Skip to main content
Normal View

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT debate -
Tuesday, 23 Jun 1998

Vol. 1 No. 7

Housing (Traveller Accommodation) Bill, 1998: Committee Stage.

Acting Chairman

Members will appreciate that I am stepping into the breach so I hope I am forgiven if I do not do everything according to the letter of the law initially.

In the absence of the Chairman, Deputy Healy-Rae, I apologise to the committee and the Department officials for the late submission of my amendments to this Bill. I thank the Chairman for graciously accepting them. I hope it does not affect our deliberations today.

As most Members know, Cabinet meetings are held on Tuesday mornings. I examined the amendments last night, but I have now been handed a list of 38 amendments of which I had no advance notice. I find it extraordinary that the Chairman agreed to accept them when they were submitted late. I can understand his accepting one or two amendments in an effort to be helpful, but accepting 38 amendments is stretching reasonableness and accommodation a bit far. I will try to respond to them but the Deputy must understand that I have had no opportunity to study them in the way I would like before coming to the committee.

Acting Chairman

I welcome the Minister to the committee and I note his comments.

I understand the Minister's position. However, there is a provision in the committee's terms of reference which allows the Chairman to take the action he has taken. The Chairman must be congratulated for having shown the same accommodating spirit to a Member of the committee as the Government shows to the Chairman.

I remind Deputy Dukes that the Government appointed the Chairman.

I am aware of that. That is the least the Government did for the Chairman.

I have no problem with the Chairman. I am not sure what Deputy Dukes is getting at but I hope we can do our business in the best possible way. I had to put down a marker so the Deputy knows from where I am coming. I always try to be helpful and to accept amendments where possible.

I apologise to the Minister.

I am not asking for an apology.

SECTION 1.

I move amendment a1:

In page 5, lines 27 to 31, to delete subsection (4) and substitute the following:

"(4) This Act shall come into operation within one month of its passing.".

This amendment was tabled after concerns were expressed by some elements of the traveller movement about when this legislation will become operable. Amendment No. 1 seeks to delete the power given to the Minister to create the order to initiate this legislation. I am aware that this is a standard provision in legislation. My amendment proposes that this Act shall come into operation within one month of its passing.

I would be interested to hear the views of the Minister. I suspect they will be standard views. Maybe it has more to do with my naivety due to the length of time I have been a Member, but surely it is not good practice for legislation to provide the Minister with powers to operate this when he or she chooses. Given that the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, is the line Minister who is dealing with area of traveller accommodation and that the legislation refers to the Minister as the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, I would have thought it only sensible that some provision be made to make the Act operable within a specified period.

Timeframes are provided for throughout the provisions of this Bill. There is a specific timeframe given to the manager, the committees and the housing authority. To be consistent, I would have thought that there would be provision for a specific timeframe in which the Bill would become operable. I would be interested to hear the views of the Minister on the amendment.

I would not have a problem with bringing the Bill into operation one month after it is signed by the President, if and when that happens. However, that might not be a wise course of action because if I found that the necessary preparations, guidelines and advice which had to be issued to local authorities were not all in place so that the Bill could come into operation, it might present a problem. If that took longer than four weeks, I would have to amend the Bill.

I have been pushing the parliamentary draftsman's office since I came into office last July to bring this Bill to the stage where it could be presented to Government and to the Dáil for enactment. I have no intention of being the cause of any unnecessary delay in bringing this Bill into operation. My officials and I have lived with this Bill for quite a long time. Many of the measures in it are in place in the sense that the consultative bodies are in place at national level and the local authorities have been informed that it is coming. We have done everything we can in advance of the passing of the Bill but it would still be foolish to accept such a time constraint if it might create problems.

If it is the wish of Deputy Hayes that the Bill be brought into operation one month after it is signed by the President, that would be my wish also. I have every intention of bringing it in as quickly as possible. However, I do not propose to accept the amendment.

For the organisations and bodies which have a particular interest in this Bill, the comments of the Minister are encouraging. I think it would be accepted on all sides of the House that he is attempting to enact this legislation as soon as possible. I accept the Minister's word that the Bill is a priority and that its provisions will take effect as soon as possible. Therefore, I withdraw my amendment.

So far I, as Minister of State, have only had responsibility for this Bill and the Urban Renewal Bill, 1998. Obviously, I am keen to see these in operation.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.

Chairman

Amendment No. 1 is in the names of Deputies Howlin and Hayes. It is from the first list of additional amendments dated 23 June 1998, a substitution for amendment No. 1 on the principal list of amendments circulated on that day.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 6, subsection (1), line 41, to delete "traveller" and substitute "Traveller".

On Second Stage I made reference to the strong wish of the traveller community to be treated as an ethnic group. That is fully in accord with the recommendations, to which I referred at length, of the Task Force on the Travelling Community which reported to the previous Government in July 1995. In order to put that wish and the recommendation of the task force into effect, I seek a minor amendment, that the traveller community would be referred to with a capital "t". It would signify their unique position in Irish society and the fact that they have a culture of their own. It would be in accord with the wishes and the recommendations of the task force which have been endorsed not only by the previous Government but by the current Government. The Minister should have no difficulty in accepting this mild and modest amendment.

My amendment is in my name and that of Deputy Howlin. This was also referred to in a submission from the Irish Traveller Movement, which feels that capitalising the "t" throughout the Bill would go some way towards showing the intent of the Bill to recognise their distinctive characteristics as a group within the Irish nation. I ask the Minister to positively consider this.

On the question of whether or not it should be a capital "t", the advice of the parliamentary draftsman is that "traveller" has a small "t" on grammatical grounds and, in accordance with current best drafting practice, the term "traveller" is a collective noun and it is treated in the same way as other groups mentioned in the Bill, such as managers or members of an authority. Other examples are disabled, farmer, employer, worker.

There is no precedent in existing and proposed legislation for a capital "t" for travellers. The recent Employment Equality Act, 1998, included references to a member of the traveller community and the traveller community ground, that is, with a small "t" in both cases. That Act deals with discrimination on the grounds of race, that is, discrimination against persons who are of a different race, colour, nationality or ethnic or national origin. Discrimination on the grounds of being a member of the traveller community is provided for separately on the basis that travellers are not of a different race, colour, nationality or ethnic or national origin. The Report of the Task Force on the Travelling Community emphasised the distinct culture and identity of travellers and recommended that these be recognised and taken into account. The report avoids making any claims that travellers are a separate ethnic group.

I am extremely disappointed in the Minister's response. I certainly will not get involved in the semantics of the correct form of English because it is perfectly understood that the argument was to reflect the specific wishes expressed in every submission which I received from the travellers' representatives across the country that they should be recognised as a distinct ethnic group. I will not be drawn into the argument whether managers should have the same application applied to them in terms of their ethnic origins. There is the notion of travellers, their wish to be considered as an ethnic group and the recommendation of the Task Force of the Travelling Community to consider. We should advance the case now, not look back to the past and say what happened in previous legislation. If we are serious about dealing with the issue of recognising the distinctiveness of travellers within the community and providing for their cultural difference, then we should meet this very modest request. I strongly urge the Minister to meet my wish and that of Deputy Hayes in this regard.

Advice from the parliamentary draftsman on the technicalities of drafting is valuable and precious, but advice from the parliamentary draftsman on grammar is not of any particular value in itself. The grounds which the Minister has relayed to us in relation to grammatical usage are without foundation. I do not accept that we should regard the travelling community as a separate ethnic group. They are not. They are part of the Irish ethnic group but they are a distinctive community. Referring to them with a capital "T" in this Bill underlines that distinction. It follows from what the Minister has said that to take positive action in favour of this group is not discrimination. It is, in many ways, at attempt to combat discrimination. If the Minister wants a reason for inserting a capital "T" he need go no further than the distinction between the meaning of the word traveller as used in this Bill and the normal meaning of the word. We have all been travellers - with a small "t" - at some time but, so far as I know, no Member of the House is a traveller with a capital "T" in the sense of this amendment. The use of the word "traveller" in this Bill cannot be compared with usage in other legislation where "farmers" is given a small "f" and "teachers" a small "t". There we are talking about a professional or vocational classification. Here we are talking about a cultural identification. We would be setting no precedents and departing from no sainted usage if we inserted a capital "T" here.

I refer the Minister to the definition section of the Bill which tells us that the "Minister" is the "Minister for the Environment and Local Government". The word "Minister" is given a capital "M" because we are talking about a particular Minister, a member of the Government under the Constitution, who has charge of this Bill. To ensure the Minister is distinguished from other ministers who might be ministers of religion, ministers of the Eucharist or ministers of another administration the word is given a capital "M". The same logic applies to the use of capital "T" for "traveller". The Minister will do no violence to any canons of usage by accepting this amendment.

This small change will make no effective difference to the provisions of the Bill or to its effective implementation. If it is the view of the Minister that it does make a change, could he outline and specify what that change is?

Deputy Howlin made the point on Second Stage that we have begun to consider legislation in a mature way and to consider the views of outside organisations when legislation is going through the Oireachtas. This is a point of concern for the traveller movement which has been outlined in various submissions. It would not require a huge leap of faith for the Minister to accept this small amendment which will make no effective change to the workings of the legislation.

This amendment would have implications. It is important to say that travellers are not a homogeneous group of people. They include family groupings, often with divisions and conflicts. Trading travellers see themselves as different from others. It is accepted that travellers are a group of Irish people who have suffered a high level of discrimination, mainly because of their way of life and cultural differences. Being a traveller is, to some extent, a question of choice. Some travellers settle in standard housing and do not wish to be known as travellers. Conversely, settled people who wish to do so may move into a caravan and decide to call themselves travellers. Inserting a capital "T" in legislation could confer on travellers a status which could have wider implications. It has never been accepted that travellers are a distinct ethnic group. While travellers in Ireland include a small number of travellers of Romany origin the majority are Irish people with family names that are common in the settled and travelling communities such as Joyce, McDonagh, Ward, Collins and so on. Recognition of travellers as a distinct ethnic group could have implications in terms of rights and protection under United Nations and other international agreements. The change suggested has not been proposed before now and I do not propose to accept the amendment.

I am more disquieted now than I was the first time the Minister responded. He appears to be saying that to accept this amendment would give more rights and privileges to travellers than he is willing to provide or acknowledge. That runs counter to the task force report and to the spirit in which the task force was established by the previous Government and maintained, I understood, by the present Government. If the Government is retreating from that position we should know now.

I refer the Minister to page 71, section 1.5 of the task force report. The Travelling People Review Body report, 1983 captured the concept of cultural difference in its very useful definition of travellers:

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 distinct lifestyle, 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.

I would expect that the Government, having accepted that definition, would be amenable to listen to representatives of the travellers who seek to have that individuality recognised in a formal way in legislation. The amendment of the major Opposition party seeks to have that request acceded to.

That individuality is recognised by the fact that this legislation, dealing with the question of providing accommodation for travellers, has been brought before the Oireachtas. The report of the task force on the travelling community did not claim that travellers were a separate ethnic group. That would be the implication of putting a capital "T" in the word traveller. The Deputy, in seeking to convey that he is supported by the report, does not quote any part of the report where this is recommended.

The task force could not have had sufficiently prescience to know that the Minister of State would introduce the Housing (Traveller Accommodation) Bill in 1998 and that we might have to make a recommendation in relation to its amendment.

I do not accept the Minister's contention that putting a capital "T" on the word "traveller" in the Bill amounts to identifying travellers as an ethnic group. I fully agree with the Minister's view that travellers are not an ethnic group. They are a sub-group within the ethnic Irish population with characteristics as outlined in the task force report and quoted by Deputy Howlin. Putting a capital "T" in this legislation means defining travellers more clearly for the purposes for which the legislation is set up. All of us are travellers from time to time. Putting in a capital T identifies them more clearly in the same way a capital M identifies a Minister. We wish to make it clear that there is a specific group to whom the legislation refers.

Section 2 defines a traveller as "a person to whom section 13 of the Act of 1988 (as amended by this Act) applies". It would make no difference to the meaning of the 1988 Act to put in a capital T but it would make a difference to the group for whom we are legislating by identifying them more clearly. The Minister of State is not right to say that using a capital T would have implications for rights or obligations on the part of the travellers or the State respectively under any international convention. It would not. Identifying a group more clearly does not mean undertaking new obligations in terms of international conventions.

To the extent that the Government is obligated to citizens of this country under any international convention, we would like to ensure, if the question ever arose, that travellers would have the same rights as any other citizen. There is nothing in the Bill or in the use of a capital T that would affect that one way or another.

I understand the Deputies do not agree with the advice I have received with regard to the capital T. I will look at the matter before Report Stage.

What are grammatical considerations to the parliamentary draftsman?

On the basis that the Minister of State will examine the matter, I will not press the amendment now.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 1a:

In page 6, subsection (1), between lines 42 and 43, to insert the following definition:

"'Traveller bodies' means an organisation established to protect traveller interests.".

I table this amendment to ascertain from the Minister of State his view of traveller bodies under the legislation. Specific functions are prescribed for traveller bodies in sections 20 and 22. Who are the traveller bodies? How are they constituted and whom do they represent? How broad is their representation and to whom are they answerable?

Under section 22, which provides for the establishment of the local consultative committees, due consideration must be given to such traveller bodies. I will interested to hear if the Minister of State considers it necessary to put in a definition of traveller bodies. If I established a body claiming to represent the interests of travellers, what prevents the local authority representing it in the same way as other bodies?

The Bill does not outline who the groups are, whom they represent and to whom they are accountable. It is a problem local authorities have brought to my attention. The Minister of State will be aware that various injunctions have come about through traveller bodies going to sites to encourage travellers to take out injunctions against local authorities. That is a new development resulting from the lack of accommodation. It is important that if this legislation ends up in the courts we must be clear about who is responsible for what, unlike the previous legislation. Failing to define traveller bodies may add to the confusion.

The current wording of section 1 allows some flexibility to local authorities to decide which organisations represent travellers. Anyone could set up a traveller body. One must rely on the experience of the local authorities in making a decision on whom they deal with and whether they represent a particular section or group of the travellers. The situation will vary from one area to another. There are areas where no organisations have been established specifically to protect the interests of travellers. The local authorities will seek to work with the families in those areas to provide facilities for them.

I do not see the need for the definition the Deputy suggests. I am happy that the Bill as it is worded is clear, that local authorities will be able to operate the Bill and that they will not have difficulty identifying those who need assistance.

It is useful to note that it is the Minister of State's view that it is a matter at the sole discretion of the local authority to establish whether a traveller body represents travellers in their functional area. If this is challenged the Minister of State should bear this in mind. It is important to note that sole discretion rests with the housing authority to determine what constitutes a traveller body and what does not. The debate on the amendments is useful to clarify the precise meaning of the legislation. Too much money has been wasted going to the courts to clarify legislation.

The Bill seeks to deal with many matters which have led local authorities and traveller organisations to the courts and I hope it will make a contribution in that regard.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."

Can the Minister of State indicate the total cost of the programme that will be required over the next five to six years to put the legislation in place? If he does not have the information to hand he may forward it to me. Will there be a considerable increase in the relevant subhead for next year's Estimates? How much has been spent on the accommodation programme so far?

The explanatory and financial memorandum indicates that it is not possible to estimate the cost of implementing local five year traveller accommodation programmes. This depends on the number of units of accommodation to be provided under the programmes, the mix of accommodation and the phasing of projects.

Eleven million pounds has been provided in the 1998 Estimates for traveller specific accommodation, i.e., halting sites and group housing schemes. This compares with an outturn of £9.5 million in 1997 and £6.5 million in 1996. Funding for traveller specific accommodation is in addition to the provision of standard local authority housing to travellers, the costs of which are met from within the local authority housing construction programme. Many local authorities provide standard local authority housing to travellers which are additional to the costs mentioned.

However, it is estimated that the capital requirement for the construction of halting sites and group housing schemes will be £120 million, at 1998 prices, in the period 1998-2004. This will provide and refurbish approximately 2,500 units of accommodation. A target of 3,100 units including 100 transient sites was set in the national strategy for traveller accommodation announced in March 1998. However, because of changes in accommodation preferences, natural growth in the number of traveller families and changes in the pattern of traveller movement, it is likely that when the programmes are prepared, the number of units to be provided will differ from this target.

It is expected that expenditure on traveller specific accommodation will build up from the current level towards an annual figure of approximately £17 million in 1998 prices and that provision of standard local authority housing will continue at the current level. The annual net increase of 100 traveller families in standard local authority housing is additional.

The report and recommendations of the task force on traveller accommodation are not very old, yet the Minister is not in a position to give updated or revised indications of accommodation needs. The task force report recommended the provision of 3,100 units at a cost of £218 million at 1994 prices. Does the Minister accept that an expenditure of that range is required? Is there an appreciable change in that and, if so, what is it?

I mentioned the figure of £120 million.

The actual recommendation on the cost on page 107 of the task force report states that the estimated cost of meeting the accommodation needs of the traveller community in the period 1995-2000 is £218 million at 1994 prices. Table D6 breaks that figure down into the various categories of expenditure -group housing, serviced units, transient units, refurbishment of units etc.

The figure I gave is the departmental estimate at this year's prices for the period 1998-2004.

What is the total cost?

One hundred and twenty million pounds in that period.

For 3,100 units?

That is for 2,500 units of accommodation.

What about the other 600 individuals? Will they be provided with different accommodation and what is the cost of that?

The figures may not mean a great deal as they are estimates which were made at different times. The objective is to provide accommodation for every traveller family who is not in proper accommodation. The figure of 3,100 units includes 100 transient sites. However, the number of transient sites may not reach that figure. The rate of provision of transient sites during the period is not expected to be as high as envisaged by the report. It is likely that greater priority will be given in local programmes to the provision of permanent, as distinct from transient, accommodation.

What was the outturn figure for traveller accommodation last year?

We spent £9.5 million pounds in 1997, £6.5 million in 1996 and this year we will spend £11 million.

Last year's allocation was £11 million, which was not fully taken up. That is worrying.

It is worrying. We provided £11 million this year and I am concerned that it will be fully taken up.If it is not taken up it is an indication that not enough work is being done in the provision of accommodation at local authority level. It is early in the year so I cannot give an estimate of how close we are to the allocation being fully taken up. The figure of £120 million does not include standard local authority housing, whereas the figure given in the report more than likely does. One hundred houses per year are provided, although not all of them are new.

It is difficult to be specific about numbers but I am happy to be specific about the objective, which is to have a programme in place across the country where every local authority works to achieve the provision of accommodation. Hopefully in a five year period we will have accommodated the range of needs established. However, there will be new demands. Our initial priority is to tackle the current problem.

Both sides of the House agree there is no difficulty in finding financial resources to solve this problem. The Government and the Opposition are committed to ensuring that when the housing authority programmes come on stream they will be given adequate financial resources from the Department. It is not a problem of finance but of agreement.

It has never been a financial problem. For many years consecutive Governments' policy has been to meet full costs and make funds available. I am not aware of any schemes held up because of funding. This is providing that plans are within normal cost guidelines which are applied across the board.

As a general rule, 90 per cent of expenditure on housing schemes is derived from the Department of the Environment and Local Government and 10 per cent from the local authority. Is that correct?

The Government provides 100 per cent of accommodation costs.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.

I move amendment No. 1b:

In page 8, subsection (5), lines 12 and 13, to delete "for a period which the Minister may by direction specify" and substitute "for the period of an accommodation programme".

Section 6 deals with the assessment of accommodation needs. The amendment is designed to flesh out the Minister of State's thinking in respect of the section. Am I correct in assuming that local authorities can come together to form a joint plan for a particular area? Will they have the power to commission or obtain an assessment of accommodation needs in their areas without seeking approval from the Minister?

As it stands section 6(5) states: "A relevant housing authority shall make an estimate of the number of traveller families and households for whom accommodation will be required within the functional area for a period which the Minister may by direction specify."

The amendment proposes that the phrase " for a period which the Minister may by direction specify" be deleted and replaced by the term " for the period of an accommodation programme". There is no point carrying out an assessment of the need for accommodation in a functional area if it is not relevant to the specific programme. Acceptance of the amendment would circumvent that problem and ensure that every new programme will require a new assessment to deal with the varied accommodation needs in particular functional areas. An assessment should not require the approval of the Minister of State, it should be automatically approved if a local authority decides to carry out an assessment for the duration of a programme.

While housing authorities will, in the case of the first programme, know the period of the programme they may not do so in the case of subsequent programmes. I refer here to the period during which an assessment is being carried out. The Minister has power under section 10 to specify a period of less than five years for subsequent programmes. Hence the link to such specified periods. It will be necessary for an authority to know in advance what will be the specified period.

Is there anything to prevent an authority initiating an assessment?

There is nothing to prevent them doing so. Assessments are carried out every three years on a national basis to ensure travellers are not included in the accommodation needs of three or four different counties. To that end, assessments are carried out on different dates.

I accept the Minister of State's explanation.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 1c:

In page 8, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following subsection:

"(8) Nothing in this section can prevent a relevant housing authority from making an assessment of accommodation needs together with one or more than one relevant housing authority for the functional area of the relevant housing authorities concerned.".

This amendment refers back to the point I made when speaking on amendment No. 1b. From reading the legislation it appears the Minister's approval is required to initiate an assessment. If two local authorities come together to organise a joint five year programme, it would seem sensible that they should determine their assessment for that period and there should be no barriers placed in the way of that assessment taking place. I am interested in the Minister of State's views on this issue.

Nothing in section 6 of the Bill or section 9 of the Housing Act, 1998, prevents housing authorities from conducting joint assessments. Section 7(2), which provides for joint accommodation programmes, presumes that joint assessments would be desirable in some cases. On that basis there is no need for the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.

I move amendment No. 1d:

In page 8, subsection (2), lines 38 and 39, to delete "and subsections (1) and (3) and sections 8 to 15 shall apply to such adoption".

Section 7 deals with accommodation programmes. Subsection (2) states: "A relevant housing authority may adopt an accommodation programme together with one or more than one relevant housing authority for the functional areas of the relevant housing authorities concerned and subsections (1) and (3) and sections 8 to 15 shall apply to such adoption." Why are other sections omitted from the adoption of that joint action?

The purpose of the amendment is unclear. As currently worded, section 7(2) makes clear that the provisions in section 7(1) and 7(3) and sections 8 to 15 apply to the preparation and adoption of joint programmes. The proposed amendment would lead to uncertainty and misunderstanding in the case of joint programmes.

Are the relevant powers for joint programmes included in the legislation?

I accept that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 1e:

In page 8, subsection (3), line 42, after "function" to insert "subject to the provisions of section 14".

This is an honest amendment. Everyone knows it is a reserved function of a local authority housing committee to adopt a plan. However, under the powers granted under the Bill, if a local authority refuses to accept a plan, the manager can implement it within a period of time. Local authorities will be extremely upset if we do not accept that section 14 is the most powerful aspect of the legislation. As already stated, it is a reserved function of local authority housing committees to adopt a plan but that reserved function is subject to the provisions of section 14. Including that information would introduce a degree of honesty and transparency to the legislation.

It is not appropriate to insert a cross-reference to the provisions of section 14 on the lines proposed in the amendment. Section 14 applies only to a particular set of circumstances where the members of a housing authority fail to adopt a programme by the specified date.

The function is not reserved indefinitely. Either it is or is not a reserved function. If it is not, the manager has a final all-encompassing power and that should be stated in the legislation.

Section 14 forms the heart of the legislation.

I accept that.

We support the Minister of State's assertion.

Those of us with experience in this area know that this particular approach, which was adopted by the previous Government, is one which we support.

With respect, that is not the point. I am suggesting that by including this amendment in the legislation it would bring a degree of hon-esty to the section. It would make clear to the public that it is a reserved function but if members cannot agree to the adoption of a programme the understandably draconian powers contained in section 14 will kick in. I do not believe the legislation would be weakened by acceptance of the amendment.

That must be taken as read when considering section 14.

However, it is not stated in the legislation and it should be.

I do not see the need to do so. The manager's role comes into operation only at a specific point.

Then it is not a reserved function.

It is a reserved function for the members under certain circumstances.

What other example——

If it is adopted by the members——

Will the Minister of State provide another example where a reserved function is dependent on the ultimate power of the manager? I am not opposing what the Minister is saying, I am merely suggesting that it would make sense to accept the amendment.

The manager will not have any role unless the members fail to exercise their reserved function. That is the way the section is constructed.

Therefore, it is not a reserved function.

We are arguing semantics. It is clear what is intended in the legislation. The members have a role and they have a reserved function. Nobody else will have responsibility for drawing up the programme. In the event that they do not fulfil that function, they will put themselves out of the scene and the manager will take over. I understood the Deputy accepted that.

That is not my point. It should be clear in the legislation.

It is clear in section 14 that the manager's role commences only when the members have not adopted a programme. The manager has no role up to that point other than to supply the members with proposals. The members must decide what to accept. If they disagree there is a different set of circumstances and the manager's role comes into play. If they agree, the manager has no role other than to record the members decision

There is no difference between the Minister of State and I on the substantive point. It would be more sensible to include the amendment in the Bill but I will bow to the Minister of State's experience, knowledge and judgment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 8, between lines 42 and 43, to insert the following subsection:

"(4) The Minister shall specify a date for the adoption, by a relevant housing authority, of an accommodation programme.".

This is a technical amendment intended to ensure the Minister has adequate power to specify the date by which a programme should be adopted. While section 7(1) refers to the date specified by the Minister, there is no express obligation or power to do so at present. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure there is no doubt about this matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 3, 3a and 5a are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 8, between lines 42 and 43, to insert the following subsection:

"(4) Without prejudice to subsection (1), an accommodation programme shall specify the implementation arrangements proposed to result in suitable accommodation for every traveller within or expected within the functional area; and shall include arrangements in relation to:

(a) sites for long-term living;

(b) sites for transient travellers;

(c) group housing schemes;

(d) assistance towards private ownership of accommodation; and

(e) standard local authority housing.".

The amendment reflects the point I made on Second Stage that while there is a requirement to have an accommodation programme, its contents are not spelled out in detail. The amendment would ensure that, without prejudice to subsection (1), an accommodation programme would specify the implementation arrangements proposed to result in suitable accommodation for every traveller within or expected within the functional area. It would also specify arrangements in relation to sites for long-term living and transient travellers, group housing schemes, assistance towards private ownership of accommodation and standard local authority housing. The full range of possibilities should be spelled out by every local authority in their accommodation programme. There should be no ambiguity in relation to the requirements of a local authority under the legislation. The amendment adds clarity to the Minister of State's intention.

Deputy Howlin's amendment is technically better than mine although the intention is the same. The amendment arose from a submission from the Irish Traveller Movement and the intention is to clarify the section. It enhances the provision and specifies all the components of an accommodation programme such as sites for permanent and temporary dwellings, group housing schemes, assistance towards private ownership of accommodation and standard local authority housing. I welcome the amendment and I am interested in the views of the Minister of State. The same arguments are made in amendment No. 5a. The purpose of the amendments is to include specifications in the section which would be worthwhile.

I refer the Deputies to section 10 which already contains comprehensive provisions on the format and content of accommodation programmes. It sets out the matters which must be included in a programme, including information on the accommodation needs of travellers. The programme must include a statement of the authority's policy on how the accommodation needs are to be met and a strategy to secure implementation of the programme which must contain specific measures across a range of options.

It may include the direct provision and management of accommodation by housing authorities or assistance from such authorities to travellers or voluntary bodies for the provision or management by them of accommodation. In preparing programmes regard must be had to the accommodation needs which have been identified, including the need for halting sites for transient travellers and the distinct needs and family circumstances of travellers. There is also a provision for directions to be given by the Minister on any further matters which should be included.

It is considered that these provisions adequately cover the contents of programmes to ensure they are a comprehensive, integrated and transparent response to the needs of travellers. Therefore, I do not intend to accept the amendments.

I ask the Minister of State to reconsider his position on this matter. Amendment No. 3 would add to the Bill. It would ensure that section 7 outlined the critical components of an accommodation programme in clear terms. Section 10 does not specify the contents of an accommodation programme with the same degree of clarity. It does not state that authorities shall provide for all the expected accommodation needs of travellers in their functional areas which is what everybody wants. I invite the Minister of State to reflect further on this matter because the specific points are not met in section 10.

The Minister of State said earlier that he wanted time to reflect on amendments because he is disposed towards accepting good amendments. He should not look for reasons that things cannot be done. If amendments would improve the Bill, I ask him to consider accepting them. I am a former Minister and one can always find arguments against proposals.

I have no problem accepting amendments that will add to achieving the objectives of the Bill. However, section 10 adequately provides for the range of accommodation which can be made available under the accommodation programmes. If something is superfluous, it is not good legislative practice to include it. There is no need to define group housing schemes and sites for transient travellers and long-term living. The local authorities, the Department, travellers and the consultative committees are aware of the range of accommodation.

What is the harm in spelling it out?

It is superfluous.

That is not the case.

It adds unnecessary verbiage to the legislation.

That is patently not the case.

Provision is already made for it.

The Minister of State is breaching his cardinal rule. He is arguing for the sake of arguing against issues on which we do not disagree. That is a poor way to approach legislation and it is not my experience of the Minister of State.

The difference is that I do not consider it necessary to include the amendment. It is already clearly provided for in section 10.

Where is it provided for? Will the Minister of State direct me to the provision?

It is clear from the housing and accommodation programmes already in place for travellers that provision is made for all these matters. The amendment is nothing new. Nothing has been left out in the existing approach to accommodation for travellers.

My amendment No. 5a seeks to amend section 10. I accept the amendment may not be technically up to scratch. The Minister of State referred to section 10(3)(c). My amendment proposes the deletion of the current subsection.

Chairman

Is the Deputy referring to amendment No. 5a?

Yes. It can be discussed at the same time.

Since the Minister of State is using it also.

Can we change this to make it more specific? I would not be averse to removing amendment No. 5a if the Minister of State wants to bring forward a better amendment on Report Stage. Deputy Howlin has made the correct point; the first principle we need with this Bill is clarity. The traveller movement has rightly said that programmes should be clear, and this amendment would get around the problem the Minister of State is explaining. I do not see a problem but the Minister of State should consider a new section here. I am holding out an olive branch.

Again, I do not see that this is necessary. Deputies should bear in mind that guidelines will be issued to local authorities regarding implementation of the legislation.

These are guidelines we have not seen, and we are in the business of making laws. I have worked in two Departments that sign thousands of statutory instruments regarding regulations. We are here to create primary legislation, not to leave it to civil servants to draft secondary legislation over which we have little or no control. The Minister of State should spell this out in primary legislation. We should not have to rely on secondary legislation and regulations drafted by civil servants which are not normally debated in the House.

From Deputy Howlin's experiences as a Minister dealing with legislation, he must be well aware of the pitfalls of putting in specifics——

Would it not be wonderful if we did away with legislation altogether on that basis? We could say: "Lads, carry on. We know you are doing a great job."

Can Deputy Howlin assure me that the list of specifics here is absolutely complete?

No. It says "shall include", it does not purport to be exhaustive.

I do not propose changing subsection (d), which states ". . . such other matters as the Minister may, by direction, specify from time to time. . . ". If we get this other form of accommodation up the trees or under the earth, this can be put in place. Any new form of accommodation can be catered for by way of ministerial direction, but the present components of the accommodation plan can be specified in this section.

We do not need to think up exotic accommodation proposals for something that has been left out. There is no reference here to voluntary housing, which I am relying on as a new source of accommodation for traveller families. The amendment is defective in the sense that it seeks to name specifically what should be provided and leaves out a major area. It seeks to be specific when there is no need to be specific. As worded, the Bill provides adequate legislative grounds for all the possibilities that could be included in any local authority's accommodation programme. It is not as if we are moving into a whole new area; accommodation for travellers has been provided for years and local authorities have a lot of experience in this matter. We know what the preferences are and that there is a desire for halting sites in some cases, and a desire for standard or group housing in other cases. Perhaps the Deputy does not want to withdraw his amendment, but I am satisfied the Bill provides for the range of accommodation required and that it can be added to or taken from in accordance with the desires of the consultative committee on which travellers are represented. That committee makes recommendations for guidelines and instructions for local authorities. The amendment is superfluous.

I do not accept the Minister's view and I fear he is arguing for the sake of argument. He had already accepted the point that the amendment is specific in a way that sections 7 and 10 are not. I accept the point about voluntary housing and I would be delighted to broaden my list to include that, but that is ignoring the history of the issue. Why are we debating this Bill? Local authorities' dealings with traveller accommodation have not been comprehensive, and some have been woefully inadequate. Unless we have a specific legal requirement on the basis of clearly defined options which include specific proposals, we will not have a comprehensive response and the Bill will be deficient. I ask the Minister of State to reflect on this between now and Report Stage.

I find it quite extraordinary that so much time has been spent on arguing for the inclusion of specifics when there is no need for it. It seems to imply that members of the consultative committee and local authorities who will be charged with drawing up the accommodation programmes are deficient in their knowledge of the accommodation options. Travellers on the local consultative committees will make their views known and councillors will have those views available to them when making decisions on local accommodation programmes. The local community will also have an opportunity for an input on these plans. It is mind boggling to think that if something is not written in here specifically none of these options would be exercised. This indicates how wrong that is.

One more.

One more, and God knows what people could come up with. We do not want to go back to the wattles, as a friend of mine used to say when he called down for the tarpaulin. We were all ashamed at that time of how little was done for that section of the community and we are trying to do something better with this legislation. If something better than these options comes up, that community will be able to avail of that option.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 3a:

In page 8, between lines 42 and 43, to insert the following subsection:

"(4) An accommodation programme is a five year plan which will make provision for the suitable accommodation needs of Travellers living in a functional area. The programme will include-

(i) sites for permanent dwellings,

(ii) sites for temporary dwellings,

(iii) group housing schemes, and

(iv) assistance towards private ownership of accommodation and standard local authority housing.".

Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 8.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 8, line 45, to delete "programme" and substitute "programme,".

This merely inserts a comma where required.

Amendment agreed to.

Chairman

Amendments Nos 4a and 4b are related and it is proposed to discuss them together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 4a:

In page 9, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:

"(f) the relevant section of the Department of the Environment and Local Government which considers related matters that pertain to this Act.".

I notice the Opposition is agreeing dutifully to the Minister of State's amendments. I suspect the Minister will show the same generosity at some point. This section deals with notice of accommodation programmes to certain bodies. My amendment may not be necessary, because where the first draft has been finalised, it should automatically be sent to the appropriate section in the Department. I do not see provision for that in section 8. A provision exists in terms of sending it to all members of the housing authority, the Urban District Council, where appropriate, members of health boards in the functional area, the local consultative committee and such other bodies as the relevant housing authority concerned may consider appropriate. This section does not provide that the plan should be sent to the Department. I would have thought it good practice that once all the plans have completed their first stage they would automatically be sent to the Department which would receive a pool of knowledge from this exercise.

Amendment No. 4b seeks that "such community and residents' organisations as the relevant housing authority considers appropriate in the functional area" should also receive the programme. I will explain our intention in relation to other amendments to the Minister of State later. Even though the community will have huge difficulties with this legislation, we are at least trying not to hoodwink people. Where a programme has been established, the draft of which has been distributed to other groups within the community, those groups outlined in amendment No. 4b should also receive it. I am interested in hearing the Minister of State's views on this.

Minister of State, Deputy Wallace, when making her Second Stage speech in the Dáil on behalf of the Minister, said she would be interested in hearing Members' views on the involvement in this programme of resident and community groups. This is part of that process. It would be bad form if those who hold leadership positions within resident and community organisations did not receive this programme at the same time as other groups.

It would not be appropriate to specify in the Bill that notices of the preparation of draft programmes would be submitted to the Department of the Environment and Local Government in view of the Minister's powers to intervene under sections 17 and 18. Participation by the Department in the preparation of local programmes could compromise the Minister's functions in this regard. I do not propose to accept amendment No. 4a.

Amendment No. 4b refers to "community and resident organisations". This power is already provided for at paragraph (e). It would not be appropriate to spell out the categories of organisations to which notice could be given. The desirability of notifying community groups can be dealt with in advance of guidelines which I propose to issue to local authorities.

I am quite happy with the Minister's clarification in relation to amendment No. 4b. I thought provision might exist in the section to deal with this but perhaps it could have been spelled out clearer. It reads "such other body as the relevant housing authority concerned considers appropriate having regard to all the circumstances". Could we not have included "residents and community groups" as one section of it? Were we hoping to go about this quietly and softly. Why was that not provided for?

I understand it follows the provisions of the 1988 Act.

It is not very clear.

It refers to health boards, elected councils and others. We are suggesting that resident associations should also be specifically mentioned.

We will make provision for that in the guidelines.

A lot of provisions are being made in the guidelines.

I am stating our intention. Guidelines are very helpful in steering local authorities in the right direction.

The previous Government produced a very thorough programme of reform on how local authorities deal with their functions and interface with the community. The Minister of State, and Minister Dempsey, have followed on by saying they are committed to that. We need to look closely at every future section of legislation to give due consideration to this new partnership with the community. I recognise there will be problems for the community and resident organisations behind much of what is proposed here. All the players should be given this programme at the same time and I cannot understand why that is not specified in the subsection. It goes against the range of reforms the previous Government, and this Government, promised to introduce by way of community involvement. The Minister of State might reconsider that proposal again.

I have no problem with the principle of community involvement. It is something I have advocated for years. I amended Part X of the Planning Act to include greater community consultation and communication. These amendments were submitted without my having had the opportunity to see them. It is most unusual for the Chairman to have accepted them. Additional amendments were also submitted while I attended a Government meeting. I agree with what is being advocated by the Deputy. I will look at this again for Report Stage. I am assured the legislation already provides in paragraph (e) for what the Deputy is advocating. I do not want to add words to the Bill for the sake of it.

I am merely trying to have the role of the community recognised in legislation.

I will look at it for Report Stage. I do not wish to argue over this with the Deputy. I want to make sure community and resident organisations are involved and properly consulted.

I accept the Minister's generosity.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 4b not moved.
Section 8, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 9.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 9, subsection (1)(b), line 24, to delete "it" and substitute "it,".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 9, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 10.

Chairman

Amendment No. 5a has already been discussed with amendment No. 3. Is the amendment being pressed?

Yes.

I move amendment No. 5a.:

In page 11, subsection (3)(c), line 8, to delete "and" and substitute the following:

"(d) the provision of group housing schemes, the provision of standard local authority housing and the provision of assistance towards private ownership of accommodation and".

Amendment put and declared lost.
Sections 10 and 11 agreed to.
SECTION 12.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 11, line 37, to delete "10 or where appropriate the date referred to in section 17 or 18" and substitute "10, or, where appropriate, the date referred to in section 17 or 18,".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 12, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 13.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 12, subsection (2), line 4, to delete "10 or where appropriate" and substitute "10, or, where appropriate,".

Amendment agreed to.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 14.

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 12, lines 7 to 9, to delete all words from and including "or" where it firstly occurs in line 7 down to and including "date" in line 9 and substitute "or an amendment to or a replacement of it, by the date specified for such adoption under section 7 or 10, or, where appropriate, the date".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 14, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 15.

I move amendment No. 8a:

In page 12, paragraph (a), between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:

"(iv) subject to the provision of section 14, an explanatory statement on how an accommodation programme can be given legal effect,".

This amendment refers to the publication of accommodation programmes. Section 15 states "as soon as the adoption of the accommodation programme, or amendment of it, a notice must be placed in a newspaper circulating in all the functional areas". The Minister then specifies three aspects which must be contained in that notice: the accommodation programme, the period when the accommodation can be inspected by the public and the draft programme.

The amendment proposes to add that when a local authority is placing such advertisement it would also explain the legal provisions concerning its operation. There is a view within the community that decisions by local authority housing departments for or against a certain accommodation programme are final. They do not understand that the final decision on adoption of programmes rests, under section 14, with the manager. A degree of honesty is required. If the Minister accepts my amendment the public will be made aware of how accommodation programmes will come into effect. They should be made aware of the range of consultations that exist and that this is a reserve function of the council but if they do not agree section 14 will come into play. Acceptance of my amendment would make this open and transparent.

The provisions of section 10 (2)(d) which require a programme, through the strategy for securing the implementation of an accommodation programme, covers the proposal laid down in the Deputy's amendment.

Section 10(2)(d) states:

In preparing an accommodation programme, or a replacement of it, the relevant housing authority shall.....

(d) specify the strategy of the relevant housing authority concerned for securing the implementation of the accommodation programme,

The manner in which this is to be implemented is contained in the published accommodation programme.

Strategy and law are two different things.

This is the law. The Act gives legal requirement on how the accommodation programme comes into effect.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 15 agreed to.
SECTION 16.

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 12, subsection (1), line 41, after "authority" to insert "and the Minister".

This amendment seeks to amend section 16 in relation to the implementation of the accommodation programme. Subsection (1) requires the relevant housing authority, in securing the implementation of the accommodation programme, to take any reasonable steps as are necessary for the purposes of such implementation. It requires that once they have adopted an accommodation programme they implement it.

My amendment seeks to make the Minister party to the process. Without the proper resources and support, the local authority cannot implement the programme. This amendment would require the Minister to assist in implementing the accommodation programme as well as requiring the relevant local authorities to do so. It ensures there is no statutory obligation on a local authority to implement the programme if the necessary wherewithal in terms of resources is not available. As things stand, they would be in an impossible position.

The amendment to introduce an element of responsibility on the Minister for the implementation of local accommodation programmes is contrary to established Government policy to devolve more decision-making powers to local authorities. Sections 17 and 18 provide for intervention by the Minister in reviews of programmes, preparation and co-ordination of joint programmes or the amendment or replacement of individual programmes. I am satisfied these provisions are adequate to ensure the programmes meet the accommodation needs identified.

They may. The provisions referred to are interfering provisions in relation to a local authority which does not fulfil its legal obligations or which inadequately fulfils them under this section. I am talking about the implementation of an accommodation programme that is adequate and proper but it is not within the powers of a local authority to implement the programme in its entirety without support from the Minister, which includes, in particular, funding. It would create a serious defect if the local authority were legally bound to implement a programme when the necessary wherewithal was not provided. My amendment seeks to have specific obligations placed on the Minister and the local authority to ensure the common objective is put in place. It is not about interfering in the drawing up of programmes or modifying them. Section 16 specifically refers to the implementation of programmes.

The implementation of a programme is a matter for the local authority. I do not agree with the Deputy's proposal to place responsibility on the Minister to implement at ground level accommodation programmes.

It is Government policy to devolve as many functions as possible to local authorities.

One can given them all the functions one likes but you have to give them money also.

The local authorities are provided with funding for the implementation of these programmes.

For the moment.

The Estimates provide a sum of £11 million for that purpose. We hope to increase that to £17 million when the programmes reach a higher level of demand.

It strikes me the Minister is too happy to say "this is what we want done and it is your job to do it" while he bears no legal obligation to be party to the delivery of these programmes which are crucial and vital.

May I ask a question in relation to section 16?

Chairman

We are not dealing with the section. Has the Minister anything else to add?

Chairman

Is the amendment being pressed?

Will the Minister reflect on this or has he made up his mind on it?

My mind is very clear on it.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Question proposed: "That section 16 stand part of the Bill."

What would happen, in the event that the council does not adopt the accommodation programme and, under section 14, the county manager puts it in place, to the other statutory functions which have to be furnished by the local authority? For instance it is now intended to include a written provision within the written statement of a development plan in relation to traveller accommodation. That is a reserve function of a local authority and the only people who can give effect to it are its members. What would happen if they decide not to amend the development plan in line with this legislation? The primary function of a council is a housing function and nothing should be done to frustrate people's housing needs. I am aware of the proposals in Part X on CPOs which relate to managers. The councillors must change the development plan. If they fail to change it, by way of written statement contained in this legislation, will they frustrate the adoption of the accommodation programme? In such circumstance would they be frustrating their primary housing function, which the courts have determined? Their housing function supersedes other functions such as planning and development.

The measure before us is intended to bring in a certain objective with which the Oireachtas agreed. If in the course of attempting to implement this legislation insurmountable obstacles are raised, the matter would have to be reviewed in terms of other necessary legislation.

If the hypothetical case of a planning obstacle mentioned by the Deputy arose which was deemed to be a member's function which could not be changed, the Deputy should bear in mind that there are circumstances where the Minister can alter development plans. History has shown, however, that this power has not been exercised. It is not the route any Minister would want to take. We are travelling in the opposite direction. I do not anticipate this kind of difficulty will arise.

Is it possible that members could be sued on this basis? If the accommodation programme has been agreed and a change is required in the development plan, but councillors choose not to make it, can they be sued on the basis that their primary function is housing, as determined by the courts, and they are frustrating that function? Can councillors be sued if they do not accept various powers which need to be put in place under this legislation?

That is a hypothetical question about a local authority refusing to implement the provisions of this Bill. That is dealt with in sections 25 and 26. These sections provide for the inclusion in county and city development plans of appropriate objectives for the provision and accommodation of travellers and the use of particular areas for that purpose. The need for appropriate objectives emerged as a result of a number of court proceedings which stopped particular developments for traveller accommodation on the grounds that the developments were contrary to the development plan. The need for any change to existing development plans or the inclusion of detailed wording will be a matter for each planning authority. While appropriate guidelines and advice will issue to authorities on the matter, it is essential that such objectives, as a minimum, allow for implementation of the adopted five year accommodation programme. Any variation to an existing plan will be subject to the same statutory requirement which applies to normal variations. A planning authority is allowed flexibility under section 26 to delay making the necessary changes until the next variation or a new plan is implemented to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort with scarce resources.

Section 26 also contains transitional provisions to ensure a development under an adopted five year programme is not held up pending the processing of the necessary variation of the development plan.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 17.

I move amendment No. 9a:

In page 13, subsection (1), between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:

"(c) shall make an annual report to the Minister on the implementation of the accommodation programme.".

Section 17 relates to the review, amendment and replacement of an accommodation programme. My amendment calls on the local authority to make an annual report to the Minister on the implementation of the accommodation programme. This would be useful. We have seen many local authorities fail to address this issue. The overriding concern on Second Stage was that a range of local authorities might fail to put in place an accommodation programme. The Minister needs to be briefed on an annual basis on the progress being made in each local authority area. If the Minister of State accepts my amendment requesting that an annual report be made to the Minister, he would get a universal picture on the implementation of this legislation in each area. The Minister could then direct areas which do not meet a certain standard to do better the following year.

I am advised that local authorities are obliged to make an annual report to my Department on their housing programme. Obviously, their reports would include the implementation of the accommodation programmes for travellers.

Is the Minister of State satisfied the import of my amendment could be applied to all the local authorities?

Yes, it is already provided for.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 17 agreed to.
SECTION 18.

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 13, subsection (1)(b), line 35, to delete "date" and substitute "date,".

This amendment requires the insertion of a comma.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 13, subsection (1)(b), line 35, after "Minister," to insert the following:

"and

(c) give directions as to proper site management,".

It is important to raise the issue of the management of actual sites on Second Stage. As the accommodation programme is put into place people who are apprehensive will be watching the initial flurry of activity, in particular, in relation to how sites once constructed actually operate. There should be a clear direction on proper site management. We made great advances in recent times on the maintenance and management of local authority and voluntary housing. A huge effort has gone in to looking at estate management, which is regarded as a critical component of local authority housing. It is equally important in the management of traveller accommodation sites. If they are seen to run effectively, it will greatly facilitate the implementation of a comprehensive programme.

I agree with Deputy Howlin's amendment on the importance of the management of sites in gaining public acceptance for additional sites. One of the causes often cited by the public for objection to the location of a halting site in an area is the condition of existing ones. It is not enough for the Minister to give directions to local authorities. Funding is also required. I note the Bill's financial implication is zero.

Undoubtedly, local authorities will have to bear the very high cost of managing these sites. Even with regular refurbishment every couple of years the cost of maintenance will be very high. A paltry increase of £7,000 was provided for the maintenance of halting sites in each local authority. That sum would not even pay for the clearing of skips on local authority sites. It represents very little improvement and would be inadequate for local authorities faced with the additional responsibility of providing comprehensive housing programmes for travellers.

The provisions of section 18 relate to the joint preparation and adoption of accommodation programmes or the co-ordination of the preparation and adoption of a number of programmes. The insertion of a provision in relation to site management is inappropriate. The Deputy will be aware that section 29 is intended to give statutory backing to a scheme of financial assistance to local authorities in respect of certain costs associated with the management and maintenance of traveller accommodation which was introduced with effect from 1 January 1997.

How much?

It would cost £1.025 million.

The allocation of £7,000 per local authority is inadequate.

Advice and guidelines on management and maintenance were issued to local authorities under the scheme. Such advice and guidelines will be revised at regular intervals particularly in the light of models of best practice being developed by the recently established housing unit in the Institute of Public Administration.

Under the scheme of financial assistance a number of pilot initiatives have been encouraged to develop partnership arrangements between local authorities and travellers which it is hoped can be passed on to other local authorities in the near future. It is, therefore, considered that current efforts to improve management and maintenance of traveller accommodation, particularly caravan parks, offers the best opportunity for progress rather than the approach suggested by the amendment.

I accept the provision of facilities does not fulfil our responsibilities. There is a clear obligation to ensure funds are made available to local authorities to enable them to provide the appropriate accommodation in a good condition. The maintenance of such facilities is costly. I have criticised the fact that while local authorities received 100 per cent funding for the provision of halting sites no money was provided to ensure they were properly maintained and some level of management applied to the way they were run. Bearing in mind that in a lot of these cases there have been difficulties in securing sites in the form of local objections, the local authority assured local residents on many occasion that once the facilities were provided they would be maintained. Subsequently, we are unable to fulfil that commitment because of lack of resources.

This is a big flaw in the programme. Eventually it will be identified as one of the reasons for continuing opposition to the provision of facilities at halting sites, not so much because of what is proposed but because of what might happen after the event due to lack of proper maintenance and abandonment by some local authorities. Happily we have gone past that stage and the need for funding is recognised. The figure I mentioned is small in relation to the national needs. I hope local authorities will take up this scheme with greater vigour, that greater progress will be made in establishing partnership arrangements between local authorities and the communities living in the traveller facilities provided and that arrangements can be worked out. We must bear in mind that the new method of funding will provide the today's local authorities with much greater discretionary spending powers than heretofore.

Every Minister is spinning that deal every day.

It is still too little funding.

In reality there will be more funds available. Local authorities have been starved of discretionary funds for many years. I will not go back over that argument because I know where the trouble started. That legislation can be clearly identified as the cause of the rot in funding and the role local authorities had. I know who brought in the Bill.

Not in my time.

In my time. I agree with the need for proper site maintenance and management and steps are being taken in that regard. I hope with the national consultative council and the local consultative council all these matters will be regularly brought to the notice of the authorities. There is also a new housing unit in the Institution of Public Administration. Eventually I hope it will play an important role in helping to establish new models of best practice. Therefore, there is no need for this amendment.

I am encouraged by what the Minister has said. If the commitment in relation to this being a priority is implemented it will be very important. I will accept if he feels this is not the appropriate location of such an amendment as it deals with the adoption of accommodation programmes. However, this is a critical issue which needs to be highlighted in the Bill.

The Minister acknowledged that the figure he mentioned earlier is inadequate. As more sites are built a proactive and immediate programme of maintenance must be put in place, perhaps by appointing individual caretakers. That will be done on a partnership basis involving the local authorities and local residents. We all have to watch how things unfold. Maintenance will be a critical factor in the overall public acceptance of the programme.

This presents a challenge to the residents of the accommodation that is being provided, whether a halting site, group housing, etc. If we develop the partnership arrangement many residents would be happy to accept responsibilities and bring about a dramatic improvement. Pride in their home place would be increased by their involvement in this scheme. It is up to local authorities and local elected members to work hard at building up these relationships and partnership arrangements. I will do my best to ensure the Exchequer supports this work. It can also be funded out of the increased resources available to local authorities as of 1 January 1999.

Precisely what the Minister said would not happen.

The law states under the Funding Act that all new functions under the Local Government Act enacted this year must have additional resources.

Members should bear in mind that there is a very extensive range of accommodation already provided for travellers. We are not starting on a green field.

Let us not get side tracked. The Minister has accepted the need for this.

We are in agreement.

Like estate management, it is often one individual family which can be a destructive force. There has to be a co-operative arrangement to ensure that is not allowed destroy individual sites and the harmony between residents of sites and the community.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 13, subsection (2), line 38, after "may," to insert "and, if in his or her opinion the combined provision for travellers made by the accommodation programmes of the several relevant housing authorities in the State falls short of the extent, in the Minister's opinion, of the total national requirement for provision for travellers, shall, to the extent necessary to rectify the shortfall,".

On Second Stage, I discussed at length the fact that the sum of the provision of all the individual programmes must add up to the total national need. The Minister must have due regard to that. He must have the power to intervene so that we can ensure the total national requirement is met.

Section 18 enables the Minister, following consultation with the relevant housing authority or authorities concerned, to require that accommodation programmes be prepared, amended, replaced, prepared jointly or co-ordinated by two or more housing authorities in a specified way by a specified date. The amendment as proposed presumes that the Minister has separate information available on the total national requirement for traveller accommodation.

Local assessment of needs, including the next statutory assessment of needs due to be carried out in March 1999, will be the basis on which local traveller accommodation programmes will be drafted. This is a more accurate method of deciding the accommodation needs of travellers in each local authority's functional area than determining a national requirement for traveller accommodation. Local authorities are obliged to have regard to the needs identified in the assessment when preparing their programmes. Having regard to the general thrust of local government reform and the principle of subsidiarity, it is considered that the powers conferred on the Minister in section 18 are sufficient in the circumstances and I do not propose to accept the amendment.

I am sorry to hear this, because the Minister of State's argument does not meet my point. The powers the Minister of State referred to are enabling powers that the Minister may use to intervene. On the two occasions I have suggested requirements for the Minister to act, the Minister of State has not accepted them. The amendment I propose would require the Minister to intervene. It is not an enabling provision, as it states " . . . the Minister shall, in the event that the total national requirement is not met . . . " We can engage in semantics on the subject of local authorities being able to say that individual families are transient and not therefore their responsibility. Another local authority can say the same about that individual family. It is important there is no argument in this matter and that there is provision for all recognised needs.

If there are new mechanisms to measure need in the future, the Minister should have a duty to ensure the total national need is met. This is nothing to do with subsidiarity but with ensuring there is a national plan and that everybody is catered for. That is the responsibility of the Minister and not of each local authority. This is an important amendment which requires the Minister to examine the total provision and to intervene where it is deficient. It goes much further than the current provisions of section 18. I ask him to reflect again on this.

I support Deputy Howlin's amendment. It is very important and is a corollary of my amendment No. 31. There is a national dimension to the traveller settler programme and it is unreasonable to allow all the responsibility to settle on the most willing local authorities. That is inevitable unless the Minister steps in to make sure every local authority meets its responsibilities. There is no incentive for local authorities to fulfil their part of the programme if the Minister has no role. This is a national problem and the Minister is the only person who has a national co-ordinating function. Otherwise, we will end up with some local authorities fulfilling the programme and others doing nothing.

The Bill is focused on local authorities and places special duties on them, laying down clearly that they must have regard to the needs identified in the assessment when preparing their programmes. It is fine to talk about the national aspect but this must be implemented at local level through various housing authorities. I see no point in Deputy Howlin's proposal because it seeks to move this into a national responsibility, while the responsibility rests at local level through this legislation. Local authorities have a clear duty to make provision for the needs identified by the assessment.

It is quite likely that the following situation may develop if there is no national co-ordinator. If County Cork meets all its responsibilities in its own and the Minister's opinion, but Kerry provides none, and all the travellers in Kerry move to Cork, do they then become Cork's responsibility? That is the main flaw in this Bill.

That is the flaw with the current situation.

I accept that, but this is an opportunity to rectify that.

There has not been action across the board from each local authority. This Bill requires every local authority to introduce a five year accommodation programme within the same specified period. In the event that the reserved function is not exercised, the executive function brings the plan forward and the Department is notified. I do not understand the difficulties Deputies have. If one county fails to adopt a programme——

Within the five years?

——then the manager adopts the programme. After the timespans have expired there should be an accommodation programme for travellers in every local authority. That is a national plan which will have to be funded and implemented at local level.

What happens if, once the requirements of the accommodation programme are fully implemented and the accommodation needs are met, a neighbouring county's travellers come to the county which has successfully implemented its plan? That is what local authorities are asking.

I am sure Deputy Hayes is aware, given the large traveller population in Dublin, there is movement of travellers into certain areas. It would be unrealistic to expect that movement would continue from one area to another. It has caused some difficulty, particularly for those authorities which took action and sought accommodation for their traveller population. Once they achieved that, they found that new traveller families had come to their area. This situation will continue, as anyone with knowledge of the traveller community knows, though the level of activity cannot be forecast. A substantial number of Irish traveller families in England come here to stay and there is movement of people from one county to the next. That is one of the issues we are trying to provide for. By doing nothing large numbers will be left at the side of the road with no facilities.

The Minister is arguing our case. Those who acted in good faith to identify local needs were seen as providing a magnet for travellers from outside their own counties for the facilities being provided. The whole thrust of the argument has been that we need a national strategy with everyone working in tandem. As soon as we have this, the Minister of State decides it is a local problem and national co-ordination is not required.

I meant locally. The Deputy is misquoting me.

Let me finish without interruption. The Minister of State will have an opportunity to reply. He has a responsibility to ensure all the component counties carry their weight. He expects everyone to go forward idyllically at the same rate and that all schemes will be implemented within five years. We would have a lovely world if that were the case. The Minister of State knows that some will set their faces against this strategy and will use every device they can to drag their feet. While some will make provision within the second, third or fourth years, others will not and there will be displacement of people. He must take a proactive overview of the matter and ensure that everyone reacts positively to the legislation. On two occasions I proposed placing responsibility on the Minister's shoulders. In relation to ensuring that funding is available, the Minister of State said that was a matter for the local authorities. He is saying it is a matter for the local authorities and that he trusts them to do what is required. Some local authorities will accept their responsibilities, as they always have, but others will defy this legislation to the best of their ability. The Minister of State must be proactive in ensuring that does not happen. He has argued very well for the acceptance of this amendment.

I do not think I have. It would be naive of the Deputy to imagine that the provision of adequate accommodation for all the travelling families in the country can be imposed by central Government without causing much aggravation.

Is that not what this Bill is all about?

The Bill seeks to work, through consultation at local level, to make new provisions to achieve that.

The Minister of State should not try to con people.

The programme must be implemented at local level. The Deputy has sought to give the Minister a role which would be contrary to my thinking. The principle of subsidiarity is the best approach.

This sounds like the principle of Pontius Pilate.

The proposals in this Bill were not conjured up by me. They are the result of much work by a task force appointed by the previous Government.

I brought the heads of the Billto Government.

Yes, and I do not see why we should differ on this. I have taken the same approach as the previous Government. We are seeking to maintain a cross party approach to this question. I am satisfied the provisions of the Bill ensure a maximum level of consultation, the involvement of local councillors and the implementation of the plans at local level. That is preferable to giving the Minister an overriding role. That would be detrimental to what we are seeking to achieve and I do not see the need for the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 18, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 19.

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 14, subsection (2), between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following:

"(a) the exercise of his or her functions under section 18(2),".

This amendment will strengthen section 19 which gives power to local authorities. It expressly spells out the fall-back powers of the Minister.

The terms of reference of the National Traveller Accommodation Consultative Committee, as set out in section 19(2)(b), already provide that the committee may advise the Minister on general matters concerning the preparation, adequacy, implementation and co-ordination of traveller accommodation programmes. This could include the adequacy of adopted programmes generally compared to the needs identified, which is what I presume is intended by the reference to the exercise of functions under section 18(2). I see no need for the proposed amendment.

The amendment gives the committee the right to advise the Minister that it is necessary for him or her to intervene. The Minister of State is saying the committee can do that anyway. The specific inclusion of the power to advise the Minister in this regard would show that these committees have power.

That is what is provided for and what they are already doing. I have taken their advice on a number of matters already.

Very well, I will not argue with that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 19 agreed to.
SECTION 20.

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 13a, 14 and 15 are related and may be discussed together.

Amendment No. 13a not moved.

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 15, subsection (5), line 12, after "time" to insert "for stated reasons".

This amendment will require the Minister to specify the reason for removing a member. I am confident the Minister of State will have no difficulty accepting this amendment since the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment accepted a similar amendment to the Industrial Development (Enterprise Ireland) Bill last week.

Subsection (5) already sets out the circumstances under which a member may be removed from office. The member must have become incapable through ill-health of effectively participating in the work of the National Consultative Committee, have committed stated misbehaviour or such removal must appear to the Minister to be necessary or desirable for the effective performance by the National Consultative Committee of its functions.

Removal may be only on one of those three grounds. There is already a requirement to state greater details of one of those grounds. The proposed amendment would be more appropriate to a provision which was open-ended and did not give an indication of the grounds for a removal. I assume that was the case in the amendment referred to by Deputy Howlin which was accepted by my colleague, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. Accordingly, I do not propose to accept the amendment.

This is a very innocuous amendment and I do not propose to become agitated about it. The Minister of State has obviously decided to accept no amendment unless there is a good reason for it. If someone is being removed from office, there is no reason the Minister should not be obliged to state the reason.

Amendment No. 15 would ensure the person removed would be replaced by a person from the same category. I assume the Minister has no difficulty with this amendment.

I agree with the intention behind the amendment but it is desired to retain some flexibility as to how such appointments are made. In most cases I would expect the person appointed in these circumstances would be selected on the same basis as the person who gave rise to the vacancy. Such a procedure may take up to two or three months depending on the organisation and timing of a request to make nominations. In some cases it may be more appropriate to select a person on some other basis, particularly where the term of office of the committee is about to expire. Having said that, I do not hold strong views about whether the proposals in the amendment would actually be accepted into the Bill. This arose in relation to another Bill, the Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1997, where it was agreed that a temporary appointment should be made because it takes some time to fill such vacancies. However, An Bord Pleanála performs a statutory role.

The National Consultative Committee could not be analogous to the judicial role of the members of An Bord Pleanála.

No. It is not in the same category. I have given the arguments against accepting the amendment but, on balance, I am in favour of it so I will accept it.

Chairman

Is the amendment being withdrawn?

Will the Minister acceptthat amendment which inserts "for stated reasons"?

No. It is not necessary. I do not know why the Deputy has this desire to write in all these specifics when we already have stated them.

I will not question the Minister further.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 15, subsection (7), line 24, after "person" to insert "nominated in the same manner as the member whose death, resignation or removal occasioned the casual vacancy".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 15, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following subsection:

"(9) The National Consultative Committee shall make an annual report to the Minister who shall cause the report to be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas.".

Clearly, there is no provision at present for an annual report of the national committee and this amendment simply inserts a legal requirement for one.

I agree with the intent behind the Deputy's amendment but I am advised that his wording is not in keeping with best drafting practice. I will table a similar amendment on Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 20, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 21.

Chairman

Amendment No. 16a is in the name of Deputy Hayes. Amendment No. 16b is related. Therefore, amendments Nos. 16a and 16b may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 16a:

In page 15, subsection (1), line 39, after "travellers" to insert "and any matter referred to by the housing authority".

I have been instructed to move these amendments so that they can be submitted on Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 16b:

In page 16, subsection (3), between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:

"(d) advise on matters which relate to increasing understanding and mutual respect between the settled and Traveller communities.".

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 16, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following subsection:

"(6) The proceedings of a local consultative committee shall not be invalidated by any vacancies among the membership.".

I am advised that this is a legal, tidying up amendment. The national committee is allowed to operate despite the vacancies under section 19(6) but there is no corresponding provision for local committees. I am advised that this is legally required.

I accept that.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 21, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 22.

Chairman

Amendment No. 17a is in the name of Deputy Hayes. Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 are related. Therefore, amendments Nos. 17a, 18 and 19 may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 17a:

In page 16, subsection (1), after line 42, to insert the following:

"(e) representatives of local communities and residents' organisations,".

Deputy Hayes is anxious that the Minister would consider this provision and I agree with him. Given what the Minister said earlier, that he is anxious to involve local communities and consult residents, etc., I think he would be receptive to it. If we are setting up a local consultative committee, at least one of the groups to be consulted should be the local community and the local residents' organisations. They are not among those listed in the membership of the consultative committee.

Amendment No. 18 simply puts into effect a request I made on Second Stage in relation to the membership of the local consultative committees. Under the Bill the membership would be one-quarter travellers or traveller representatives and I seek to increase that to one-third. I do not know whether the Minister has had a chance to reflect on the points made by me and others on Second Stage, but this amendment gives a better representative balance on the local consultative committees. The list of participants in the local consultative committees are laid down but the representatives of local travellers and traveller bodies should form one-third of the overall number.

Amendment No. 19 preserves the oft spoken intention of the Minister this afternoon to strengthen the role of local authority members, that the "making of an appointment under the section would be a reserved function" and not available to the manager. I feel confident about that amendment.

On the question of the representation of local committees and residents' organisations, when I saw these amendments in the Seanad and here I had difficulty trying to establish how one would achieve the kind of representation which was being sought by some members. An accommodation programme is being drawn up and a local consultative committee is being appointed for a whole county. If one takes a large county, there seems to be an implication that local residents' organisations in the area where it is proposed to locate a hard stand or facility for travellers should have representation on these committees. In other words, that they should have an opportunity to provide an input through the consultative process which is being established under the Act. How would one select somebody who would represent that area if those proposed were not from that area? I had the difficulty as to how we would go about determining in legislation how the appointment would be made.

The only thing that might work is that where the local authority members were entitled to representation - not more than 50 per cent - they might appoint local community representatives instead of taking all the places themselves. This has been the practice with existing traveller committees and some of the statutory bodies to which local authority members appoint people. The local authority members are not obliged to appoint members of the council in all cases. They have a right to appoint a number of persons and they can appoint persons who are not elected members of the council. An amendment might be tabled which would give representation and the local councillors would make the selection. The argument is that in many cases the people are also councillors in their constituencies.

On the question of one-quarter or one-third, a number of interests must be represented. There must be adequate representation for the official side on these committees. Otherwise, much of their work will be affected if the advisers are not present to keep them up to speed with what exactly can be proposed, the technical aspects of sites and proposed buildings, the options available and the departmental guideline requirements. It is a local authority committee so there should be strong representation of local authority members. If the representation of travellers were increased to one third, there might be difficulty in filling those places in some counties. I do not know whether that would be a problem - I suppose there would not be much we could do about it if some places were not taken up.

If one wants to increase the representation to one third and also include residents' organisations and local community representatives, either the committee will have to be greatly enlarged or the traveller representatives might feel intimidated by the number of non travellers on the consultative committee, which might make them reluctant to participate. I have an open mind on these matters. I heard what the Deputy had to say. Unfortunately, I did not hear all that was said in the Dáil. I was hoping to hear various points of view here. I am open to looking at this very seriously for Report Stage, which should be next week. I have not heard Deputy Hayes, but I know the views of the Members who spoke in the House. Many Members have approached me in regard to this. If residents are to be on this committee I will have to think about increasing the traveller representation to balance it - I do not want travellers to be outnumbered to the extent that they would feel intimidated. I will look at it for Report Stage.

And the reserve function.

In discussions with my officials in preparing this Bill I had accepted that locally elected councillors were the best people to represent the local point of view. It could be difficult to find ways in which local communities and residents' organisations could be represented on these committees. I do not know the view here on that as I have not had a response yet.

The 50 per cent representation of councillors could be shared with residents' organisations, as has been done in other committees operated by councils but which include outside interests, such as the national monuments committee, the former travellers committee and the vocational education committees. Non council members were often appointed to harbour boards in the past. Would that course of action meet the needs of those who are advocating this?

The sole objective of amendment No. 17a is a fundamental one. We do not believe it is good practice in law or any forum to create a new form of apartheid by excluding people from this process. I have no doubt that many residents’ groups will oppose the drive towards resolving the accommodation problem for travellers. However, by specifically excluding them from the legislation in section 22, we are giving them an opportunity to opt out.

A number of councils throughout the country have put together consultative committees comprising representatives of the local community, councillors and traveller bodies. They have contributed to breaking down the prejudice of the settled community towards the traveller community and vice versa. We should not enshrine in law a position whereby any group within the community is specifically excluded, even though the issues will be difficult for the people they represent. That would not be in the interests of the new drive in local government to involvepeople.

This is just a consultative committee; the statutory functions rest ultimately with the members and the manager. However, by specifically excluding representatives of the local community from this consultative committee, we will give them an opportunity to say a new type of division has been created when the legislation is implemented.

One of my difficulties when considering this was how representatives of local communities or residents would be selected.

How is a traveller body selected?

Travellers are a specific identifiable group of people within the local authority area. Their numbers and names are known. The Deputy is speaking about giving representation to someone who would represent the whole population of the local authority area, which could run to 100,000 people. How would one select such a person?

Could I make a point which might help speed the debate?

I suggested that councillors could select two non elected members of the committee.

The issue of community representation is already being looked at by local authorities throughout the country because of the changes which are now taking place in SPCs.

That is another argument against what the Deputy is proposing - these matters can be discussed as SPC meetings.

I have no doubt they can. That is not the point. The Minister's argument is how one is to distinguish these community and representative groups. That can be done. In our council area we already have a consultation committee which has helped to break down some of the prejudice which exists. However, specifically excluding them in the legislation is the wrong route to take. The principle is wrong. We also have examples of traveller bodies refusing to work with residents. We must ensure there is a balance in the legislation. My point is that section 22, as it is currently constituted, does not strike that balance.

I can see the difficulties faced by the Minister. Deputy Hayes probably has an urban focus. However, in my county, for example, there are four towns - Gorey, Enniscorthy, New Ross and Wexford - and scores of sizeable villages. There are umpteen housing estates in the towns, many of which have residents' associations whose function and focus is extremely local. The only possible solution would be to have an umbrella group represented on the committee. I have great fears about some of these umbrella groups representing anyone as I do not think they are very comprehensive in their membership.

I am very supportive of this as I put a huge effort into devising strategies to bring together the elected representative sector and the community development sector, or the voluntary sector as it is sometimes referred to. I do not want to downplay the importance of the elected representatives who put their heads above the parapet and stand for election. They represent the community and residents' associations in a very real and vibrant way. I am in sympathy with some of Deputy Hayes's remarks but we could undermine elected people by saying the only ones who represent communities are residents' associations.

That is not my intention. The council will represent the travellers as well, one hopes.

I hope so too. I took issue with the Minister about the one third or one quarter level of representation and I am heartened by his positive response. If we were dealing with a committee on a women's rights issue we would not suggest that only one third or one quarter of its members should be women. The same is true for any disadvantaged group - we would probably provide that it had majority representation on such a committee. I accept that, as the Minister says, other interests need to be represented and we do not want an unwieldy committee. I would argue that one third is a reasonable minimum.

I will look at the matter between now and Report Stage, bearing in mind what was said here and other discussions I have had with Members of both Houses.

I accept what the Minister said about the difficulty of finding residents who are truly representative of the entire local authority area rather than one specific place -my local authority has run into this problem - but it is not beyond our capabilities to find someone to represent the public on this committee and it is something the public feel strongly about. We spoke earlier about the difficulty of finding out who these traveller bodies represent and whether they reflect the views of travellers, but again it is not beyond us to have both sections of the community represented. I strongly believe that councillors as elected representatives are supposed to represent the views of all sections of the community.

I will withdraw my amendment to allow it be reintroduced on Report Stage.

I will also withdraw my amendment No. 18 on the basis of the Minister's commitment to consider it before Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 18 not moved.

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 17, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following subsection:

"(3) The making of an appointment under this section shall be a reserved function.".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 22, as amended, agreed to.

Chairman

As it almost 5 p.m. we must conclude consideration of this Bill for the present. We are meeting again at 7 p.m. and at that stage we can consider when to resume on this Bill.

The Select Committee adjourned at 4.55 p.m.
Top
Share