I move amendment No. 162:
In page 52, subsection (1), line 34, to delete "or part of a public road or proposed public road".
SECTION 65.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 65, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
We come now to amendment No. 163. Amendments Nos. 163a, 164, 165 and 166 are alternatives and may be taken together.
I move amendment No. 163:
In page 53, before section 66, to insert the following new section:
"66.—(1) (a) Any person who without lawful authority erects, places or retains a temporary dwelling on a national road, motorway, busway or protected road shall be guilty of an offence.
(b) Any person who without lawful authority or the consent of a road authority erects, places or retains a temporary dwelling on any other prescribed road or prescribed class, subclass or type of road shall be guilty of an offence.
(c) A consent under paragraph (b) may be given by the road authority subject to such conditions, restrictions or requirements as it thinks fit and any person who fails to comply with such conditions, restrictions or requirements shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) An authorised person may remove a temporary dwelling from a national road, motorway, busway, protected road or any other prescribed road or prescribed class, subclass or type of road.
(3) An authorised person may store, or procure the storage of, a temporary dwelling removed by him under subsection (2).
(4) Where the name and address of the owner of a temporary dwelling removed and stored under this section can be ascertained by reasonable inquiry, the road authority concerned or the Commissioner shall serve a notice upon the owner informing him of the removal and storage and of the address of the place where the temporary dwelling may be claimed and recovered, requiring him to claim and recover it within one month of the date of the service of the notice and informing him of the statutory consequences of his failure to do so.
(5) A temporary dwelling removed and stored under this section shall be given to a person claiming the temporary dwelling if, but only if, he makes a declaration in writing that he is the owner of the temporary dwelling or is authorised by its owner to claim it and, at the discretion of the road authority concerned or the Commissioner, pays the amount of the expenditure reasonably incurred in removing and storing the temporary dwelling.
(6) The road authority concerned or the Commissioner may dispose, or procure the disposal, of a temporary dwelling removed and stored under this section if—
(a) the owner of the temporary dwelling fails to claim it and remove it from the place where it is stored within one month of the date on which a notice under subsection (4) was served on him, or
(b) the name and address of the owner of the temporary dwelling cannot be ascertained by reasonable inquiry.
(7) A temporary dwelling shall not be disposed of under this section within six weeks of the date of its removal under this section.
(8) The provisions of this section are without prejudice to the functions of a public authority under any other enactment.
(9) In this section—
‘authorised person' means—
(a) a person authorised in writing by a road authority for the purposes of this section;
(b) a member of the Garda Síochána;
‘temporary dwelling' means any tent, caravan, mobile home, vehicle or other structure or thing (whether on wheels or not) which is capable of being moved from one place to another (whether by towing, transport on a vehicle or trailer, or otherwise), and—
(a) is used for human habitation, either permanently or from time to time, or
(b) was designed, constructed or adapted for such use,
but does not include any such temporary dwelling—
(i) used by a State authority, road authority, local authority or a statutory undertaker during the course of works on, in or under a national road, motorway, busway, protected road, or any other prescribed road or prescribed class, subclass or type of road, or
(ii) used in connection with a fire or other emergency.".
In the generous mood that has prevailed throughout this debate I am responding once again to the Opposition. Amendment No. 163 is a restatement and strengthening of the existing section 66 which provides for enforcement action to be taken where unauthorised temporary dwellings are placed on certain roads. Originally this provision was restricted to motorways, busways and protected roads. However, following a large number of representations I decided to allow for the extension of these powers to specific roads, classes or types of roads to be prescribed in regulations made by the Minister. This change meets the point in Deputy Yates's amendment No. 165. The other main change in this section is to extend the enforcement powers to the Garda as well as to local authorities. Because this required a large number of minor changes throughout the section it was found most convenient to replace the section in its entirety.
The mechanism used is an amended section to give the powers to an authorised person who is defined in subsection (9) as a person with written authorisation from a local authority or who is a member of the Garda Síochána. I do not propose to go the way suggested by Deputy Yates's amendment No. 163a. To accept it would impose intolerable pressures on the travelling community. Even with the enactment of section 66, local authorities will still be obliged, following a Supreme Court decision, to have regard to their obligations as housing authorities when performing their functions under this section. I am strongly of the belief that local authorities must do more to cater for the needs of the travelling community. To accept draconian impositions like these suggested by Deputy Yates would only exacerbate the problem.
I am well aware of the problem of illegally parked temporary dwellings but my primary concern in introducing this section is to maintain the integrity of routes on which there is the most heavy traffic and to keep these roads safe for all road users. I was also concerned for the safety of those unfortunate enough to be living alongside these roads. The provisions represent a careful balance between the interests of road safety and those of the travelling community. The amended section 66 will give sufficient powers to local authorities and the Garda to deal with temporary dwellings on national roads, motorways, busways, protected roads and such other roads or classes of roads as the Minister may prescribe from time to time.
To accept Deputy Yates's amendment No. 164, which seeks to substitute "may" for "shall", would impose an overly onerous duty on local authorities and would leave them with no discretion, whatever the circumstances. A local authority could be faced with an action for damages if it did not act quickly enough. There could also be practical difficulties. Most importantly, inserting the word "shall" would impose a legal duty on the local authority to remove the temporary dwelling regardless of the circumstances. The usual course of action would be for a road authority to first request the removal of the dwelling before having recourse to its legal powers. This amendment would also be in conflict with subsections (7) which requires the local authority, in the light of the Supreme Court decision, to have regard to their responsibilities as a housing authority. The word "may" is the usual word used in those circumstances. Examples include the removal of abandoned cars and other materials in the Litter Act, 1982, and the removal of illegally parked cars under the Road Traffic (Removals, Storage and Disposal of Vehicles) Regulations, 1983. In the light of this explanation I hope the Deputy will withdraw his amendment No. 164.
Deputy Yates's amendment No. 166 is not necessary, since penalties for offences under the Bill are dealt with in section 75. Under that section a person guilty of an offence under section 66 will be liable on summary conviction to a fine of up to £1,000 or imprisonment for up to six months. This is a standard provision and should operate as a sufficient deterrent. One thousand pounds is the upper limit for fines that can be imposed on summary conviction at present. I would also add that the penalties in amendment No. 163a are draconian and a £10,000 fine for a summary offence is probably unconstitutional.
I should explain that some of these amendments are my own and some are from colleagues of mine who asked me to table them. Deputies McGahon, Flanagan and Deasy have asked me to table amendment No. 163a and they take a slightly tougher line than I would. I welcome the Minister's proposals which are an improvement. The new section 66 (1) (a) reads:
Any person who without lawful authority erects, places or retains a temporary dwelling on a national road, motorway, busway or protected road shall be guilty of an offence.
Am I correct in saying that that excludes 94 per cent of all roads. In other words it includes all regional and local roads as defined under this Act.
Subsection (1) (b) reads:
Any person who without lawful authority or the consent of a road authority erects, places or retains a temporary dwelling on any other prescribed road or prescribed class, subclass or type of road shall be guilty of an offence.
so, it includes all roads.
Potentially.
What does potentially mean as opposed to the whole lot?
Until the prescribed regulations come into effect.
The situation is that there are travellers who have been in an area for generations and who travel around from fair to fair. I have no objection to them. They have got to be accommodated. There should be a proper, orderly approach to halting sites and rehousing, but a second problem has developed where convoys of traders blitz an area — 20, 30 or 50 caravans move into an area — and they do not care where they stop, whom they upset, what damage they do, what litter they leave behind, and there is no way they can be controlled. These people are not depending on health boards and social services. These are extremely wealthy people, often with two and three homes, extensive and wealthy traders. Residential communities are up in arms about this practice. The Minister will be aware of the recent case in an industrial site in Cork when a group of these convoys came in. When a foreign industrialist intended establishing an industry in that industrial park some local commerce group had to pay to have the area cleaned up in an endeavour to have that factory located there.
The perception is that the Department of the Environment or the officials whose job it is to enforce such laws are not taking this problem seriously. While that may not be the reality it is the perception that this problem is not being taken seriously. Ordinary people are encountering this problem. Indeed all of us including members of this Committee, in circles of influence do not encounter the problem on our doorsteps and, therefore, are not concerned about it. While welcoming the steps the Minister is taking, perhaps he could be more harsh — in amendment No. 163 — ascertaining how these trading convoys could be dealt with as opposed to the genuine, disadvantaged, travelling family who have all the health, social and educational problems of which we are aware.
I want to raise a few questions here. This is something that affects most of us. I should like to bring Members of this Committee to Killarney, where £2 million was spent on a by-pass which was completed last year, to see all the itinerant caravans parked on three or four different sections of that by-pass, in one of the most scenic areas. Do I correctly understand from the Minister that henceforth there will be a prohibition on the parking of caravans on motorways, on national primary roads? Did he include secondary national primary and county roads? In the past some of those itinerants got away with such practices because there were lenient district justices who maintained there was no alternative halting site available within that area and they could not be moved off national primary roads. That was the excuse advanced. If secondary national primary roads are not included in the provisions of this amendment, they should be.
As Deputies Yates and McEllistrim have said this is a major problem nationwide. We are talking about two different groups of people here. First, there are the traditional itinerants. Names have been mentioned here; I would add Cauleys and Maughans to the O'Connors and so on. Every local authority should provide a halting site for itinerants in their respective areas. We have done so in Cavan where they have been very successful. In fact, one halting site is located in the centre of Cavan town. It is acceptable, it is properly organised with a local committee to look after the children who also receive schooling. With the co-operation of the Garda, we do not tolerate caravans being parked on or around the roads leading to the town. They park on the halting site and this practice works. The other type of trader are impossible; they are wealthy but park their Mercedes and motor homes — worth £20,000, £30,000 or £40,000 — on primary and secondary roads. That practice is not acceptable. These people are not only a danger to themselves but to road users and we have an obligation to deal with this issue. If a private citizen behaved in that fashion they would be prosecutied for littering the roadside and for other misdeamours but these people get away scot-free. Generally they remain for about two days — apparently present law permits them to remain for 24 hours, but they can move a mile up the road and re-establish themselves. They are thereafter scorning the law and they are a nuisance to everybody. We must enforce the law on these people Otherwise they will continue to annoy many people who are trying to improve their locality.
This discussion is similar to what we had about horses. We want to see the law improved in this area. Rending it easier for local authorities to take action. At present they must go to court, pay very heavy legal expenses for injunctions etc., and by the time such legalities are concluded, these people may have moved to an other area where the process must be repeated. I see a problem in endeavouring to improve this section in that many such people park or locate beside roads, not on roads, in such areas mentioned earlier — whenever roads have been straightened, and portions of lay-bys left abandoned.
I mentioned earlier the position in the Glen of the Downs where the offending structures are not on the road but back from the road. They tend to edge out with their paraphernalia to the edge of the road but the problem is located further back. In other cases, they park off the road. In fact, directly opposite Wicklow County Council buildings they are parked on a football pitch beside the road.
I do not know whether the provisions of this Bill can be applied to them and that practice. An authorised person is mentioned as being capable of removing them. Will that be a member of the Garda Síochána, the relevant local authority or who? Then the question arises where can they be moved to? I do not think it should be stipulated they be moved to a proper, organised halt. For example, ten or 15-day halting sites may be provided to assist people, perhaps in need of housing or some such purpose, who may have set up home in a caravan somewhere other than on a road. Therefore, I do not think we should provide authorised halting sites, that will have been created reluctantly to resolve the problem of such wealthy traders. Rather they should be reserved for people who either need housing or are living in caravans, who find themselves in the wrong place and who can be moved to a properly constructed halting site.
I hope the Minister will be able to give us more hope of resolving the real problem with which we are all faced in our towns, for example these traders invaded my town for a month creating havoc in front of beaches and local people lived in fear of them. Apparently they could not be dealt with by the local Garda, local authority or anybody else. I do not want my remarks interpreted as being an attack on the itinerant community. They have to be catered for and the creation of halting sites is most important for them. All of us will have encountered the problem of wealthy traders trading on roadsides, who move on when any pressure is exerted on them or who may feel they cannot be moved in certain circumstances because there is nowhere else for them to go. I hope the provisions of this section will deal in a humane manner with the problem of the travelling people with which all of us will be familiar while dealing more severely with the type of commercial itinerant about whom we have all spoken, who is trading, and is of no benefit to the commercial areas of our towns. However, I see some difficulty in tackling that problem.
I do not think the facilities exist in many counties to enable the provisions of this Bill to be implemented on the ground, but if these provisions do encourage local authorities to make such arrangements, that will have been a good thing. I hope the Minister will be able to inform us whether it will relieve even the immediate problems encountered in various areas.
I thank Deputies Yates, Kavanagh and Gilmore and my respective colleagues in Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and others who have spent three sessions working on the Committee Stage of this Bill. I appreciate the solid work of the Chairman who supervised the proceedings in such an amicable and satisfactory way. I had intended saying this at the end of the meeting but there can be constraints on Deputies at that stage and I want everybody here to understand that I deeply appreciate their commitment, particularly in a week when the temptation to be elsewhere must have been very strong. We have not received much publicity for our work but, nonetheless, it is very important and whether one gets credit for it is irrelevant. It is a commitment which I appreciate and which has been enormously helpful to me.
We have been able to take on board a number of amendments and suggestions and there are others that we have to consider between now and Report Stage, but I want to express my appreciation to all my colleagues for their contributions.
Perhaps the Minister would now reply to amendment No. 163.
I appreciate the sensitive way Deputies have approached this problem and identified the genuine travelling people who are in need of halting sites and housing accommodation. The local authority are obliged in all circumstances, even within the demands which will be made under this Bill, to take account of their special needs, and the local authorities are obliged under the Housing Acts to deal satisfactorily and amicably with the genuine travelling community. In that context we need more halting sites similar to those in Cavan, referred to by Deputy Boylan, in many areas because until there are more sites, we will continue to have traveller families living in atrocious conditions.
Approximately 1,700 travellers are still on the roadside or in caravans and over 3,000 have been housed by the local authorities or settled in halting sites. For the past couple of years we have expended about £3 million annually for the provision of halting sites and encouraged local authorities in every way possible to acquire the necessary land to continue that programme. I have specifically stated in my visit to local authorities that wherever there is a shortage of funds for this purpose, I will try to help by providing funding to develop these sites regardless of other constraints. That is a separate problem, and the solution to it is in sight. It has not been resolved but we are targeting it as a special priority and there has been very good co-operation from the majority of local authorities.
Standing separately is the problem of roadside traders; traditionally they have traded during the summer. However, the nature of their business has changed because we are now dealing with an army of travellers. It seems that the traders have decided that this is one way to make it impossible for the local authorities and the Garda Síochána to deal with them.
Under this Bill, the recent housing Bill — signed by the President in the last few days — and the Road Traffic Bill which I will be introducing in the autumn, we will have three opportunities to try to limit such traders from blighting the outskirts of cities and towns as they have been doing up to now. The lay-bys referred to by Deputy Kavanagh where the public right of way is not extinguished and the green areas beside them are all part of the roadway for the purposes of this legislation. The power to prevent people from siting in these areas is now very strong.
I mention the Road Traffic Act because complaints have been made that these people may not have car insurance, car tax, or meet the relevant requirements to carry on a trade. They must fulfil their obligations in this regard as they would be required to in other areas. They have a responsibility to the community as a whole and many of them are not in want financially and would not come into the categories referred to earlier. Therefore, they are obliged to pay their way the same as everybody else.
To enforce these provisions, the Garda authorities, the local authorities, or both should combine to make it more difficult for people to trade on the roadside Admittedly we cannot put our hand or our heart and say we have all the solutions to this problem because it has existed for some time, but it require special attention and rigorous enforcement of the law and anything further we can do between now and completion of this Bill, and the Road Traffic Bill, will be done. I will be anxious to take on board suggestions which will further improve the situation. We are approaching the problem on a number of fronts to the extent that we can make improvements between now and the end of the year. I am open to any further helpful suggestions.
Amendment agreed to.