asked the Minister for the Environment if he is aware of the great hardship being caused to the residents of Foxrock Park, County Dublin, by the presence of traders who camp in the open space in this residential area; the action, if any, he intends to take in the matter; and if he will make a statement on the problem.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - County Dublin Traders' Camp.
9.
I am aware of this problem. The use of land for camping or caravanning is "development" for the purpose of the Planning and Development Acts and planning permission is required. It is a matter for the local planning authority, in this case Dublin County Council, to take whatever action is necessary to deal with unauthorised development in their area. Wide powers are available for this purpose under the Acts and the level of penalties for offences was substantially increased by the Planning and Development Act, 1982. Other relevant powers are available to the local authority under the sanitary services code and the Casual Trading and Litter Acts. Responsibility for the necessary accommodation of travelling people, whether under the normal housing programme, in special schemes, or on halting sites, is also the function of the local authority.
The Minister did not respond to my question. He said he is aware of the problem and then went on to a piece of gobbledegook about the responsibilities of local authorities. Is the Minister aware that this matter of the Foxrock Park area has been going on since last summer? The Minister has spoken about wide powers allocated to the local authorities. Will he say whether the local authorities are operating those wide powers?
In reply to the first supplementary, I have given the required information, that I am aware of the problem and that the power rests with the local authority. I can assure him and every Deputy in the House that when that power rests with the local authorities I, and the Minister for the Environment, would be reluctant to usurp it because we believe those powers should be exercised by the local representatives. The answer to the second question is that I understand the local representatives have taken action and that at a meeting on 14 February a section 4 motion was passed directing the manager to take action under section 27 of the planning legislation in relation to Foxrock Park.
Of course the Minister is aware that we are not dealing with the average itinerant in this instance: we are dealing with what might be called knackers. Those people have been in the estate for almost 12 months, much to the annoyance of the local community who, after all, bought their houses on the basis of quiet enjoyment of their property. Stuck in the middle of this estate are large numbers of these scrap dealers, call them what you will. Would the Minister agree with me that it was necessary for me to bring it to the attention of the Dáil having regard to the failure of the local authority and the public representatives to resolve the matter to the satisfaction of the local residents? Would he agree that was the proper procedure in the circumstances? We have failed——
This is more like an adjournment debate.
The local authority failed in their obligations——
A question please, Deputy.
In the circumstances would the Minister now consider motivating the local authority in the matter and perhaps meet a deputation of the residents in the company of the other public representatives, three Fine Gael and one member of the Labour Party?
I am not sure what precise question the Deputy is asking. I would be happy to meet anybody in relation to this matter.
The Minister failed to discharge his obligations to the people of the Foxrock Park area.
The obligations to the people of the Foxrock Park area in this matter are devolved legislatively on the local authority members.
The Minister failed to discharge his obligation.
Ceist 10. We cannot have a debate on this matter.
I know, I would not dream of having a debate.
There is a tendency in that direction.
I appreciate that. I would not like that to happen. In relation to the problem of itinerants generally or, as I describe them scrap metal merchants in many instances, can the Minister say how many families are in need of re-siting in the County Dublin area?
That seems to be a separate question.
I have not got that information with me. I understand the Deputy's concern. I recall that he raised this matter in this House on an earlier occasion, about four or five months ago. I recognise the seriousness of the matter. All I can say is that the council meeting of 14 February this month passed a section 4 motion directing the manager to initiate proceedings under section 27 to restrain the unauthorised use of those lands at present occupied by the itinerants. These proceedings — and this is the critical point — are to be against the owners of the land and the occupiers of the land.
Their role has been disgraceful. They did not discharge their social obligations to the scrap metal merchants and the local community.
Deputy Molloy with a final supplementary.
A very fundamental principle is involved.
In the Minister's reply he indicated to the House that it was his opinion that the people referred to in Deputy Andrews' question are obliged to apply for planning permission. I think the Minister recommended that the local authority should apply the Planning Acts and the Sanitary Services Acts in these cases. Arising out of that advice to the House, is the Minister distinguishing between fairly well-to-do traders who happen to reside in caravans and who move their business around the country and the deprived section of our community who are the concern of the itinerant settlement committees? Is he also suggesting that the ordinary deprived itinerant citizen is to be required to apply for planning permission to place his tent or his camp on the side of the road?
I am very glad the Deputy asked that supplementary, because there is a distinction in my mind and in the minds of most Deputies between the traditional tinker or itinerant in our society and the kind of unauthorised illegal trader to whom Deputy Andrews referred.
Sometimes local residents cannot appreciate that sophisticated distinction.
I take it the Minister is aware that, if they move these people, the local authority will be expected to provide another site?
I am so aware.
Democracy is under threat.
Could I ask one final supplementary?
No. I called the final supplementary.
We did not ask any supplementaries on the earlier questions. We do not wish to take up the time of the House.
You cannot save them all for one question.
One important principle has arisen from what Deputy Walsh said. Hitherto there was an unwritten agreement among the local authorities, the managers and the Department, that itinerant members of our community would not be prosecuted if the local authority were not able to direct them to an official halting stand where they could park their tents and caravans. Is the Minister now saying that has changed and these members of our community will be prosecuted in the courts where the local authority have failed in their duty to them?
No, I am not saying that at all.
What is the Minister saying?
Ceist 10.