarify her question. On which plan was she was seeking our view?

I am looking for a timeframe for the plan for the redevelopment of Spring Lane.

Mr. Niall Ó Donnabháin

I can give her that in a second. What was the second question? Was it on our view in respect of another plan?

It was on the recommendation for a national agency to oversee Traveller accommodation.

Mr. Niall Ó Donnabháin

Regarding an indicative timeframe, one of the big challenges and one of the reasons such a significant amount of funding was allocated is because this is going to be a live site. It will need to be managed and phased. At present, Ellis's Yard will facilitate 15 units. As a result, those families will relocate and the site will be redeveloped first with secondary access, which will allow for a better distribution of the families and a better layout overall, making it safer and more secure for all families on site. That will be delivered first and people will then be decanted. It will be a phased process to allow the development to happen. As units are delivered, they will be occupied. There are many complexities to the site because of the large volume of families in a live environment. People want to stay in their homes for the period the development goes on. We need to work that through.

We are looking to get to Part 8 by May of this year. During the procurement process, we will be putting the documentation together in the expectation we get approval. We will be moving forward for tendering of the job immediately upon receipt of Part 8. A build of this complexity will take a couple of years to close out in its entirety. However, progress will be made and seen on the site over that period.

The Deputy asked for my view on a Traveller accommodation agency. Ultimately, that is a matter for the State. From the local authority perspective, we are doing the best we can. We are working diligently and effectively to give effect to not just the TAP but greater level of community engagement with the Traveller community. If the agency is to be established, we will certainly play our part in communicating with that as we currently do with the Department.

Mr. Tom Gilligan

From Mayo's perspective-----

I also asked Mr. Ó Donnabháin to give an update on the maintenance and repair work at Spring Lane.

Mr. Niall Ó Donnabháin

To date, we have spent €2.1 million on Spring Lane alone. There is also an estimated €500,000 to €600,000 for electrical upgrades. That relates to welfare units. Ten are currently being provided on the site as we speak. Civil works are being done and new welfare units are being provided for all the families. A new school walkway was provided. That was specifically identified in the OCO report and the connectivity from the site to the local school through an adjoining estate. That has been provided for. Many upgrades have happened to individual bays and walls. I could go into specific detail, but a lot of improvements have been made. I completely accept that it is still not where it needs to be.

Ultimately, the site, as identified in the TAP and as we are committed to, is a long-term redevelopment. We are engaged with every family on that site. We are doing welfare units and electrical upgrades. We are doing critical elements of work provided for on a family-by-family basis. We provided for two new bays associated with the provision of the school walkway. We are improving circumstances as we go and we will continue to do that. Ultimately, with the long-term plan in place, a lot of that work will be undone. We need a pragmatic approach to what we do in the meantime. We have taken a view on that regarding the works we do and we have communicated to the families accordingly.

Mr. Tom Gilligan

The Deputy asked for our view on a Traveller accommodation agency, if that is what is agreed and comes to fruition. My only request is that it would be adequately resourced and financed. That is why Derek Walsh and Eileen Corcoran are here today. We cannot lose sight of the local knowledge and input the local authority has and the work we do on the ground. That will continue to be very important. The role of local authorities is unique in that. That interaction on the ground is critical. Whatever is decided, whatever is agreed, if it is a national policy, we will row in behind it if it is adopted. At the same time, I would not like to lose sight of the local interaction and the local knowledge which are vital. As one of the Deputies mentioned earlier, it is about communication and ensuring that that communication works well.

I thank the witnesses and apologise that I must leave.

I call Mr. Ó Donnabháin to answer Deputy Collins's questions.

Mr. Niall Ó Donnabháin

Deputy Collins asked some valid questions about Spring Lane. It started with ten families and still has extended versions of the same families, which is interesting in itself. There are 50 families and we are dealing with every one of them regarding Spring Lane. There are solutions in place. Regarding the 27 units, some families have moved off the site. Seven families have moved off the site to standard housing; that was their requirement.

When we initiated this process, we met with every one of the families using independent stakeholder engagement specialists. They were met and walked through options from the point of view of their preferences. Some Traveller families prefer to go to standard housing. That is what they wanted to do. We worked in a prioritised way to get standard houses for those families. In the meantime, as part of this process and because of the timelines we have just identified, certain Traveller families will still want to move out. We will not have an issue with that until such time as we pull the trigger on proceeding with the development. Our choice-based letting system is still available to every Traveller family. If Traveller families on the site wish to move, we will facilitate them moving into standard housing or other available housing. That will be the context and it will provide a degree of future-proofing. As part of the assessment of the site and the family needs, we have also looked at the younger generation coming through as to providing for the family composition and formation. You cannot go so far down that it becomes unworkable, but we have worked in a practical way in the context of the age profile of younger Traveller families coming through. They were accommodated as part of the plan and of the long-term plan. Every family has a solution in place. We are working through their requirements with them.

Does Mr. Ó Donnabháin foresee that any family will be forced to go onto particular sites? I will not say they are unauthorised sites, but will they be forced to reside at the side of a road?

Mr. Niall Ó Donnabháin

No, absolutely not.

Is he confident of this?

Mr. Niall Ó Donnabháin

I would be confident because we have engaged with them as to their specific requirements. We will answer those requirements and needs. As referenced in our Traveller accommodation plan, we have seven authorised sites. We have one unauthorised site we are aware of. We engage with the family, but it is on a private site. They have occupied that site for a period. We will, always and ever, engage with every Traveller family in the city as regards their need. At the same time, however, there is a limit to moving people should they not wish to be moved.

What is the position with the Traveller accommodation programme development plan?

Mr. Niall Ó Donnabháin

There is a positive and strong link with that. The period of our development plan is from last year out to 2028, but sites have not been specifically identified. The reason for that was that a great deal of consideration went into this. Our general residential zoning policy for Cork city allows for the provision of Traveller accommodation. Our issue is that we did not want to limit where Traveller units or new schemes could be provided, in particular with the onset of the Traveller accommodation programme. The plan is specific, in that it states, where appropriate in the zoning provision for residentially zoned land that Traveller accommodation could be provided for. That will allow us, as part of the TAP, to be more flexible in what exactly is required and where it needs to be. It will not all be grouped housing schemes. As we said, we need to look at other provision with regard to standard housing, building specific culturally appropriate Traveller units into new schemes, in particular as in our case you are dealing with a lot of larger household sizes. It is hard to find bigger units. In some solutions, therefore, we will be incorporating those into the design of new schemes and working through that provision. The TAP will build out the specifics as allowed for in the development for zoning and planning provision.

Is the Deputy happy with that? Were all of her questions answered? She did have a lot.

I accept what Mr. Ó Donnabháin is saying. It is part of the development plan and it will not restrict them. How is Mayo adopting its plans to ensure the future eight-year plan, with a mind to a growing community there, with regard to Traveller accommodation?

Mr. Tom Gilligan

There would be a strong correlation between our previous TAP and the upcoming TAP. The latter will run until 2029, even though our development plan only runs to 2028. There are also many other plans and initiatives out there, in particular Housing for All. These come into the mix as well. We are mindful of wanting to provide a strong correlation between all of them, that there will be an adequate number of sites zoned and that we will meet the needs of a growing population.

There are officially 580 families in Cork. It was stated that there are 472 Traveller households in Mayo. Are those people already living in accommodation or are there figures for the Travelling community populations in both Cork and Mayo? Do they have figures for how many people identify themselves as Travellers in Cork city and Mayo?

Mr. Tom Gilligan

We have the identifier as part of the housing application. There is an identifier there. A person can identify as being a member of the Travelling community. That also came directly from this committee. It is something we utilise.

Do the witnesses have an official information on the number of people in their areas who are part of the Travelling community? Are there 1,000 or 2,000 households?

Mr. Tom Gilligan

We do. It was part of our opening submission. We did the annual count for 2023. There were 472 Traveller households in the county. Some 297 of those were in standard accommodation. We broke that down into 220 in local authority or approved housing body accommodation, 76 in supported tenancies in the private sector and one living in a long-term-leasing arrangement. We broke down the remaining 175 households between 11 in specific accommodation, 25 in emergency, 36 sharing, 48 in private ownership, 31 in private rented accommodation and 24 others. We gave a fairly detailed breakdown of that number.

Mr. Gilligan is saying that he officially knows of 472 Traveller households and that they are broken down in that way. Does that encapsulate the whole Travelling community in Mayo?

Mr. Tom Gilligan

That was the 2023 count. From our point of view, we have captured everything.

But 472 for a county like Mayo is a small number of people or families. I fail to understand how we did not grasp this ten years ago in the context of accommodation for the Travelling community in the county. It beggars belief. I thank the witnesses and appreciate their answers.

I propose that we publish on our website the letter received from the Minister and our letter to the Minister. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I have a few questions. In private session last week, we discussed the root cause of why people do not like members of the Traveller community living beside them and the levels of hatred, discrimination and racism that unfortunately still exist in society. I do not want to put words in Mr. Geaney's mouth, but I was taken aback by what he said earlier. I know it happens seven days a week when it comes to accommodation for Travellers and the fact that many members of the settled community do not want Travellers living beside them. That is fear of the unknown and what people see out there too.

That attitude is striking to me and local authorities must deal with that kind of behaviour. What can be done in local authorities to show that the Traveller community is an equal part of the community and that it has as equal a say as do people from the general population? This is something Ireland needs to deal with as a society. Unfortunately, coming up to elections, there will be people campaigning using the anti-Traveller card. What can this committee and the local authorities do - I will not say to stop it, as this behaviour may never stop completely - to show communities that local authorities care about Travellers and about Traveller accommodation and that they will treat Travellers as being just as important as the settled community? I refer to Carrickmines in 2015, when families were put back into the same living conditions on the same halting site where ten members of their family died in a fire. As Chairperson of this committee, I do not wish to state that there is an "us versus them" scenario when there should just be an "us". What can local authorities do to break down barriers between Travellers and the settled community?

I also am interested to hear of the relationships between Mayo County Council and the Mayo Travellers organisation and between Cork City Council and the Cork Traveller visibility organisation. As Deputy Ó Cuív stated earlier, everyone has a part to play and the Traveller organisations have a part to play in communicating with the councils. Mr. Ó Donnabháin stated that Cork City Council is working with the community through the Cork Traveller Visibility Group at Spring Lane but, to the best of my knowledge, I had thought that work of consultation was done already. Deputy Ó Cuív frequently talks about kicking the can the down the road, about pilot schemes and a lot of talking shops. This is the committee's 14th meeting and it is now at the point where it needs to see action. This is not for the benefit of members of the committee, as many of us are not impacted by the living conditions the Traveller community live in, which are dire in many cases. This committee wishes to see more action.

As for Traveller accommodation programmes, TAPs, while I do not wish to show disrespect or to target anyone, the TAPs have not worked and will not work. Traveller organisations and the Traveller community are looking for a Traveller authority to work with to deliver accommodation because unfortunately, local authorities have not met the needs or demands of the Traveller community. I welcome Mr. Ó Donnabháin's statement that Cork City Council will have passed through Part 8 of the planning process on 13 May. This is usually the biggest challenge when it comes to the redevelopment of Traveller sites or accommodation. However, the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, has stated that there should be an exemption from the Part 8 provisions when to comes to Traveller accommodation. What is the officials' opinion on that?

I am aware, from being on the TAP in Ballyfermot for many years, that a lot of the accommodation budget goes to waste management and that is annoying. How much of Cork City Council's Traveller accommodation budget goes to waste management? Should that responsibility not lie with the department of waste management? Should there not be two different budgets?

I frequently mention the maintenance of Traveller houses at this committee. At the halting site in Ballyfermot, the houses are really run-down and you would not expect dogs to live in them. The maintenance is of poor quality. How much of Cork City Council's budget has been spent on maintenance and what quality would the city council's representatives say the maintenance is? Is it to a high standard?

That is my input to the committee today. I do not know if the witnesses have answers to the questions I asked, particularly around the local authorities building relationships with both communities.

Mr. Brian Geaney

I thank the Chair.

As for the issues around Part 8 of the planning process and the level of submissions, I highlighted the level of submissions that were received and the TAP in the context of a scenario where the Part 8 was not approved by our own members. Cork City Council probably received the highest number of submissions in the country, whereas the number of submissions received by our colleagues in Cork County Council was in single-digits. The point is our own council did approve the TAP, despite the level of submissions and concerns that were raised by certain sections of the community. There will be a public consultation phase, which Mr. Ó Donnabháin has spoken about, to dispel the myths and misinformation out there and to address the concerns of the settled community. I refer to misinformation such as sites doubling in size. Unfortunately, people can spread misinformation for their own purposes and we need to be clear in our consultation process that misinformation such as this is not the case. We need to engage with as many people as possible to outline what the correct factual position is and then obviously, move on to prepare the report and move into council.

Cork City Council needs to provide good quality accommodation and ensure that it is well managed. People will all be aware of areas in recent years where social housing has not been managed well and has got a bad reputation as a result and that is something we are very conscious of across our total housing portfolio, as well as around the new apartment schemes we are developing in particular. The management of those accommodations going forward will be important.

As for working with Travellers, there is an Traveller interagency group. It is made up of the education and training board, ETB, the Garda, the HSE, the council and all the different agencies and advocacy groups. It meets every five or six weeks and is independently chaired. I must say that they are good meetings and progress is being made on the education front. A lot of work is being done through an equine programme at Spring Lane and the interagency group works with Travellers on practical issues that can and should be dealt with going forward. Relationships are improving and we are eager to ensure that those good relations are kept in place.

Mr. Niall Ó Donnabháin

I thank the Chair.

As for engagement with Traveller advocacy groups, we meet all the Traveller advocacy groups formally on a six-week basis. They engage with us on a daily basis for an individual family need or otherwise but we now have a structured engagement process with them, which is effective. The point I tried to make earlier is that, despite best efforts, certain Traveller families do not engage with advocacy groups and that is a fact. As a result, Cork City Council had to undertake a different tack to engage with the individual families in Spring Lane, as it would with any family. I refer back to the point my colleague, Mr. Geaney, made in that it is important that local relationships are maintained and that there is trust with the local authorities to work through these issues. Therefore, Cork City Council meets every six weeks with the Traveller advocacy groups. While it is completely understandable that certain Traveller families keep their circumstances private and that is something that can be expected from any member of any community, in the case of Spring Lane, they were not being advocated for or did not wish to be advocated for and we therefore engaged with them specifically through our independent mediator and stakeholder engagement person and that really helped with the problem.

The council took a step back and the key information was allowed to filter through. It is important to mention that while we have an active and positive engagement process with our advocacy groups, not all Traveller families are represented by advocacy groups.

As for how this will be rolled out, Mr. Geaney raised the important question on how to dispel myths on this matter. It is done by confronting the facts, by being upfront and outlining the facts of what the council is doing and why it is doing them. This is what we have tried to do from the outset by keeping the local Traveller accommodation consultative committee, LTACC, and the general public involved. The pre-consultation process will help in this regard but the council is also working with Cena and specifically with Traveller families in identifying ways to go forward. Cena has been referenced already around feasibility studies on two other sites we have. Cork City Council is working with Cena in the prevention of homelessness, specifically to see if it will step forward in helping the council prevent the homelessness of a Traveller family by acquiring the property, similar to what the council is doing with the tenant in situ scheme. It allows for tenancy support and sustainment from a specific cohort. As Mr. Geaney outlined, a critical part of the success of any Traveller housing scheme will be its future management and Cena has helped the council develop in this regard. This will be a managed scheme and we have sought advice from Cena as to what exactly the council needs to be looking at beyond the standard estate management that it does, or that an approved housing body does. We are trying to tailor it specifically in order and we will go through that process all the way through. In doing that and in ensuring that this issue is tackled from root to branch, it will help to dispel some of the criticism and issues the general public has around this. There are Traveller families way beyond the number in discussion today at this committee who are living in the community on a daily basis and there is absolutely no issue. That is a really important part; they do not engage with the local authorities because they do not need to, similar to the council's social tenants or to any private member of the community. However, when they do, the council must provide that improved service.

To speak on the waste management issue, we source that from our revenue budget, separate to the Traveller accommodation budget, where we can. Equal to that, we then secure central funding, where appropriate, in that context. It is unfortunate that it is an issue, there is no question of that and it raises concern. It is not just the families within these sites because it is not always those families that are creating the issue, albeit they may be contributing to it. It is about trying to figure out how the council deals with it. Good estate management will help with this issue and dispel the criticism from the public that these areas are all a mess. Most of the Traveller families the council deals with do not wish to have anything to do with this issue but it does cause trouble for the schemes going forward.

It is something that is seen frequently in halting sites. I remember that, in 2017, a man in the area who had a lorry filled with rubbish brought it into the site. I remember going after him and telling him that although we might be members of the Traveller community, we were not dirt and were not going to allow him to dump on our site. The rubbish was coming from outside of the site into it. I believe that the Traveller community on halting sites must police itself. Unfortunately, this would not be seen in any other group housing scheme. It is an issue that must be dealt with. While it may not be the biggest issue, it is a question of services and good policing by local authorities will end it. Obviously, all communities see people dumping and have issues with waste management, but I know from my experience that it can come from outside halting sites too.

Mr. Niall Ó Donnabháin

Absolutely, 100%.

I thank Mr. Ó Donnabháin.

Mr. Tom Gilligan

The view of Mayo County Council on the way it builds relationships with the Traveller community is that it is all about being inclusive and about having dignity and respect. One of the reasons Mr. Walsh and Ms Corcoran were brought before the committee today is that they are the council's eyes and ears on the ground when it comes to dealing with the Traveller community. I believe that liaising with the Traveller community on accommodation is critical. I put my hands up to say that Mayo County Council has not got it right all the time. There have been occasions where things have not worked out but I believe, as my colleagues from Cork City Council have outlined, that the solutions lie in good estate management and waste management, as well as being mindful of the fact that we must do certain things better. I believe that as a local authority, we are fulfilling a lot of our obligations and we have very good relationships with the Traveller community.

Another issue the Cathaoirleach raised was specific planning exemptions. Part of my remit is to deal with the humanitarian crisis around refugees and I have experience on planning exemptions, in County Mayo specifically, as the council has a number of modular homes that were built specifically. From my experience, although initially no issues were raised on the issue of the modular homes, after a time I believe there was resentment there, specifically on the question as to why the council cannot do this for everyone. I am mindful of opening up a situation where an "us and them" scenario is created. I am mindful in this regard going forward. Mayo County Council does not have any issues in respect of Part 8 but I am mindful about going down the road of exemptions around planning. From my experience, while initially it did work and there was goodwill and buy-in, I wonder whether that goodwill and buy-in is still there in the community.

Okay.

This is the committee on key Traveller issues and I understand what Mr. Gilligan is saying about communities and the consultations around refugees and the Traveller community but I think they are two separate issues that need to be treated equally, with dignity and respect and we should never state that one community is more important than another. While I get that Mr. Gilligan is not saying that, I wish to make it clear that the issue before the committee today is around better living conditions for the Traveller community.

One community that is often left behind is the Roma community. It is a question that has only occurred to me now. It will be my last question to the witnesses here today. Do the witnesses from Mayo County Council and Cork City Council have a figure for how many Roma people are in their communities? Are the councils supporting the Roma community in respect of accommodation?

Ms Eileen Corcoran

In Mayo, no one from the Roma community is on our housing list. I am not saying that they are not in the community but they have not applied, basically.

No one from the Roma community has applied for accommodation.

Ms Eileen Corcoran

Not that I am aware of. It has not been brought to my attention, anyway.

Okay. That is interesting.

Mr. Niall Ó Donnabháin

I will have to review the housing list, as I do not have a specific figure at hand.

Mr. Brian Geaney

We can come back to the committee on this matter.

It is an off-the-cuff question-----

Mr. Niall Ó Donnabháin

It is a fair question.

It is something the committee should be bringing more attention to.

I thank the witnesses for coming before the committee today. The evidence and submissions the witnesses provided today are useful and helpful. It is great news for the community of Cork that stage 2 of redevelopment has been funded. I thank Cork City Council for that. I thank both Cork City Council and Mayo County Council for all the work they are doing at a local level with the Traveller community.

There is no other business outstanding. I propose that our next public session will be 15 February 2024 at 10.30 a.m. with Galway City Council. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The committee will have a virtual private meeting next week.

We as a committee are here to support local authorities such as Mayo County Council and Cork City Council. We are not here to make enemies. We want to build good relationships and create and future-proof positive living conditions for members of the Traveller community because we all deserve our basic human rights. I know we have a housing crisis but the Traveller community has always had a homeless crisis. It is about those small wins we speak about as a community. I again thank our guests and ask them to email us about any support the committee can give and we will give it.

The joint committee adjourned at 12.31 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 15 February 2024.
Top
Share