I welcome the Minister to the Committee and resume consideration of the Housing (Traveller Accommodation) Bill, 1998.
Housing (Traveller Accommodation) Bill, 1998: Committee Stage (Resumed)
Sections 23 and 24 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 17, before section 25, to insert the following new section:
"25.-(1) Subject to subsection (2), a housing authority may make a loan for the-
(a) acquisition or repair of a caravan within the meaning of section 13 of the the Act of 1988 (as amended by section 29), or
(b) acquisition of land for the purpose of providing a site and any construction works required for such purpose.
(2) The Minister shall, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, specify terms and conditions for loans made under subsection (1).
(3) Subsections (2) to (14) of section 11 of the Act of 1992 shall apply, to such extent as may be appropriate and with any necessary modifications, to a loan made under this section.".
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that local authorities have adequate powers to give loans for the provision of private, traveller specific accommodation, that is, caravans or sites for caravans. Section 11 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1992, applied only to houses or sites for houses. The new subsection (1) would cover the acquisition of land and the construction of serviced units and hard stands associated with sites for caravans. Statutory backing is also being given for the making of loans for caravan replacement or repair.
There is an ad hoc grants scheme operated by housing authorities at present. This scheme is based on the direct provision or replacement by authorities of a caravan or the giving of a grant to a traveller towards the cost of such replacement in emergencies. The Department recoups 50 per cent of the housing authorities’ costs. The operation of the scheme has been reviewed by a number of the Dublin authorities who have introduced a loan scheme in lieu of grants for the replacement of caravans. The scheme as it applies nationally is also being reviewed by the Department in consultation with the national traveller accommodation consultative group and one of the issues being examined is the extension of the loan scheme to other local authority areas. The statutory backing is sought, should any new scheme emerge from this review.
Relevant provisions of subsections (2) to (14) of section 11 of the 1992 Act are being applied to traveller accommodation loans in the same way as they apply to housing loans. These subsections in general provide the terms and conditions of loan schemes, that is, amounts to be repaid, interest rates, power of authority to enter into agreements, recovery of possession of the property in the event of default, vesting of such property in the authority, disposal or retention of the property, subsequent arrangements and the recovery of sums owing to the authority.
It would be the intention that if a loan scheme was introduced it would be subject to strict criteria and conditions to be specified by the Minister with the consent of the Minister for Finance. This would include provision for the scrappage of old caravans which are unfit for human habitation. An incidental but important consideration attaching to a loan scheme is the provision of access by travellers to more stable sources of credit with normal interest rates and a structured repayment system. The amendments are complemented by the existing provisions of section 29 of the Bill which extends the matters in respect of which the Minister may give grants or subsidies to include caravans as well as sites for caravans.
The original section 25 relates specifically to travellers. I see no direct reference to travellers in the alternative section 25 now proposed by the Minister. I support what the Minister is doing but is it intended that provisions in relation to land acquisition and loans will apply more broadly than to the traveller community?
Does this section deal with the provision of sites as well as caravans in emergencies? Does it only apply to the provision of sites where a local authority has failed in its obligation to provide sites? Can the Minister clarify the duties of local authorities in this regard?
This is an enabling amendment. It gives the power to local authorities to give loans for the acquisition of caravans or sites. Whether that power is used is a matter for each local authority.
Will the authority be given to the executive of a local authority or to the elected members? Such authority exists at present. How is this an addition to that?
The purpose is to enable the local authorities to give loans for the acquisition of a caravan or——
To whom?
To travellers if they wish to purchase a caravan or a site or to voluntary organisations providing housing for a traveller organisation.
Will the loans be secured?
It will be structured in the same way as loans for houses. The section enables the Minister to lay down the specific terms and conditions under which loans will be given.
Will it be a general or a specific allocation to travellers?
It will be specific to travellers.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 25 agreed to.
Sections 26 and 27 agreed to.
SECTION 28.
Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 are related to amendment No. 21, amendment No. 23a is an alternative to amendment No. 21, amendment No. 23b is an alternative to amendment No. 22 and all may be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 18, lines 35 and 36, after "persons"to insert "for any period not exceeding 2 years".
This amendment is a response to representations from the Irish Traveller Movement. Its purpose is to ensure that people will not be on sites with limited facilities for long periods. It has been indicated to me that such temporary facilities have been endured by travelling families for up to 18 years in one instance. There should be a time limit. It is acknowledged that the sites are not intended to be permanent and that they are far from adequate. We had a discussion on the definition. A period of two years is reasonable to expect people to endure such limited facilities. However, an open-ended arrangement is not in the spirit of the Bill or the analyses which gave rise to it.
Amendment No. 22 reads:
In page 19, line 20, after "sites" where it secondly occurs, to insert "accommodating not more than 20 families".
This amendment is in response to a request from the Irish Traveller Movement which argues for an upper limit on the number of families accommodated on any single site, particularly one with limited facilities. It has suggested a limit of 20 families, although I think that is a large number. However, there should not be influxes of families for certain occasions which swamp an area and put great pressure on the families already on sites. As it has been proposed by the Irish Traveller Movement the Minister of State should accept it.
Amendment No. 23 reads:
In page 19, line 25, after "caravans" to insert "and such other facilities as are reasonably required".
The Irish Traveller Movement has indicated that the facilities provided for in the definition clause are too basic and that other facilities should be provided. There is a paucity of facilities specified in the section and, without seeking to be exhaustive, it would be useful to be able to specify other reasonable facilities.
I share Deputy Howlin's sentiments with regard to the upper limit on the number of families that could be on a site but how exactly does one define a family in this context? One family may have five or six trailers while another may have only one.
The provision of sites with limited facilities under the Bill is linked to the provision of permanent accommodation in the implementation of the five year accommodation programme and also allows for the provision of transient sites. As accommodation programmes are implemented it will be expected that families will transfer from temporary sites with limited facilities to their permanent accommodation. If all demands for permanent accommodation are to be met over the five year period of an accommodation programme, this inevitably means that some families could be on such sites for up to five years. It would be expected that his would be a maximum period but it would not be feasible to legislate for this. There may be circumstances beyond the control of the local authority which could delay the provision of permanent accommodation.
At present guidelines on certain sites with limited facilities and services are being prepared in consultation with the national traveller accommodation consultative group. It is proposed that these guidelines will contain a range of matters of detail not appropriate for inclusion in primary legislation, including appropriate reference to the need to avoid stays by individual families for any period longer than four to five years. A reference to a shorter period would be inconsistent with the concept of five year programmes. Therefore, I cannot accept amendments Nos. 21 or 23a.
The proposed guidelines will also provide for the number of units to be provided. Therefore, amendments Nos. 22 and 23b are not necessary.
Will that be legally binding?
The local authorities are obliged to have regard to the guidelines. The Department will sanction expenditure in these cases and it will have laid down the guidelines.
With regard to amendment No. 23 it is considered necessary to clarify the powers of housing authorities to provide sites with limited facilities as the result of a number of recent judgments in the courts. It should be noted that these are minimum requirements and are an advancement and improvement on the existing position as there are no requirements with regard to services or facilities for such sites at present. The inclusion of the definition of "sites with limited facilities" is an enabling provision to allow the Minister to issue guidelines on the level of services and facilities to be provided.
The proposed guidelines will detail a range of services appropriate to different situations, ranging from basic services at roadside encampments to services where families have to move to a temporary site where the existing accommodation is being redeveloped and services at sites where longer stays pending the provision of permanent accommodation are envisaged. Guidelines with regard to transient halting sites which come within the definition of "sites with limited facilities" will also be prepared in consultation with the national traveller accommodation group. The adoption of amendment No. 23 would render the definition meaningless as, in effect, there would be no difference between sites with permanent accommodation and sites with limited facilities. I do not propose to accept amendment No. 23.
I am disappointed at the Minister's attitude. He adopted a more positive approach to the debate on the last occasion; perhaps it would have been wiser to keep going when he accepted amendment No. 19 to the effect that site selection would be a reserved function. He started today by revisiting the departmental and civil servant line. He is minimalistic in what he is putting into primary statute and gives carte blanche to deal with matters by either regulations or guidelines. This approach is simply not good enough on fundamental matters.
I have no argument with the Minister when he speaks about a five year plan if he is serious about ensuring that families do not have to reside on these sites with limited facilities. The definition in section 29 reads:
'sites with limited facilities' means sites which, having regard to the temporary nature of such sites or the short duration of periods of use, have sufficient water, facilities for solid and liquid waste disposal and hard surface parking area for caravans.".
If we include in the statute a definition that these are sites having regard to the fact that they are of short duration usage, then we must specify what we mean by "short duration". I would think two years is well within the bounds of short duration - in fact, it is stretching the bounds, but if the Minister says that five years is an acceptable period, let us at least define that as the upper limit. It should not be open ended. I do not believe that specifying guidelines gives any guarantee that people will not endure these sites for up to 18 years as has been the case in the past.
I ask the Minister to reflect again on my amendment and if he comes back on Report Stage with a period of five years, which I think is an extraordinarily long period to be encompassed in the section, I will not press my amendment. However, I believe it would be fundamentally against the spirit of the Bill and the task force that inspired the Bill if we were silent on this matter and left it to these guidelines to which local authorities should have regard - whatever that means. As an experienced politician, the Minister knows this can mean whatever the local authority wants it to mean in any given circumstance. There must be a clear signal from the Oireachtas in relation to this matter and I ask the Minister to reflect on that.
In relation to the limit on the number of families staying in a particular site being be a matter for the guidelines, that again is unacceptable. We should be specific I believe that, if the Minister were on this side of the House, he would not be content to allow these fundamental issues to be left to the discretion of guidelines which are not mandatory and do not have the force of law. In relation to basic and extensive requirements specified in the definition clause, that is, sufficient water, facilities for solid and liquid waste disposal and hard surface area, these are about as basic as one can get. If we were specifying definitions for the welfare of animals these would be at least the minimum requirements.
Is there any definition in the Bill as to what constitutes "a family"? When discussing this legislation it is important to know how "a family" is defined in view of the fact that we are talking about sites for families. I fear that if we do not have clarification on this issue it could create big problems in the future for local authorities when trying to find accommodation for the traveller community.
We cannot avoid our responsibilities. I am entirely against the principle of having too many ministerial regulations. If we do not define the rules laid down in this legislation I believe we are avoiding our responsibility. We must deal with the practicality of the duration of temporary sites. Where a local authority has a temporary site, by the time the duration of the temporary site runs out, families could have subdivided and instead of the original 15 families there might be 25 families on the temporary site. These 25 families cannot be accommodated in another site because this would not be in line with the regulations. I realise we cannot legislate for every eventuality on temporary sites but we must strive to include as much as possible in the legislation and have as few ministerial regulation included the legislation.
The provision regarding the definition of sites with limited facilities is merely setting out the basic requirements in order to have a statutory basis for what the guidelines will provide. The guidelines will lay out in greater detail what constitutes the limited facilities that will be required.
That could be the full extent of it under the law.
Under the Act they will be required to have the facilities to which the Deputy referred. It is shame on all of us that families were left on sites for up to 18 years. This is still happening and many of these sites do not have these basic facilities. By including this in the Bill we are ensuring that sites other than permanent halting sites will have, by reason of legislative requirement, the basic services listed, that is, sufficient water, facilities for solid and liquid waste disposal and hard surface parking areas. This is the minimum required. The guidelines regarding what should be on a limited facility site as distinct from a permanent site would be best worked out in a consultative committee where the travellers are represented. The guidelines issued by me suggest ten as the maximum figure for the number of caravans in a halting site.
Regarding the question of "a family", a family can be an extended family or a family. Given the knowledge they have of the families the local authorities must interpret what does or does not constitute a unit. There may be married couples living with parents and that might be considered by the local authority to be two families. We cannot enshrine in legislation how local authorities will define "a family". It is more a question of what constitutes a household and local authority officials will bear in mind what they consider to be the housing needs of each unit. Where there is one family there may be a need for two or more facilities. This is a big advance on the intolerable situation up to now.
I do not want to put statutory limits on what can be provided because that puts a straitjacket on the local authorities. I would prefer this legislation to be left as it is and if, in the future, it was deemed appropriate to put a limit in, so be it. I think these new guidelines will work, though it largely depends on their application at local authority level. I do not believe that writing a figure into legislation will make this happen. I consider the figure 20 too large.
I will accept a smaller one.
I recommend no more than ten in the guidelines.
That is meaningless in legalterms.
I know it is not binding but I am reluctant to put a statutory figure into legislation. I am rejecting the amendment but I will keep a careful eye on this matter. It may be that 20 would be acceptable, but I do not believe there would be many such cases. I am aware of proposals from certain local authorities for a greater number than that for permanent halting sites, and I am not enamoured of those proposals. However, they are emanating from elected members and it would be wrong to put a limited figure in legislation. I believe we will succeed in reducing the numbers in these sites.
I am disappointed but there is no point battling when the Minister of State has made up his mind. However, on the first issue, which is the most important, families should not be sentenced, in some cases, to sites with limited facilities. There should be a statutory upper limit. Will the Minister of State consider accepting a five year upper limit, if two years are too short, on Report Stage?
I am reluctant to write statutory limits into legislation because that would put a straitjacket on local authorities.
Will the Minister of State consider it?
No. I have thought a lot about this. Deputy Howlin is suggesting an ideal, but I cannot put into legislation a provision which would put a straitjacket on local authorities.
If we do not say it, it will not happen. There is no point being defeatist from the beginning, even if we do not put even the most basic statutory responsibility in place. Under the definitions, sites are of a "short duration" and of "a temporary nature", and five years is reasonable as an upper limit under those terms. Perhaps there is a case to be made for those living on sites for longer periods. If we do not tell local authorities that five years is as long as people should be on these sites that is defeatist. That gives the wrong impression to local authorities about our intentions to address in legislation the issue of traveller accommodation once and for all.
The point is that we are saying five years in the guidelines.
This is meaningless if the Minister of State has agreed.
I have not agreed.
Under statutory terms——
We have not seen them in operation yet, and this is the right way to proceed. I am not going to change from that. The same objective can be achieved as I have suggested by giving the local authorities the guidelines which will be drawn up by the consultative committee, which will include travellers. The period will be from four to five years on limited sites, and no longer. I see the Deputy's point in arguing for this to be put into statute but I cannot accept it. If our roles were reversed, Deputy Howlin might have the same attitude. I cannot accept the amendment, but I am not saying I do not accept the principle. I accept the principle, but I believe we will achieve our objective through the successful operation of the guidelines.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 22, 23 and 23a not moved.
Section 28 agreed to.
SECTION 29.
Amendment No. 23b not moved.
Section 29 agreed to.
Section 30 agreed to.
SECTION 31.
Amendments Nos. 24 and 27 are cognate, and amendments Nos. 25 and 28 are alternatives. Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 are related. These amendments may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 20, line 1, to delete "distance of five miles from" and substitute "five mile radius of".
I have no objection to the amendments proposed by Deputy Olivia Mitchell but I am advised that the wording of amendments Nos. 24 and 27 is more appropriate. Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 are similar and I have no objection to their intent, but I am advised that drafting of appropriate amendments would be more complex than what is proposed and that redrafting is not necessary because of amendments Nos. 24 and 27 to the main provisions of the Bill. Therefore the objective of the amendments has been achieved.
I am pleased the Minister of State has accepted the intention of my amendments, otherwise he would have ended up in the courts on many occasions.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 25 not moved.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 20, line 1, to delete lines 16 to 41 and substitute the following:
"(b) is, in the opinion of the housing authority concerned-
(i) unfit for human habitation due to lack or inadequacy of water supply, sanitation or other essential services, or
(ii) likely to obstruct or interfere with the use of public or private amenities or facilities, or the maintenance of such amenities or facilities, or
(iii) or likely to constitute or constitutes a significant risk to personal health, public health or safety,
and such temporary duelling could, in the opinion of the housing authority within whose functional area such temporary dwelling has been erected, placed, occupied or otherwise retained, appropriately be accommodated on any site provided, managed, or controlled under section 13 of the Act of 1988 (as amended by the Housing (Traveller Accommodation) Act, 1998), or any site provided or managed under section 6, the housing authority may serve a notice on that person requiring that person, within a specified period, to remove such temporary dwelling to the said site,”.
This amendment is necessary to preserve the intention and meaning of the subsection. I originally published in the Bill the provisions regarding action the housing authority may take, which related only to paragraph (iii). The revised text makes it clear that this provision covers each situation described in subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii).
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 20, line 42, to delete "distance of one mile from" and substitute "one mile radius of".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 28 not moved.
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 20, line 49, to delete "site" and substitute "traveller housing accommodation".
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the protection afforded by the one mile provision under subsection (1)(c) of the revised section 10 of the 1992 Act applies to the full range of traveller accommodation which may be provided by approved voluntary housing bodies and not just "sites" as drafted.
Section 6 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1992, provides for the giving of assistance to approved voluntary housing bodies for housing accommodation. A site for caravans within the meaning of section 13 of the Housing Act, 1988, is included in the definition of "housing accommodation" as used in section 6 of the 1992 Act. The more appropriate and inclusive term which should have been used in the proposed amendment to section 10 is, therefore, "traveller housing accommodation" in line with other such references in paragraph (c).
What exactly does the amendment seek to do? What is debarred from the one mile radius in relation to establishment of an existing site?
The amendment is inserted to deal with illegal parking on established sites and any accommodation provided.
Even a local authority house? Does the amendment provide that a caravan belonging to a traveller could not parked within a one mile radius of a local authority house occupied by travellers?
Within a distance of one mile from any site provided, managed or controlled by a housing authority under section 13 or any other traveller accommodation provided, managed or controlled by a housing authority under the Housing Acts, 1966 to 1998, or any site provided or managed under section 6.
If a traveller family is housed by a local authority, it would not be possible for another traveller to park a van or caravan within a one mile radius of that house? Is that what the Minister of State is saying?
Does this apply to conventional housing as well as traveller group housing?
Yes. The section as drafted covers all forms of housing accommodation provided by a local authority. This amendment relates to accommodation provided by a voluntary body.
Does paragraph (c), as drafted, mean that a traveller cannot park a caravan within a mile of a local authority or voluntary house provided for travellers?
It is up to the local authority to use their judgment in each case. The amendment applies to the erection of temporary dwellings in a public place and gives the local authorities powers to move against people who do so.
It seems draconian. In my home town, a mile radius of a local authority house would encompass most of the town.
It may in some cases; this point was raised with the task force.
I am aware of that. I read this earlier and I was unaware that that import could be put on it. We can only assume that common sense will prevail in its application.
Yes.
We do not want them to take legal action unless there is a particular difficulty.
One of the big objections to parking sites——
I understand the reasoning.
——is that people park illegally outside the new facility. The intention to limit the number of people on each site is then side stepped. This amendment gives the local authorities legal provision to move against such people. It does not mean they have to move against them in every case. The local authorities will exercise their judgment in each case.
It was perfectly logical in relation to halting sites because once one was provided extensions of it formed outside. Extending this provision to voluntary housing and regular local authority housing has implications I had not thought out. If the Minister of State is content with these provisions I will not object but they are fairly broad in their implications.
This amendment deals with voluntary housing but unfortunately there is not much activity by that sector in providing such accommodation.
Hopefully there will be more soon.
I will be encouraging it as another option.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 are related and may be taken together by agreement. Agreed.
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 21, line 11, before "the" to insert "where the person has a permanent site or other approved accommodation in the functional area of another housing authority and the housing authority concerned has no vacancies on any of its halting sites,".
This amendment seeks to attach some order to each situation while the programme is being put in place. There will obviously be a transition period while local authorities introduce their programmes. If the purpose of the Bill is to take travellers off the roadside, then this provision is necessary. If we are putting an obligation on local authorities to provide halting sites then the obvious corollary of that is that there be an obligation on the travellers to use them. Once we have actually provided a halting site and the traveller family in question has accepted it, then it is reasonable to expect them not to vacate the site unless they have first ensured that a site is available at their destination. Such a provision is lacking in many aspects of the Bill.
There is a need for a central co-ordinating body, be it a national body who can in some way facilitate the movement of travellers once sites have been provided or done inter-local authority, I do not mind. I think it needs to be looked at, perhaps as part of the guidelines. Unless the Minister inserts such a provision in the Bill we will continue to see travellers by the roadside, children being uprooted from schools and confrontation between the settled and travelling communities and the Bill will have failed.
The Bill also seeks to overcome the disastrous implications of requiring local authorities to take the annual travel passion of travellers into account. That it is disastrous because it is unrealistic. I speak as a member of a local authority which is the smallest in the country and is the most densely populated. We are legislating for the country as a whole. Even the busy urban and densely populated counties have to be considered. Some members of the public are only beginning to take on board an acceptance that we have to provide halting sites for travellers but when they hear they must allow for holiday accommodation also they are gobsmacked. One can understand why they do not accept this, particularly when we are at a stage of providing permanent halting sites.
The Minister of State - and I agree -said that permanent accommodation is a priority. Even if it were reasonable, this suggestion is unrealistic and impractical. My local authority does not have the land to provide sites for unannounced travellers arriving in large numbers. It is unrealistic and impractical. The local authority of which I am a member does not have the land to provide for unannounced travellers arriving in large numbers. We regularly see that happening but, unfortunately, not to any particular pattern. Last year I recall that 300 travellers turned up. No local authority could be prepared for that. It particularly incenses the local community when people realise that many of the travellers have already been accommodated elsewhere. We need to remove this aspect from the Bill - or, at least, regulate the movement of travellers - while we are putting the programme in place.
I can see there is a need for transient sites when the permanent accommodation is in place. Small transient sites for visiting families would be reasonable in the longterm. If, however, we do not insert this provision we will continue to have illegal encampments even though those travellers have already been accommodated in some other local authority area.
This matter was touched on the last day when the Minister of State said that travellers will always travel. However, when we are introducing legislation which is supposed to allow travellers to settle permanently, it is not good enough to throw up our hands and say that. We must allow for their travelling but we must regulate and plan for it by ensuring the site is available before they move.
I realise that some travellers move around because of their business, but I am really bemused why they must bring their family and home with them when they travel. That may have been part of their tradition but it is not really reasonable or realistic to allow, encourage or facilitate this tradition because it means taking children out of school and providing transient sites in the longterm.
There is an overlap between this idea of temporary and transient sites. In reality it is impossible to tell which is which. This amendment should become part of the Bill.
I find myself in agreement with the thrust of what Deputy Mitchell is saying and I said so on Second Stage. I wonder what the role of the national consultative committee really will be. I fear there will be all kinds of difficulty unless the national body has some kind of secretariat which can be referred to by local authority housing personnel, for example, to obtain the kind of information one requires to make such an amendment possible. I am convinced that the practicalities on the ground are beyond the competence of most local authorities.
Despite the best intentions of the provisions in the Bill and the report, this legislation as it stands cannot be successful mainly because local authorities acting individually do not have the capacity to manage these sites. Unless the role of the national body is considerably beefed up we will see the kind of difficulties that were outlined by Deputy Mitchell and others on Second Stage. That would be a great pity because the Bill has the capacity to make an enormous difference.
A huge number of people accept that the traveller accommodation issue is one which can only be dealt with at national level by all the local authorities playing a major role. They will not have the capacity to do so, however, unless they do it under the close direction and supervision of a national body, whether it be the national advisory committee or a beefed up committee with the capacity to do that.
Both amendments attempt to introduce two new sets of circumstances under which notice may be served on travellers to move on. Amendment No. 30 is poorly drafted and, if passed, would make inoperable the provisions of paragraph (c) in relation to the one mile radius, as there would then be no provision for any follow up. This arises from the insertion of the amendment to the middle of paragraph (c). It is not clear, therefore, whether the intention was to apply the prohibition on parking within one mile of traveller accommodation only to persons who had alternative permanent accommodation.
If the intention of the proposed amendment is to give the housing authority power to require the removal of an unauthorised temporary dwelling of trader travellers or to other transient travellers who move from site to site, then other considerations apply. Such an amendment would not be feasible as it presumes an immediate knowledge on the part of the local authorities where travellers are permanently accommodated. In the relatively short periods required in such situations, it could be difficult to determine whether a person had actually left a permanent site and did not intend returning there.
The provisions of section 10 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1992, as amended by section 31 of the Bill, provide local authorities with powers to deal with unauthorised temporary dwellings in a public place in certain specified situations where alternative accommodation is available anywhere, with the agreement of the housing authority or voluntary group concerned. These provisions could be used in many of the cases intended to be covered by amendment No. 30.
Amendment No. 31 is also poorly drafted and if adopted as drafted would be meaningless as it does not link in with any of the existing provisions. Section 16 deals with the implementation of the accommodation programme. The effect of the proposed amendment, if properly drafted, would mean that the Minister would have to investigate in the case of each unauthorised encampment whether the housing authority has implemented its accommodation programme. This could take a considerable amount of time and render redundant the question of serving a notice by a housing authority.
The amendment presumes that when a housing authority has fulfilled its objectives under a programme no further work remains to be done, regardless of whether further needs are identified. It is envisaged that the need for accommodation programmes will be ongoing, based on the most recent assessment of needs which will be carried out periodically. The amendment would also involve the Minister in local issues in an unnecessary and bureaucratic way, contrary to Government policy of devolving greater powers to local authorities.
I, therefore, cannot accept amendments Nos. 30 and 31.
Whatever about amendment No. 30, amendment No. 31 is essential if the Bill is to achieve anything in terms of rendering travellers less marginalised and less reviled than they are, and ensuring some sort of reasonableness in what is required of local authorities. The problem with the Bill, as it stands, is that the responsibility of any one local authority is infinite. No local authority is being encouraged to provide for its own travellers because it realises that the more it provides the more it will have to do so. At some point the Minister of State must be able to say that this local authority has met its responsibilities and is not responsible for all the other travellers who turn up from every county. That is a reasonable request for a local authority to make if it genuinely wants to settle travellers in its area.
I accept what the Minister of State said - that travellers will obviously multiply in number. Local authorities should and will have to accommodate their indigenous travellers. Nevertheless, there is a point at which the Minster of State can say these travellers have already been provided with accommodation in, say, Cork, so Leitrim does not have to provide for them because it has already provided sufficient halting sites. There must be some geographical distribution over the longterm. The Minister of State is the only one who can judge the national situation at any one time.
In considering this, we should bear in mind the evidence which shows that the number of travelling families practising the nomadic way of life is decreasing as more of their children participate in education and avail of health services in their area. This situation arises from the provision of better permanent accommodation for them. My own preference would see them in traditional housing rather than in caravans, but many of them still wish to live that way and that is why halting sites are being provided for extensively in the Bill.
I understand the reason Deputy Mitchell has moved this amendment in regard to the number of families travelling around the country, particularly in the summer. However, it would place an inoperable responsibility on local authorities to identify where everybody came from, what their status was and stating in the legislation that they would not be provided with transient facilities in the event of moving into another local authority area.
Other provisions exist by which they can be moved so the law exists to be operated against them if they park illegally. I have been advised that the amendments the Deputy tabled are inoperable because of the manner in which they are structured and because their intent would place a huge responsibility on local authorities which they would not be able to fulfil. It would be impractical to expect that they would be able to trace from where each family came and what their status was in the place from which they had come. I cannot accept the two amendments.
It would be easier to trace a family than to provide a halting site for them when they arrive unannounced in a local authority area.
If an adequate number of transient sites is available - there has not been a proper programme of providing a sufficient number of transient sites throughout the country -they would be directed to the nearest available transient site and they would know where these were. They could then be moved if they continued to park illegally.
There is no provision in the Bill concerning illegal parking except that concerning the one mile radius.
They can be moved under a number of provisions. Section 31 of the Local Government (Sanitary Services) Act, 1948, makes provision for the prohibition of the erection and retention of a temporary dwelling on any land or water in the functional area of a sanitary authority if the latter is of the opinion that the temporary dwelling would be prejudicial to public health, the amenities of the locality or would interfere with traffic on the road.
Provided there is another site to which to move them.
Section 69 of the Roads Act, 1993, allows action to be taken where temporary dwellings are parked on national roads or such other roads as may be prescribed in the interests of road safety.
They are parked on national roads up and down the country.
Yes, but the Deputy said they could not be moved.
These provisions are in place but are inoperable. How can it be ensured that the legislation we are enacting will not also be inoperable?
The courts have adjudicated that, unless a place with facilities can be provided for illegally parked temporary dwellings, they are not prepared to order them to be moved. Local authorities have not been active in providing sufficient transient sites. If they had, the extent of the illegal parking to which people object would not be as great because the courts would rule against them. Where there are no transient sites, the courts are reluctant to rule against them. Three different provisions are contained in this section for moving temporary dwellings.
I appreciate what the Minister says. However, we are enshrining in legislation the requirement for a local authority to provide a transient halting site for a possible 300 families, a number which arrived in my local authority area at one point last year. That is unrealistic because it will never happen. We are, therefore, enacting legislation which is inoperable.
Large numbers have moved into areas with which I am familiar and injunctions have successfully been taken against them, especially where it was established in evidence that they had fine houses in the areas from which they came.
That is another argument for a national registration body.
Such a body is not necessary. Local authorities have been able to establish such facts from other local authorities and have used that as evidence in court. It is not necessary to have it written in legislation.
Everyone who has discussed and is aware of this issue realises that there is not only an indigenous population within the travelling community but also a section who want to be transient all their lives and do not want to be on official sites. I am concerned that, after a local authority has provided halting sites for its indigenous population and has made every measure to accommodate them, transient families, who are traders of some form, will be left who will park anywhere. They pass through counties and do not want to be tracked down. There is no point saying it is not a reality because this is happening on a wide scale. That reflects badly on indigenous travelling communities who are being tarred with the same brush. I am concerned that, once a county council fulfils its obligations, these traders will then move in knowing the council cannot continually provide transient halting sites.
Traveller representatives also have problems with these large groups of traders who move into towns and take over for weeks on end, creating huge problems. We had such a problem in Cork where an annual fair meant 40 to 50 trailers arriving in Glanmire and Blarney. Such traders know a council cannot continually provide transient halting sites because it is impractical. If 40 trailers arrive in a council area, does that mean the council must automatically provide transient accommodation for those 40 trailers which might move on the following week?
Where such traders have accommodation in the areas in which the ordinarily reside, local authorities have been successful in taking injunctions against them when they have parked illegally in public places. It is a question of whether the local authorities seek an injunction to move them. I do not know of the cases to which the Deputy refers. Until adequate facilities are provided, in some cases, if judges are of the opinion that accommodation should have been provided and the local authority has done nothing, they may decide not to move them.
One of the hopes we have for this legislation is that it places an obligation on each local authority to simultaneously draw up a plan and that it would have responsibility. Those who have been diligent in the past in fulfilling their social obligations on this issue found that, by so doing, they attracted additional numbers of travellers to their area. Rather than succeeding in providing adequate facilities for their indigenous communities of travellers, they found themselves catering for a greatly increased number of families who had moved to the area in the expectation of receiving similar treatment. That arose because some local authorities had been dilatory. With all authorities having to provide plans for the next five years based on a national survey of traveller families, any failure to implement the plans will become clear.
The approach has been very ad hoc over the past 30 years. This legislation will introduce a new requirement on local authorities to act in concert so that facilities will be provided in each local authority area and that the fears expressed will not come to pass; that is in the event of the legislation succeeding and local authorities fulfilling their responsibilities. If elected members do not make the decision, the manager will do so after a period, the plans will be implemented and it will be Government policy to implement them. It is hoped that major progress will be seen.
It will be an expensive programme which, when fully operational, will cost £19 million to £20 million a year at current money values. That is a sizeable investment which should, over time, see extensive provision being made for accommodation for traveller families. The difficulties highlighted by Deputies and which we are discussing will, it is hoped, diminish and the days will be numbered for the activities of the groups of transient traders who disregard the law and feel they can park wherever they like. If they want to move around the country, they must park in properly regulated and designated places.
The Minister's remarks are laudable. We said on Second Stage that we want a comprehensive national plan. I want the Minister to have national responsibility for ensuring that everything fits together and meets the overall need. We also discussed this issue in detail when we debated my amendment No. 12. The Minister's response was that as far as he was concerned it was a matter for each local authority, depending on the need that presents itself within the local authority area.
Deputy Olivia Mitchell's point is that someone must co-ordinate everything, otherwise every local authority will have to provide for all the travellers in the country. That is bizarre. Obviously, it would not happen to that extreme but it would be unrealistic to duplicate facilities in every local authority, some of which may not be used. The notion of having some level of co-ordination and responsibility, whether for normal migratory or travel patterns, is good. If the Minister has a problem with the form of words used in Deputy Olivia Mitchell's amendment, perhaps he could suggest something on Report Stage.
We must be reasonable in our approach to this issue. It is not reasonable to expect every local authority to cater for a sudden influx of travellers. It is not correct that traders are in a different category. A number of traders arrived recently in my home county with advertising hoardings offering landscape facilities and equipment and they parked on the side of the road. There is no value in taking an injunction against them unless there is a site for them, although they would fit into the category of being well able to provide their own accommodation. It would probably be more realistic for them to park in the local authority caravan park and pay the overnight normal fees than providing them with a transitory site.
Somebody should be responsible for overall co-ordination rather than laying down the ground rules and insisting that each local authority provides for the demands put on them. We do not do that in terms of social housing. If somebody gets a local authority house in County Wexford and they go to County Mayo, the local authority in County Mayo is not required to provide a second local authority house for them. We are dealing with people of different traditions. I agree that those who want to travel should be facilitated, but there should be overall co-ordination in terms of what needs to be provided. I ask the Minister to reflect on the point made by Deputy Olivia Mitchell about providing such co-ordination nationally.
I have already given my views on this matter. Local authorities are not obliged to provide facilities everywhere in case a group of trading travellers arrives in a town at some stage. We are talking about adopting a common sense and reasonable approach to this issue. However, if families go to an area on a regular basis, that must be taken into account by the local authority which must provide some type of transitory facilities for them.
The notion that 200 or 300 trading travellers can park anywhere they like around the country and that the courts do not have any rights to move them or to deal with them is not correct. There is power to move against them. Some Deputies told me about an exodus of people from Wexford who arrived in Wicklow and parked in a certain location.
Now they are in my county.
It was an orderly migration.
An unusual situation obtained because they parked on commonage which had no registered owner and that unique situation may have caused difficulties for the local authority which was seeking to resolve the issue.
A national consultative body is seeking to deal with such issues and to make recommendations. Travellers are strongly represented on that body and are playing a valuable role. Travellers will also be represented on the local consultative committees along with local elected representatives and officials. We are putting in place consultative groups at local and national level. We are taking a more educated approach to providing for travellers in our community in the sense that they are participating in the consultative process so it will be more open and transparent.
With the removal of the exemption from section 10 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Acts, there will be a greater opportunity for local communities to know about the plans and to participate in discussions on them before they are finalised. The same is true of the five year programmes for which we are providing in this Bill. I have given the reasons I cannot accept these amendments.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 31 to 33, inclusive, not moved.
Section 31, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 21, before section 32, to insert the following new section:
"32.-Section 34 of the Act of 1992 ishereby amended in subsection (1) by the substitution of '18, 20 or 20A' for '18 or20'.".
This amendment arises from recent court proceedings in Ennis concerning the land payment of annual fees by landlords. District Court proceedings were initiated by Ennis Urban District Council against several landlords for failing to pay the annual renewal fee under the Housing (Registration of Rented Houses) Regulations, 1996. This case was heard on 8 May 1998. Counsel for the landlords argued that the regulation requiring payment of the annual registration fee was made under section 20A of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1992, which was not a section to which section 34 of the 1992 Act applied, and that failure to comply with the provision was not, therefore, an offence. The case was dismissed by the judge. I propose to rectify this omission by the insertion of a reference to the new section into section 34 of the 1992 Act which provides for penalties.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 32 agreed to.
SECTION 33.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 24, paragraph (b), line 52, after "caravan" to insert "owned by the housing authority on a site, or place any other caravan".
Under the 1997 Act, a housing authority can refuse to let a house owned by it to a tenant involved in specified anti-social behaviour. This section will extend that provision to caravans but it omits to qualify the requirement by referring to caravans or sites owned by the housing authority or operated under statute. There can be no legal authority to refuse authorisation to occupy a caravan unless the authority owns it or specific by-laws apply. The purpose of the amendment is to make clear that it refers to a site over which the authority has control and not an individual's private caravan.
Housing authorities do not normally retain caravans as part of housing stock. Caravans on halting sites are generally the property of the travellers who occupy them, whether they have purchased the caravan privately with or without the assistance of the housing authority or have been provided with a replacement caravan by the authority in an emergency. If a housing authority owns a caravan it is considered the provisions of section 14(a) are sufficient to cover this case and no amendment is necessary.
It may well encompass a case where a local authority owns the caravan but will it have provision to refuse occupation to someone who owns his own caravan - is that constitutional according to the advice provided by the Attorney General?
Yes. This section was carefully examined by the Office of the Attorney General and its extension of this provision to caravans and halting sites is as advised by the office.
I am not a lawyer but my advice is that there is no guarantee of its security against constitutional attack. We cannot abolish ground rent because of the absolute right or private property, so whether one could refuse a person access to his property under this provision would strike me as problematic. However, if that is the Minister's advice I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 33 agreed to.
Section 34 agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 25, after line 24, to insert the following new section:
"35.-From the date of the passing of this Act, local authorities shall not locate halting sites within a one mile radius of any existing site managed and controlled by a local authority or any other traveller accommodation managed and controlled by them.".
This amendment is aimed almost exclusively at urban local authorities as I do not think it would be relevant outside urban areas. In smaller urban areas with a high population density and a scarcity of land, its purpose is to achieve a reasonable minimum level of dispersal of halting sites. My local authority proposes 20 halting sites, many of which are within a couple of hundred yards of each other, which is causing considerable opposition. The outcome will be that none of the sites will be built because all of them will be resisted.
It would strengthen the hand of local authority members in seeking to persuade the community that some halting sites for travellers must be provided, particularly for our indigenous travellers, if they could indicate that each area may have a site but none will have a multiplicity of sites. Some members of the public are seeking a higher level of protection than the minimum one mile between sites provided in this amendment, but it is a reasonable level of dispersal to seek. We have had submissions from travellers to suggest that many of the sites proposed are too close together.
I deliberately chose the "date of the passing of this Act" lest it be interpreted that I wanted to close down existing halting sites, which I do not; I want to ensure a certain geographic dispersal of sites, from the viewpoint of making the programme acceptable to settled residents and to respond to the requests of travellers.
This amendment would be too restrictive on the options available to local authorities to provide accommodation. For example, traveller accommodation could include a single house allocated to a traveller in a standard housing estate and this amendment would preclude a permanent residential caravan park being located within one mile of that house. It ignores the fact that sites for caravans for permanent accommodation are being built to proper standards in accordance with approved guidelines, including improved management arrangements.
It does not distinguish between the different types of sites, permanent, temporary or transient, and other means of traveller accommodation. It would exclude temporary sites located adjacent to sites being redeveloped or refurbished during the construction phase. Site selection is dealt with comprehensively in guidelines which have already been issued by my Department and local authorities are in the best position to select sites in the light of local circumstances and criteria referred to in the guidelines. The amendment would introduce a restriction on the selection of sites which is not based on sustainable planning, geographic, social or environmental criteria and I cannot accept it.
That is a fairly concise rejection. In view of the earlier debate I appreciate that the phrase "other traveller accommodation" could relate to travellers in standard accommodation and I did not intend that to be part of my amendment. I realise this is an urban problem which would not arise in larger rural local authorities. However, if the Minister could find a better wording, would he consider a level of mandatory dispersal of halting sites? That sites can be provided within a couple of hundred yards of each other is increasing local resistance and is contrary to what we are trying to achieve in the Bill.
I do not know if the Deputy is aware how restrictive this amendment would be. From my long experience of dealing with this issue, I know that little could be done in many urban areas if such an amendment were accepted. This Bill provides for a special role for elected members and the best knowledge of what should and should not be provided must rest in the local authority, both at official level and among elected representatives. From the sum of that experience and knowledge should come the proposals and the five year programmes. There are numerous instances where halting sites operate successfully within one mile of each other, and there are also proposals to provide new halting sites close to each other with large populations of travellers.
The guidelines I issued provided that ten families or households on one site should be the preferred number. From my experience talking to travellers and those who work with them and from my practical knowledge, I think it is a mistake to put too many travellers on one site. In many cases they do not want that because they have individual family groups and some of them do not get along with others, just like other groups in society. Forcing many families on to one site can cause problems for those going in. Their wishes should be known, respected and, as far as possible and where reasonable, be part of the final decision.
It would be disastrous if an amendment like this were accepted because we might as well withdraw the Bill. The Deputy is from Dublin and has drafted the amendment to suit the capital, but it would halt progress in providing facilities for travellers anywhere outside a county borough. I cannot accept this amendment because it does not leave any discretion to the local elected members and officials as to what they consider best meets the needs of their areas.
In the past sites have been selected without consultation and the public only knew about them at a late stage in planning, local authorities would have already made their decisions and pressed on with the proposal. This resulted in a lot of local opposition. With the new structures the public will not be caught unaware as there will be prior consultation. People will be aware of what is proposed, they will have an input. Hopefully, this will be a more reasonable and transparent way to proceed and will achieve a lot more progress than in the past.
Having said that, there has been a lot of progress in this area over a period of years but the tragedy is that there are still over 1,000 families who are inadequately provided for and this figure will increase with the formation of new households.
I am glad the Minister is not accepting this amendment because it would cripple any hope of accommodating many travelling people in the greater Dublin area and in other areas. It is a very blunt instrument if the reason for tabling it is as Deputy Mitchell states. It is also a deplorable approach to the provision of accommodation for travellers. Why not single out groups of houses that cost £245,000? Should we legislate that groups of houses worth £245,000 shall not be set within a mile of each other? This amendment is highly discriminatory and repulsive.
It is a huge indictment of our society that 1,000 families, as the Minister pointed out, are still without proper accommodation. It would take very little effort to sort out this problem, yet it has not been done. The solution is small, well designed and well constructed sites, transient sites and a small housing project rather than what is mentioned in this amendment. Consultation and dialogue at local level which this Bill attempts to achieve in part is also necessary but it has to be implemented on the ground. As a representative for west Dublin it is my experience that where there is consultation and dialogue between the local community and the traveller people many problems can be overcome. Liaison committees have been created where difficulties can be anticipated and resolved. That is the approach we need rather than laying down apartheid like diktats about keeping the people a mile apart.
The reason I single out halting sites is that the multiplicity of sites is preventing the implementation of the programme in any area. However, I withdraw my amendment because I am not familiar with the difficulties that it might cause outside the Dublin area.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 25, after line 24, to insert the following new section:
"35.-The City and County Managers (Amendment) Act, 1955, is hereby amended by the insertion of the following section after section 3:
'3A.-(1) Where the members of a local authority are informed, pursuant to section 2 of this Act, of any works being undertaken pursuant to the Housing (Traveller Accommodation) Act, 1998, the said members shall, by resolution, agree that the works be proceeded with, varied as altered by them or rejected and the manager shall comply with this resolution.
(2) A decision taken by a local authority in respect of the provision of a halting site or other approved accommodation pursuant to the Housing (Traveller Accommodation) Act, 1998, may be the subject of an appeal to An Bord Pleanála’.”.
I hope the Minister will be more responsive to this amendment.
As regards the single biggest barrier to gaining public acceptance of halting sites - and I am fairly familiar with the difficulties of gaining acceptance of halting sites - prior to the last election the Progessive Democrats Party and their Government colleagues gave a commitment that the legislation would come within the scope of the Planning Acts. However, the Bill states that it is no longer exempted development and subject to the public consultative process under the part entitled consultation. That is a meaningless process because it means as far as a particular site is concerned. For example, where a manager has adopted the programme, he will advertise his intention to proceed, he will receive submissions and then he will make a decision on his own proposal. That is undemocratic. The public has pointed out that the whole process of site selection is completely undemocratic and not subject to the same rules as a person who wants to add a porch to their house.
I ask that people should be able to make contributions. I realise that the public often assume that consultation means they have a veto, they do not, but they would like to feel that they have a say on site selection as they would have on any other proposed development, whether by a local authority or the people in their area. Prior to the election the Government gave a commitment to give the public that say.
My amendment asks that when the submissions are received they would return to the local authority with the report by the manager but that the ultimate decision will be made by the elected members, which is the normal democratic process. In order to provide double protection to the public I have inserted that it would be subject to an appeal to An Bord Pleanála.
I do not propose to accept amendment No. 35, section 3A(1) as these powers are already available to local authority members. In general, works with limited exceptions must be the subject of a report by the manager and submitted to the members.
If the members decide they may, under sections 3 or 4 of the City and County Managers (Amendment) Act, 1955, direct the manager not to proceed with works or require that any particular act be done subject to certain statutory obligations and compliance with the procedures outlined, the extent to which these provisions could be used in individual cases would have to be examined in the light of the requirements on the proposed Bill, in particular, the requirement on the local authority under section 16 to take any reasonable steps as are necessary for the purpose of implementing local accommodation programmes or that the particular act be done is lawful.
I also do not propose to accept the amendment at 3A(2). The recent ending of the exemption which has been referred by Deputy Mitchell, the ending of the exemption of halting sites from the public notice procedures of part 10 of the Local Government Planning and Development Regulations, 1994, with effect from 31 May 1998, put caravan sites on a par with other local authority developments within their own functional areas. The review of the Planning Acts - which is currently under way in my Department - is examining the planning requirements in relation to local authority developments generally. I would not agree to any change, at this stage, which could prejudice the outcome of that review, in other words, the power is already legislated for in sections 3 and 4.
I know we have powers under sections 3 and 4. The public should be entitled to have their elected representatives make a decision on their cases without any effort on behalf of the local authorities to put section 3 motions. As the Minister will be aware, a further difficulty with a section 3 motion is that it is up to the manager to decide if he will accept it. In my experience, the manager will, in most cases, inform us that he will not accept a section 3 motion for statutory or other reasons. People should have the right to have their cases adjudicated on. I appreciate that my amendment may be more suitable for the Planning Acts and I will resubmit it at that stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 38 not moved.
Title agreed to.