Charter of Travellers' Rights: Motion.

Mr. B. Ryan

I move:

That Seanad Éireann welcomes the Charter of Travellers' Rights adopted by the National Council for Travelling People on November 11, 1984 and calls on the Government, to introduce as a matter of urgency, the administrative and legislative reforms demanded by the Charter.

This is a motion that gives me pleasure to introduce because the concept referred to in the motion is very close to a complete upending of the traditional approach and the traditional perspective in dealing with the oppression of our travelling people over successive generations. It is an attempt not any more to plead for concessions but an assertion of the right of a minority not only to exist but to be heard and to be seen to exist and have rights. It is effectively a final charter agreed by travellers and their friends in the light of the experience of travellers and their friends in various areas of life.

The charter consists of a number of rights which, it is asserted, the travelling community are entitled to have. There are 12 rights outlined and I will list them briefly. The most important and the first is the right to be recognised as a cultural minority — no more nonsense about a problem and about difficulties and so on. We have to recognise in a very practical way that we are a pluralist society. Even within what is supposed to be a very homogenous Irish society there is a long-established historical minority with its own history, its own pride, its own culture, its own tradition and its own values that in many cases are very different from the remainder of the community — not worse, not better, just different.

Secondly, there is the right to move and the right to stop. This, in essence, represents one of the areas of the life of travelling people that defines their separate culture, that is the right to move or, as the Housing Bill currently before the Dáil describes it, their "nomadic lifestyle".

Thirdly, there is the right of access to accommodation. Fourthly, there is the right to have their economic needs met in a way similar to the way in which the economic needs of the other part of Irish society are met. Fifthly, there is the right of access to health care — I will elaborate on these as I continue — in a way and in a fashion similar to the rest of Irish society but recognising the particular needs of this minority group.

Sixthly, there is that much-talked-about right of family integrity and the family rights of a minority who live in a style which is different from that of the rest of us. Seventhly, there is the right to education and the right to insist that the settled community are educated in a way which educates them away from prejudice and away from hostility.

Eighthly, there is the right to equality before the law. It should not have to be said; it should not have to be insisted upon; it should not have to be written down, because it is already written down elsewhere. But the difficulty is that the travelling community and their friends do not in their own lives experience what is written down and allegedly there to protect us all. Ninth, there is the right to political expression: ten, there is the right to free expression; the right to be able to express their views freely and not be threatened either by statutory bodies or by voluntary bodies or by media prejudice of one kind or another. Then there is the right to privacy and, finally and most fundamentally, the right to be free from discrimination.

Each of those rights needs and deserves some elaboration because each of those rights is written down in this charter not because it sounds good, not because it is a fine and noble piece of writing, but because each of those rights needs to be asserted because of the experience of the travelling community for generations in Ireland, the experience of being deprived of those rights, the experience of being deprived of the right to be recognised as a cultural minority, for instance. Article 1.1 of the Charter of Rights specifies that:

Travellers as individuals and as a group, have a right to realisation of their own cultural identity, indispensable for their dignity and free development as persons.

Article 1.2 concludes:

Basic elements of that traditional way of life include the right to move, and the associated right to stop at customary halting places, rights which have been exercised by travellers in Ireland for centuries.

It is extremely important that those two rights continue to be asserted in the face of what can only be described as an unholy campaign by local authorities at enormous expense to prevent members of the travelling community moving and stopping in areas where they have chosen to stop for generations or centuries. You cannot recognise a minority and then say that everything that goes with that minority existence will not be allowed because we do not approve of it or we do not approve of the minority. Consequently, Article 1 asserts the right of travelling people to be recognised as a minority. The same article also recognises the right of travellers who see their future as being integrated into the settled community. Nobody is avoiding the issue that many members of the travelling community wish to settle. It is equally true that many do not so wish and choose not to settle. Linked to the right to be recognised as an independent, separate minority culture in Irish society is the right of travellers to move and to stop.

Article 2.1 states:

Travellers have the fundamental right to free movement within the State and to make their home in any part of the State and shall not be hindered in the exercise of those rights.

It is important that if we are going to recognise a minority and vindicate its rights then we must have a recognised right on the part of the travelling community to travel and to stop. It is important to emphasise that it is not simply a question of letting them travel; it is a question of allowing people to maintain their travelling way of life, as Article 2.2 states:

To continue the travelling way of life without danger to health, loss of dignity, exposure to repeated prosecution or interference with their rights.

It should not need to be said in a statement of rights but it does regrettably need to be said:

. . . local authorities and others shall not dump materials on parking areas or erect barriers around them so as to render them unusable and inaccessible to travellers.

The reason that is inserted is not because people want to talk about those things in a charter of rights but because people have to talk about those sort of things in a charter of rights, because people have to assert their right not to have these things done to them. It is a question simply of either providing people with sites where they can stop or else providing them with a right to stop where they traditionally have halted.

On the issue of the right to acommodation — Article 3 — the basic principle is that travellers have the right to have accommodation and I think it is very important that that right to have accommodation should be asserted, not the right of putting them somewhere or putting them anywhere but on the basis of their right to have accommodation which is suitable to their needs, not in some way to pack them off into some corner where they will not be seen or heard. Article 3.1 (iii) says:

Where houses or halls are provided for travellers they shall not be located where they might constitute a hazard to the person and well-being of travellers.

It is painful, to say the least, that something as self-evident as that needs to be written down and that the travelling community and their representatives and friends feel it necessary to write something like that down because the experience, unfortunately, of the travelling community is that many of their sites have been located in areas which are hazardous to themselves or a threat to themselves. Therefore, it is regrettable but necessary that we have to say these things. One of the halting sites that was made available during the height of the controversy about the Tallaght bypass had had on it containers full of toxic chemicals and had a tainted water supply. It was, therefore, a threat to the health and the well-being of the travelling community.

On the issue of accommodation the charter states that travellers have a right to determine whether or not they wish to continue their nomadic way of life — again, a reasonable assertion that those members of the travelling community who wish to settle should be facilitated and encourged to settle.

Article 4 refers to the right to have their economic needs met. In paragraph 2 (ii) it says:

The State shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against travellers in the area of employment in order to ensure that they have (a) the right to work (b) the right to the same employment opportunities including the application of the same criteria for selection in matters of employment (c) the right to free choice of profession and employment, the right to promotion, job security and all benefits and conditions of service and the right to receive vocational training and retraining.

This again reflects the experience of the travelling community. Their own perception is that being a traveller makes life almost impossible; being a traveller makes it extremely difficult to have access to employment; being a traveller makes it virtually impossible to get work and therefore when you do not get work, you are blamed for the fact that you will not work, allegedly, and you run into problems with social welfare. It is therefore necessary under this heading of "Economic Needs" for the charter to assert that appropriate measures shall be taken to ensure that the travellers' way of life is not used as an obstacle to prevent them availing of the social welfare benefits to which they are legally entitled.

It was interesting to read a report in a magazine recently about many members of the travelling community in Dublin being forced to sign on at a time earlier than the rest of society because of allegations of fraud by members of the travelling community. That is precisely the type of discriminatory practice that should not be countenanced and I hope the Minister will indicate to us that, if it did happen, it was a mistake and, if it is continuing to happen, that it will be stopped. It should not be done. It is discriminatory, unfair and unjust. One prominent activist among the travelling community was subjected to the indignity of having her husband forced to sign on every day because she believes with some conviction — many people objected to her level of activity and tried to put pressure on her by making life difficult for her husband.

Article 5 refers to the right to decent health and, by and large, it basically identifies the right which the settled community have come to take for granted. It is somewhat interesting, and gives the lie to an enormous amount of less than friendly comment, that one of the subsections of this article refers to the right of travellers to have adequate water supply, sanitation, refuse collection and accommodation. Particularly interesting is the reference to refuse collection because one of the favourite criticisms is that travellers are dirty and untidy, etc. Anybody who saw the state of my adopted home city during the period when there was a binmens' strike will see that the settled community are not in a position to give lectures to the travelling community about refuse and about dirt and untidiness and things like that. The state to which Cork city deteriorated quite rapidly when there was no refuse collection is an indication that none of us is in a position to point fingers about dirtiness or untidiness. A major road in Cork was actually closed by members of the settled community dumping rubbish indiscriminately once there was no refuse collection. Therefore if we are going to talk about refuse collection and unsanitary conditions on travellers' sites, we must provide the necessary services. Those of us who have them are not in a position to criticise those who have not got them.

On the question of the rights of the family, I would like to emphasise just one small article because the rights of the family are so heavily emphasised in our society that it is nearly pointless to talk about them any more. It is extraordinary, given that we talk so much about the family and given that we attach so much importance to families, that Article 6 subsection (3), has had to be inserted — again, I emphasise, because of the previous historical experience of travellers and of those who attempt to help them. It says:

Measures aimed at forcing travellers to move on against their will, thus endangering the existence, health and well-being of the traveller's family, shall be declared illegal.

That is a very important and fundamental assertion. That particular measure or activity of moving people on is not just an inconvenience; it is a fundamental threat to the health and well-being of children who happen to be children of travellers but whom I thought we were expected to treat equally. It is a reflection of the experience of travellers that they feel it necessary to assert the need to have that right written down because of the fact that it is so often ignored.

On the issue of education the travellers' charter simply expects and looks for the same access effectively to education that the rest of the community takes for granted. Indeed, a great part of this charter of rights represents no more than an attempt to insist upon the same rights for travellers, recognising their own cultural minority and in some cases their own needs, but it does emphasise things like accessibility. There is no point in talking about education being free to all if travellers have no access to education. It does not matter whether it is free or not if you cannot get at it; it does not make much difference. Similarily, I think it needs to be emphasised that the education that travellers receive should not be an education to take them away from their own culture. It should be an education to make them proud of their own tradition and their own culture.

I think the whole emphasis on turning travellers into settled people is particularly offensive to members of the travelling community and indeed reminds me a little bit of Terence O'Neill's frequent assertion that if you treated Catholics properly in Northern Ireland, as he said himself on many occasions, they would become more and more like Protestants. If we are talking in that type of language about travellers it is exactly the same and it is equally offensive.

It is also disturbing that Article 8 on the law needs to re-assert what the rest of us would take for granted in terms of our rights before the law and before the forces of the law. There should be universal rights and there should be no need to state these things. Again, the experience of the members of the travelling community is such that they need to have these rights asserted and vindicated.

In the controversy in Tallaght last year there was something particularly sickening about mobs of people with the connivance, if not the encouragement of Members of the Oireachtas, setting up barricades, checking cars, holding up traffic, with large sections of the Garda Síochána standing by, watching and doing nothing. They allowed people effectively to impose mob law in an area because of the level of prejudice and hostility against travellers, travellers who we were told were a threat to the community.

It is equally true that some of the comments made by a very senior Garda officer during a "Today Tonight" programme in February 1984 about the travelling community were equally offensive — generalisations about the travellers, about travellers' children, generalisations about them all looking alike and having the same names. If it had been said by a South African police chief about blacks we would all have thrown our hands to heaven in outrage but we tolerate it when people talk about our own minorities. Whenever there is a spate of attacks on old people the attacks are attributed to itinerants. The cases in which a member of the travelling community has been prosecuted for one of these attacks on old people are few and far between. I refer to yesterday's tragic case in which a man was sentenced for ten years for manslaughter. When that offence took place we were told the Garda were looking for itinerants who were suspected of being guilty. In fact, it was a person living quite near the misfortunate victims.

The whole emphasis on the word "itinerants" by the forces of law and the media is particularly hurtful because it is not a word the travelling community like to use or do use about themselves. The word they choose to use is "traveller". It is like talking about American blacks and calling them negroes. It may have been all right to call them negroes 20 years ago. Americans nowadays who are black like to be called blacks and similarly South African blacks like to be called blacks, not that title that other people like to confer on them. It would be a recognition of the dignity and the right of a cultural minority to call the people by the title they choose for themselves, not by the one we choose for them.

There is a statement in Article 10 on free expression. Again, we take it for granted — those of us who live in the settled community — but why should somebody have to assert the right to free expression and say that this right shall include "the freedom to hold opinions and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authorities or by voluntary bodies"? People put those things in because they have experienced interference by public authorities and voluntary bodies. People assert that voluntary or statutory bodies or individuals shall not use their position to prevent travellers from expressing their opinions. People say that because those positions have been used to prevent travellers expressing their opinions.

Finally, on the question of free expresion there is a subsection which I heartily and enthusiastically endorse:

All propaganda and all organisations which attempt to justify or promote hatred of travellers or discrimination in any form shall be punished.

It is high time that we had a law on incitement because there are too many examples of individuals — they are not very often public representatives — saying things and doing things which are effectively incitements to hatred. Article 11 asserts the right to privacy and Article 12 asserts the right not to be discriminated against. I quote Article 12 in its entirety because it is of such fundamental importance:

1. Travellers are entitled to the full exercise of their rights and should not suffer any distinction, exclusion or restriction based on the fact that they are travellers which would have the effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on a equal footing of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

2. The State shall amend, rescind or nullify any law which has the effect of creating or perpetuating discrimination against travellers. The State shall prohibit and bring to an end by all appropriate means, including legislation as required by circumstances, discrimination against travellers by any persons, group or organisation.

3. Travellers' right of access to any place or service intended for use by the general public such as transport, hotels, restaurants, cafes, bars, shops, theatres and parks shall be guaranteed.

I identify four fundamental strands: first, the right to be identified as a separate minority; secondly, the right to the same treatment as everybody else; thirdly, the right to positive discrimination in certain obvious areas; and, fourthly, the right to be heard and the right to be consulted when decisions are being taken about issues which affect more than anybody else, the lives of travellers themselves.

We have too much and too easy resort to prejudice by unscrupulous public representatives. We have had a member of Cork Corporation demanding that travellers have their children taken away from them. The same individual on another occasion demanded that travellers be provided with identity cards which presumably could be checked at the outskirts of Cork to prevent them being allowed into Cork city. The same individual has made life particularly difficult for many members of Cork Corporation who have tried quite sincerely to deal with the problem of travellers. This individual has been able to make the most outrageous statements about travellers and in the process claim monster headlines for himself and undermine the work being done by other people. That kind of prejudice needs to be brought to an end by legislation and indeed by decision to be taken at all levels.

We have the other kind of prejudice when we have the IDA dropping little hints to somewhat gullible public representatives in Cork that the reason why major industrialists are not setting up in Cork is because they see a couple of travellers' caravans when they arrive at Cork Airport. I do not know who is more culpable but I think it is the IDA who are the gullible public representatives to believe that fundamental decisions about major investments are affected by the sight of three or four, or half a dozen caravans outside Cork Airport. This is pushing the gullibility of this particular public representative beyond anything that I can believe. What the IDA are doing is finding a convenient scapegoat for their own lack of success, a scapegoat that Cork public opinion took up too easily altogether. It is quite extraordinary that travellers who have not been in residence permanently outside the airport got the blame but a car dumped about a quarter a mile down the road that had been there for 20 years was mentioned also in the same file but was probably forgotten in all the hysteria.

I do not think we can satisfy ourselves by talking any more about an itinerant problem. The word "itinerant" is offensive and equally offensive is the idea that we can talk about a group of people who have suffered historical deprivation and talk about it in terms of a problem. We have to talk about it in terms of people's rights to be treated the same as everybody else, of people's rights to be respected the same as everybody else, of people's rights not to be treated differently by the law or by the agents of the law because of their cultural identity. The charter of rights is an attempt to redress the balance. It is a response to the needs and to the experience of the travelling community. It is a recognition of the discrimination under which they have suffered for countless generations. It is an attempt to assert, for the first time in Irish society, the right of cultural minorities to their own rights, to their own privileges and to their own culture.

Mrs. McGuinness

I have pleasure in seconding the motion that Seanad Éireann welcomes the charter of travellers rights adopted by the National Council for Travelling People on 11 November 1984, and calls on the Government to introduce as a matter of urgency the administrative and legislative reforms demanded by the charter. Senator Brendan Ryan, in proposing the motion, has gone into the charter in some detail. There is no need for me to repeat what he has said. There are a couple of matters in the charter to which I wish to draw particular attention. Basically, I wish to talk about the establishment of the basic right which the charter is talking about, the recognition of the travelling people as a minority group different in their own way from many other members of society but yet as a real and equal part of our society which is worthy of recognition, worthy of dignity and worthy of self-respect and respect from us as people who do not belong to that group.

This is brought out particularly in the commentary in the second part of the charter on page 15 where it refers to the need to recognise the travellers as a group with their own cultural identity. This is, as Senator Ryan said, not just a question of providing facilities for travellers to settle and integrate into the rest of the community. Certainly, a fair number of travellers may wish to do this and, if they wish to do so, they should be facilitated. But we do not want to approach this question with the idea that what we want is to iron out this cultural minority, make them into a group of people who will conform to the sort of norms that the rest of society has and will integrate with the rest of us, all of them integrating and becoming just the same as the rest of society, as though the rest of society was so full of virtues and so lacking in faults that necessarily the travelling people should want to integrate into that sort of society.

Our society is full of discrimination, full of increasing criminal activity, full of difficulty, unemployment and all the different problems that we have. Are we really setting out to say to the travelling people: this is the ideal you should be aspiring to; this is the kind of society that you should regard as the norm and that you should be adapting to. Or should we look at the travelling people as they are and see that their way of life also has its virtues and that their way of life is worthy of respect and that, if we respect them and accept their own dignity, we will go a long way towards helping to iron out the kind of discrimination there is against them at the moment. We should recognise that many travelling people do not necessarily want to integrate with settled society and want to carry on with their own way of life.

Unless we face up to the degree of prejudice there is in the settled community and the way in which the settled community sees travellers and behaves towards them the present discriminatory problems towards travellers cannot be solved. This creates a sort of vicious circle where the discriminations of society tend to drive travellers into the kind of behaviour which the settled community says is bad or says is anoying to them, or finds troublesome or whatever. Where we do not allow for the right of movement and the right of stopping, as suggested in the charter, where facilities are not provided, then the travelling people have no alternative but to use places to stop which may indeed be difficult for those surrounding them. We then get into the vicious circle of accusing them of doing this in the wrong. We get this chicken and egg situation where discrimination creates the kind of difficult behaviour which goes on to create hostility in the settled community and a vicious circle is set up which must be broken into.

I would suggest that this charter gives legislators and those who purport to lead society an opportunity to break into the vicious circle and try to diminish this chicken and egg situation. This is a situation where it is the duty of legislators to try to lead and to inform society — not, as so many of us have often done, just to cower in fear where a suggestion is made, for instance, in a local authority that so many sites be provided for travelling people to halt in where there would be proper services, proper sanitation, proper water supplies and so on. There is a certain amount of agitation in the settled community saying: "No, we do not want these people here". We find unfortunately that members of local authorities, suddenly become very much afraid that they may lose votes because of this and they back away and say: "Yes, of course, in principle we want this but we do not want the travellers halting sites in our patch of country. Please move them on to somewhere else. Let someone else provide these facilities".

What the motion is trying to say is: here is an opportunity to break into this vicious circle and to accept the fact that the travellers have their own culture and need the facilities to continue in their own culture just as other minorities do. When we accept this situation of self-respect and dignity and rights for travellers, then the travellers will be free to behave as dignified and self-respecting members of the community maintaining their own culture without impinging on the rights of others. This is the kind of situation which we are trying to create.

With regard to a few matters of detail in the charter on the rights to help, which are set out under Article 5, Senator Ryan drew attention to the calling for the right to proper water supply, sanitation and refuse collection. In talking about this, particularly in connection with halting sites, there are plenty of people in the settled community who have caravans or mobile homes. Many of them are placed at what one might describe as parking or halting places and so on. They expect, and rightly expect, to be provided with proper water supplies, proper facilities and so on. The way in which these sites are kept clean, in so far as they are kept clean, is because these facilities are provided. We cannot, first of all, say: "We will give you no facilities" and then blame people for the fact that their sites do not look as tidy as they might. Again, we are back into this vicious circle, this double bind "you cannot win" situation that often the travelling community is put into.

With regard to education Article 7 suggests that it shall attempt to give them a deeper sense of their individual worth and a pride in their cultural inheritance. That is what all the rest of us want to have out of our education — a pride in our cultural inheritance and a deeper sense of our individual worth. It is only when we get that that we ourselves react by trying to live up to that sense of our individual worth and live up to the sense of our cultural inheritance. So, if we downgrade the position of travellers in the educational system we then downgrade their own self-image. Therefore, they tend to behave down towards that. That is the way human beings are.

Indeed, this kind of discrimination can happen in, say, areas of high unemployment or large working class areas in the city of Dublin. The same kind of things happen: an educational system which is geared by its text books and by everything else to say that a middle class professional way of life is the norm and the ideal and if one cannot belong to that world one is somehow outside society. Just as we are now working towards the provision of text books and subjects and so on that do not discriminate against women in education so we must look out for automatic discrimination against minority cultural groups, including travellers, and towards the settled community that education must set out to combat the prejudices which lead to discrimination against travellers. In Northern Ireland we look and try to see how we can through the educational system break down discrimination between different religious groups. Here too we need to break down discrimination between different cultural groups in society.

Senator Ryan said, with regard to the article on the law that it was disappointing to find that one had to restate the ordinary rights of the individual in respect of the travelling community. I feel this particularly as a lawyer and indeed as a person to whom a number of travelling people have come seeking legal advice. Perhaps one of the most important things is paragraph 4 in this, which says:

Travellers' children shall not be subjected to interrogation and arrest because they are travellers. Parents shall be notified immediately when their children are taken into custody by the gardaí. Children shall not be questioned without the presence of a parent or relative.

As always, children's rights are of first importance; but if we want travellers' children to grow up with some sort of respect for the law, the law must also treat them with respect. If they are not treated through our legal system with respect we create a new generation of people who are suspicious of the law, people who do not wish to co-operate with the law, people who are afraid of the law, generally speaking. This is a very dangerous situation where one goes on re-creating a bad situation from generation to generation.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator has two minutes left.

Mrs. McGuinness

One other thing to which I would like to draw attention is referred to on page 17. This is again very important for those of us who are legislators and those of us who are trying to create the right conditions for the travelling community. That is the failure to consult the travelling community when trying to make arrangements for them. Just as we see the trade union movement rightly and vehemently asserting that workers have a right to be consulted when decisions are being made that affect their livelihood and future, so, too, any cultural group, like the travellers, if the system being created is dealing with their particular position, have a right to be consulted and have their viewpoint put forward to have it as an input into the decisions which are being made.

That is the last detail I have time to raise on this, but I would just go back to the idea that, unless we break into this vicious circle and unless we begin to see the travelling community as a group with rights, with dignity and with respect from us and self-respect for themselves, we cannot begin to do away with the present discriminations or to offer the travelling community a life where they can be a contributor to Irish life and not regarded as simply a problem that has to be got rid of.

Mr. Cregan

I welcome the debate on the Charter of Travellers' Rights. I would just like to make one point clear. I am a member of a particular committee in my local city and I apologise to the Seanad for calling it an itinerant committee. I was not aware that the word "itinerant" was a bad word. If that is the position I will certainly let my committee know.

This is a debate about our truly blue-blooded people. Like other minority groups the argument will always be made that travellers are not recognised well enough. The argument can also be made that the travelling people do not recognise others well enough. Over many years enough was not done. I have been in public life for seven or eight years. There have been five Governments within that time and it would be irresponsible of me if I were to say that in my area enough was being done. I agree we cannot say enough is done and particularly for the people who are least aware of it, and that is the children. But to give an impression, as the charter does that we must give total rights and recognition to the travellers for what they are and that they have no responsibility for anybody, particularly for the children, is not right. I cannot stand up here and say that I must take responsibility and give total commitment, and yet that they are allowed to travel on irrespective of what way they want to do it. That is wrong and that is irresponsible and that is not fair to their children. That is the annoying part.

It is wrong to say also that they must do what they will, in the way that they want to do it, in the old traditional ways. We have all changed and we have all had to change in our lifestyles. I am not saying for one moment that I do not recognise the travelling people. I do and I show a high regard for them. Indeed if we are to look at history, we recognise them as our elders, as truly the blue-blooded people of our society. History proves that. At the same time to say, as the last two speakers have done, that everything must be given and that they should give nothing back is not fair. That is the impression I am getting here. Even the charter, with all due respects, is saying that everything must be given and nothing must be given back. Article 3, page 17 reads:

Failure by local authorities to consult with the travellers and take account of their needs have already resulted in the development of halts which were unsuitable and therefore unused.

That is utter nonsense, in all fairness to the local authorities involved. Over the last two and a half years in our city over £1.2 million has been spent on the provision of four halting sites. If any Member of this Seanad or any one who wrote this charter would now like to see two of the halting sites, that were provided less than two years ago at a cost of £250,000 each to accommodate just 12 travelling families each, the state of those halting sites is unbelievable. The employment of a person in charge seven days a week, 24 hours a day, did not even sort out the problem. Divide £250,000 by twelve and look at the cost per family. It is irresponsible to say that no debate or discussion went on between the local voluntary groups who are involved with the travelling people, the housing authority management and the councillors of the local committees. Yet this charter says that nothing is done. It is not true and it is not fair to say that local authorities are just doing what they believe is best. The fact is that in my area a lot has been done and other areas likewise, although probably not in all areas throughout the country.

At the same time the return from the travelling people has been most unfair. I would in all sincerity have to say that is not fair to the local authority involved. I know the exact figures that were spent — £250,000 per halting site and four of them in Cork city and two more to be built. Yet we have a situation where Senator Ryan admits that there was a loss to the Cork region and it has to be admitted, right outside the airport door, because certain travelling people would not move. Halting sites were available no more than a quarter of a mile away, perfect halting sites just to hold ten or 12 families, tarmacadamed, watered, toilets for each family and people in charge there 24 hours a day, and yet they would not move in there. Can anybody explain to me why people would stay on the side of the road with no facilities when every facility was available no more than a quarter of a mile away? How can they have the sympathy or the understanding of Senators? I fail to understand that. Certain industrialists came into our city through the airport gates and no way would they go any further. The impression was that they were dealing with a dive of a city. That is a fact of life. I am not denying that there are very sad situations affecting our travelling people, but to give an impression that nothing is being done and that every right possible must be given to them and that they give no right or responsibility back is unfair.

There are some travelling people — and indeed in my area I deal with them personally — who have settled into society and blended in well with the rest of society. Not all of them have. People have moved out again, and we will not deny that either. Certain parts of the charter claim that they find it hard to mix in particular homes, and I will admit that. But to give an impression that no facilities are being provided is not true. The housing authority, Cork Corporation, are totally committed to making sure that every facility possible is provided irrespective of what Government are in power. Governments over the last few years did not refuse to give money for these halting sites, at £250,000 a time.

Senator Ryan made remarks about certain other councils in the city. He is perfectly right. These people made nasty remarks, unfair remarks. No person in our society should be treated in that way. He can be assured that in no circumstances will that go on or will it be allowed to happen, certainly in our area, and I do not think it is happening in any other area. Indeed, in the Cork area it has been proved — and Senator Ryan, like other people is aware of it — that many voluntary groups are involved in the education of and in work for travellers. The State itself is involved in the education and the training of the children of travelling people. Many of the children are seen to be getting involved more with other children. That is nice, but the conditions the children are going back into are most unfair to them. We must say to the people involved: "You are irresponsible. To be irresponsible to your children is not fair."

The charter says we must allow for the movement of these people when they like and where they feel like it. This is not fair to the rest of society. It is not fair to people who are totally committed. Governments are doing this. We travelled one time from Cork to another site in the west to have a look and to make sure that we were doing things right. We discussed this with other councils to see if we were doing the right thing. There was very little difference. Everything possible was being done by local authorities. I am conscious of the fact that some local authorities do not take the same interest as others. At the same time, to say that the moneys are not being provided by the State is not true. A letter of commitment came from the Department of the Environment emphasising that moneys were available, and a Bill has been passed to ensure that a certain number of halting sites are provided on each side of a city and in certain areas of towns. The moneys are being provided for that but are the travelling people availing of the opportunities and the facilities? They are not. That is the point at discussion. We say to these people: "Please use the facility that is being made available in cities and towns." They do not do that. Then they lose goodwill. How can anyone speak about the goodwill of ordinary people who have the interests of the travellers at heart and people who do not want to be involved directly but who are involved indirectly in their taxes. They are saying: "We will provide the accommodation, we will provide the sites" but these people say "no". They prefer to stay on the side of a ditch. They prefer to rear children and, with all respect, might lose some without anybody knowing and may God forgive us it is happening. We have situations where they are in appalling conditions and there is no need for it with the provisions that are being made available by local authorities.

How de we answer that? I speak to committees. I speak to people involved. We speak to doctors. We speak to nurses. No matter what you do about it or what you try to do there is no way you get across to them. Some of them have an interest in trying to improve themselves and their children and their position in society generally. I know one family who have brought about marvellous improvements in themselves and are very, very nice people. Indeed, the vast majority of them are. Senator Ryan has made a point about the impression generally given that travelling people are always wrong. He said that sometimes they are not wrong and probably most times they are not wrong. At the same time, you must have a little bit of give to get a little bit more. There is no give and no help from these people. How do we improve the educational side of it? It is being done with the children but then the children leave the schools at 3 p.m. or 4 p.m. and they are back into appalling conditions. That is the problem.

Mr. Fitzsimons

I support the motion. I believe that in some ways the claims do not go far enough. In some other areas I believe the claims may be a little extreme.

My party's views on the travelling people and their policy are set out clearly and succinctly in the Local Elections Manifesto of 1985 under "Travelling People" which refers to the acute problem and urges resettlement, spread over more communities and over all areas of the country. It states quite categorically that the travellers are one of the most deprived sections of our community. It also deplores the Government's decision to transfer authority in matters relating to travellers to the city and county managers because it takes power away from the local representatives. Everybody is agreed in order to make these schemes work the goodwill of the local representatives and the goodwill of the community will be necessary. All this local input is most important. The discretionary powers which are placed in the hands of the officials may be an easy solution but they can often ignore local knowledge.

My party believe that serviced and supervised halting sites for travellers should be provided with no more than five families per site and that local authorities should be encouraged to provide special housing and give special attention to the health and educational needs of the travelling people. It calls for renewed effort to address the problems of the travelling people and emphasises that the effort must involve local communities and without that it cannot be successful. Most people believe that by and large the travellers are decent people. There is great goodwill towards them in the community. Nevertheless, it is only proper to say that a section of the travellers are giving the travelling community a very bad name. This is most unfortunate. The same may apply to other groups apart from travellers. I do not know if it is a sizeable group. I do agree that the travellers are exposed. They are very vulnerable. The situation may be exaggerated. It is good press material. I feel that that is the situation. I believe that the proper name for this community is the travelling community but in my youth those people were referred to as tinkers. The tinker of my youth was a very welcome individual and his people were welcome. They were decent people who moved around through the community, worked hard and filled a necessary role. That image has changed very greatly. We could ask ourselves what we mean now by travellers? "Travellers" in a sense covers a multitude. The report of the Travelling People Review Body published in 1983 states that the following descriptive definition of today's travellers had been adopted:

They are an identifiable group of people, identified both by themselves and by other members of the community (referred to for convenience as the "settled community") as people with their own distinctive life style, traditionally of a nomadic nature but not now habitual wanderers. They have needs, wants and values, which are different in some ways from those of the settled community. More than half of those in the group now have a place to live either in houses or on serviced sites. Some may take to the road either occasionally or seasonally. The majority of those not yet provided with accommodation desire a fixed place of abode, and many of them are, in fact, encamped in locations with reasonable permanence. However, there is still a substantial number of transient families.

I personally believe that does not give a proper definition or an overall total definition of travellers because within that community we have very poor people, people who have trades, and we have very wealthy people who deal in carpets and other commodities. There has been some progress made. For some people it may be a case of festina lente. There are people who are rightly impatient that the progress has not been better. Nevertheless, solid progress has been made. In relation to Meath, I would like to refer specifically to that progress to show what progress has been made.

The travelling community, like all others, have become more aware of their rights. In my young days when a group of travelling people outstayed their welcome occasionally the Garda were called. That was usually enough to move the group on. Nowadays, in many instances, when the gardaí arrive at a camp site they are met by perhaps a young man who is better versed in the law than the gardaí themselves.

The travelling community have much to contribute to the settled community. They are a strong, resilient people. They are craftsmen of a very high standard both in relation to the manufacture of tinware, tinsmiths, decoration and manufacture of caravans. An attempt has been made to revive these crafts. This is commendable. It is important that care should be exercised to ensure that there will be a demand for such crafts. It would be very frustrating if the travelling people were trained to manufacture a particular type of article or ware for which there was no demand. In this day and age finance is most important. The purpose of these crafts is to ensure that travelling people would get a decent income from using their talents.

There are many who oppose the creation of sites and other provisions for itinerants. Many do it for very good and humane reasons. Not all who are opposed to improving the conditions for itinerants are opposed to itinerants per se. They think that, perhaps, out in the wild west there is a place for travellers. There are very few places which are not privately owned. The climate is not very suitable, particularly in winter. As Senators have already said, it is inhuman to see young children exposed to the weather. I recently was speaking to an employee of Tara Mines who told me of a large group of travellers who were camped in that area. He said it was heartbreaking to see small children of one, two or three years of age walking around scantily clad. It is quite proper for an adult to be able to choose the way of life he wants. If he wants that type of life, with its extreme hardship, fair enough; but it is wrong to rear young children in those conditions when there is an alternative. It is criminal in many cases to bring up young children in an uninsulated caravan or under a flimsy tent, exposed to the cold, frost, snow or rain. The mortality rate is high. Apart from the mortality rate, there is much sickness, disease and all the other consequences of exposure of this kind.

It is easy, in an abstract way, to be in favour of improvements or schemes to help the itinerants; but it is not so easy for people who are directly involved or direct victims. I saw situations where travelling people were camped outside a farmer's residence. They used the garden as a toilet and used a field as if it were their own. There was nothing the farmer could do. They also interfere with fences. Even in a situation where it is a case of simply a cup of cold water in the name of Christ, it is not always easy. There is the situation where decent people will come in and use a tap in somebody's house. Subsequently, a bicycle may be missing or some other small item. Dealing with these things in an abstract way is much easier than if you were one of those people who was directly involved. Crimes committed by those posing as travellers have not helped the situation.

Back in the early fifties great work was carried out on behalf of the travellers in the Navan area of County Meath. The Legion of Mary taught those people on the side of the road. They respected their culture. They did not try to change them. At the time — and even still I must admit — I felt a little urging would have been helpful, to urge them from their ways, to help them to become integrated and to live in reasonable comfort. In fairness to the legionaries they decided to respect their culture. Many of the legionaries who did great work are now gone from us. In County Meath, great work has been done. Possibly much more could be done. The bulk of the travelling community is in the Navan area.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator has 60 seconds left.

Mr. Fitzsimons

Thank you. I do not have much time to go into any of the matters. It would be better if the travellers spread out rather than go to individual towns. It is wrong that any individual place should take the brunt of the problem. It is important that local authorities should not erect bollards or place rocks at traditional halting sites because I believe that the travellers have a squatter's title to those. It is a right which cannot be interfered with. I would have liked to go into all the works that have been done by the council in Navan. I would like to say, in conclusion, that the approach to this problem is dealt with under three headings. There are those who are not quite ready yet to live in houses and residential caravan parks are provided for them. There are those wishing for group housing and we have built a 12-house scheme in Navan which people from all over the country have come to see. It has been very successful. Another six-house scheme is in progress. Then there are those others not wishing to be housed in group schemes or residential caravan parks or in the ordinary scheme houses, but they may be, and have been, accommodated in isolated cottages. I am sorry I had not more time to deal with this matter, but I support the motion.

Mr. Howard

Like Senator Fitzsimons if I have any regret in standing up to contribute to this debate it is the fact that there is a time constraint on it. I believe that it is a subject that, indeed, we cannot do justice to in the amount of time that is available to us. I regret, as I have said, that the opportunity is not there to deal with it at considerable length.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Charter of Travellers' Rights and to make a few comments on it. I suppose one's reaction to the document and, indeed, to the motion is related and is based on a person's experience and involvement. It is an excellent document in so far as it dealt with the rights of travellers. I am not going to develop that because of the time constraints. It has already been developed by other speakers here. I want to say in the time that is available to me that there are serious flaws in this document. First and foremost, it is silent on the obligation of travellers to other citizens. These citizens also have rights, and they are rights that are occasionally abused by travellers. It is silent on these issues. It seeks rights for travellers that go far beyond, or to some degree beyond, the rights that are available to other sections. Indeed, Senator B. Ryan in his contribution spoke of positive discrimination. Perhaps, most important of all, as an instrument for the purpose of achieving understanding and, through understanding, resolution of the problem we are dealing with here, it fails. It fails because of its lack of balance as between the rights of one group of people and the rights of another group. Senator B. Ryan spoke about generalised remarks in relation to travellers being offensive to them.

I want to say, as calmly as I can here — and it may not have been intended so by Senator Ryan — that much of his contribution, as far as I am concerned, was a generalised insulting attack on all members of the settled community and on many members of local authorities who have worked quite diligently, and at considerable embarrassment on occasions, to obtain goodwill for the benefit of the travelling community. I reject this blanket condemnation. That is how it sounded and I am sure that when the record is seen and read my observations will prove to be correct. I do not think that this blanket condemnation of the general public and the settled community will in any way enhance the resolution of this subject because goodwill is not obtained by insults.

I want to say for myself that I am not without experience, I am not without involvement, and I am not without success to a certain degree in maintaining and supporting travellers' rights, supporting their rights for housing, for education and, indeed, for integration where possible with the settled community Therefore, I object to being confronted with a "holier than thou" attitude whether I am confronted with it here or in my local town. I have found myself quite often at odds with the settled community because of my sympathy and my support for the rights of the travelling community.

The greatest problem that I and others like me have encountered in our efforts has been interference by groups of so called do-gooders whose only interest is the limelight and the platform which their remarks may afford them. One thing that is strikingly obvious where all these people are concerned is that they have never welcomed the travelling community to a location close to their own doorsteps. My experience has been that these people contributed nothing positive. Their only contribution has been the regular issuing of public condemnation of the settled community whose goodwill and co-operation I and others were endeavouring to establish with the aim of the resolution of this issue.

I am afraid that to a very great degree this document is a product of somewhat similar minds. There is one other major failure in this document. Senator Fitzsimons, to some degree, hinted at it. That is its failure to distinguish between the traditional traveller — I am sure the term is well understood — and the wealthy, travelling traders. Until organisations interested in resolving this problem have the courage to make that distinction we are years away from resolving the issue. There is one aspect of this that I would like to comment on very briefly. In the introduction, first paragraph, it states that they are a group, who through sharing a different way of life and a common historical background, have evolved a distinct social and cultural ethos. They have their own language, values, norms, models, structures, and so on. In other words, it is suggested here — and I do not disagree with it — that they are an identifiable group. That identity is being given an elevated status. Over the past number of years people involved in the welfare of itinerants have consistently recommended a series of steps — housing, integrated education, integration with the community. All these steps are certain to destroy the separate identity of the travelling community. I am not arguing one way or the other but, as far as I am concerned, this statement now giving this elevated status is a contradiction of the advice that we at local authority level have been receiving over the years in relation to this issue.

I want very briefly to comment on the situation in my own town of Ennis. Twelve years ago we had 27 or 28 families on the roadside. We have now 44 families in standard housing. I am talking about standard local authority housing. Their progress has been from camps to caravans to tigeens, chalets and so on, to the council housing estates. The majority have made that transition successfully on the basis of the advice they have received over the years. This is the course we were advised to take. They have been accepted by their neighbours and by the local community. Senator Fitzsimons spoke of crafts. They are encouraged and educated in crafts. There are special schools and they are succeeding. At the same time, having changed from a situation in the space of 12 years where there were only 27 or 28 families on the road then as against 44 now accommodated in standard houses; side by side with that we have six empty three-bedroom houses built there years ago. We have a modern halting site for 18 stands, built at a cost of over £250,000, all facilities with a resident caretaker, and the remaining eight families that we have on the roadside or in the town will not go into either the houses or to the halting sites.

They are being advised by the committees dealing with them on that particular line of approach. These eight families are moving around the town. I do not have to say it — they litter the area. They upset the settled community whose goodwill we have been working on over the years. They use the car park, even doorways as public toilets. Their horses graze the front lawns of these people's houses. They, in fact, destroy the acceptability that a number of us have worked to achieve over the years. Yet this document is silent on the obligation of the travellers to the settled community. These people recognise no rights whatsoever of the settled community.

I want to conclude by saying that, in short, there are rights and obligations on both sides and unless the rights and obligations on both sides are recognised we are as far from the resolution of this matter as we were ten years ago.

Minister of State at the Department of Social Welfare (Mr. Donnellan)

I thought at one stage I might not get in at all, not that I minded because you would probably rather listen to the Minister for Health on this subject than me.

I would like to join with Senators Brendan Ryan and Catherine McGuinness in welcoming the Charter of Travellers' Rights adopted by the National Council for Travelling People in November 1984. There has been a very sincere expression of opinion from Senators who have contributed to the debate here in the Seanad.

In June of this year, the national council presented a copy of the charter to the Taoiseach who welcomed it as an important means of measuring progress towards travellers' full participation in society. The charter is an important document, marking a further stage in the demand of travellers to be treated as full and equal members of our society.

Drawing on important international conventions and Bunreacht na hÉireann, the charter highlights the human, social, political and legal rights of travellers as a minority community and as individuals. It is the first time that the rights of travellers have been looked at in a comprehensive way and the national council is to be congratulated for supporting this initiative.

In the introduction the authors say that the charter constitutes a set of principles for policy and for action and call on public bodies to recognise the principles of the charter. I am glad to say that many of the principles enunciated in the charter have gradually been accepted by Government in policies and services for travellers.

Take, for example, Article 1.1 which says that travellers, "as individuals and as a group, have a right to realisation of their own cultural identity", I would argue that the recognition of travellers' distinct identity and of their right to retain that identity, are fundamental pillars of current policy towards travellers. This was not always the case. The Commission on Itinerancy, which reported in 1963, was asked to consider what steps might be taken to absorb travellers into the general community. The commission recommended a policy of settlement based on absorption as the only permanent solution to the problem of itinerancy. While the commission recognised that travellers were different, it did not sufficiently recognise the right of travellers to retain their identity.

The policy followed by public bodies for many years after the report of the commission was based on the notion of settlement and absorption. It was assumed that once a traveller family was housed, or accommodated on a site, the family would gradually end its ties with the old life and become indistinguishable from its non-traveller neighbours.

This assumption was called into question by the Review Body on Travelling People which reported in 1983. The review body concluded that "the concept of absorption is unacceptable, implying as it does the swallowing-up of the minority traveller group by a dominant settled community, and the subsequent loss of traveller identity".

The Review Body suggested that it was better to think in terms of integration between the traveller and settled community, a complex process requiring adjustment of attitudes by both sides and indeed reference has been made to this by a number of Senators. The Review Body acknowledged that while some travellers wanted total integration with the settled community, many others wished to continue the traveller lifestyle while adjusting to the changes brought about by urbanisation and mechanisation of transport. It identified a third group which would tend to adopt elements of the lifestyle of the settled community while retaining conditions peculiar to the traveller way of life. The review body recommended that programmes to meet the needs of travellers should respect the differing attitudes concerning integration and the wishes of many travellers to maintain a separate identity.

It is clear from the Government Policy Statement on Travellers of July 1984, based on the work of a Task Force of Ministers, that this recommendation of the review body has been accepted as the underlying rationale of policy and services. Thanks to the review body it became possible to speak of "housing" rather than "settling" families. Travellers can remain travellers whether living in a caravan or in a house.

The main thrust of Government policy to accommodate travellers is to provide houses, as available evidence suggests that the majority of travellers wish to live in houses. The majority of these families will continue to identify themselves as travellers.

For some families the only acceptable form of housing is as part of an extended family group. For these families, group housing has been identified as the most suitable option and a number of schemes have already been provided.

For those families who do not wish to be housed and who wish to travel in the traditional style, the Government have accepted that suitable sites must be provided. While the lack of progress in providing sites in certain areas, particularly in Dublin, is a matter of great concern, I do not think anyone will question the validity of the principles of Government policy.

I am hopeful that the new Housing Bill sponsored by my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, which provides a statutory backing for the provision of sites will help speed up the provision of suitable sites.

The charter sets out some useful principles concerning the way in which travellers should be accommodated, some of which already inform public policy. For example, Article 3.1(1) calls on local authorities not to discriminate against travellers when providing accommodation. The Government Policy Statement of July 1984 and a circular from the Department of the Environment of 24 September 1984 make it quite clear that the accommodation of travellers is to be considered as part of the housing programmes of local authorities. Special efforts are to be made to ascertain the wishes of travellers for accommodation and letting schemes must not discriminate against travellers in the allocation of houses.

In designing group housing schemes and halting sites local authorities have been requested to facilitate travellers in continuing their occupations and trades by providing sufficient space and facilities. Senators will appreciate that the provision of such space is not always possible in standard housing schemes. The Department of the Environment have recently issued useful guidelines to local authorities on the provision and lay-out of halting sites, specifying the basic facilities such as water, sanitation and electricity required in each halting bay.

Much has been done to recognise the right of travellers to be heard in matters relating to them and to be consulted and involved in decision-making affecting them. The National Council for Travelling People have been an effective voice for travellers over the years and, increasingly, travellers themselves are becoming the spokespeople of the council. In 1981 three travellers were nominated as members of the Review Body on Travelling People and the Minister was happy to appoint a further three travellers to the monitoring committee which oversees the implementation of the Government policy and services for travelling people outlined in the statement of July 1984. Travellers and those who speak on their behalf form a majority on the monitoring committee.

The extent to which travellers are now expressing their views and voicing their sense of oppression is one of the most hopeful signs for the future. Too often in the past, travellers have taken oppression lying down, lacking the confidence in themselves, or in the means of redress open to them to remedy their situation. As more travellers receive education and are informed about their rights and as they realise that there are methods of redressing grievances, people of ill-will in our society will find it increasingly difficult to harass and oppress them.

My Department have been concerned for some time about the health of travellers. It is clear from the environmental conditions in which many families live that their health is at risk. What evidence we have suggests that there is a high level of infant mortality and that the life span of travellers is significantly shorter than that of most of the general population.

In order to establish the extent of the risk to their health, the Department of Health have commissioned the Medico-Social Research Board to carry out a major study of travellers' health. Among the items which the study will examine are peri-natal and infant mortality, the extent to which mothers receive antenatal care, the incidence of handicapping conditions among travellers' children and of life expectancy of travellers generally. The survey will be important not only to establish the facts, but also as a means of monitoring the extent to which travellers have access to health services.

While travellers are entitled to, and do receive, medical services, evidence suggests that they do not make full use of the preventive health services. Travellers tend not to make much use of the child vaccination, child developmental and ante and post-natal services. It is not so much a question of providing special services for travellers as of positive action to ensure that they receive the services to which everyone is entitled. To this end, my Department made funds available to the Eastern Health Board for a mobile clinic, which visits traveller encampments to encourage mothers to attend antenatal examinations in the maternity hospitals and to offer vaccinations and developmental screening of young children. The clinic is staffed by two public health nurses and public health doctors attend as required.

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 6 Nov 1985