Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

My apologies for missing the earlier part of the meeting. I refer to the CCMA. Some of my questions may have been addressed already but I will take that risk. The written submission provided by the CCMA states: "It should be noted that increasingly, greater expenditure from the maintenance budgets is being used to clean up increased levels of dumping on all sites." On the various sites, are there residents' associations with which local authorities liaise and work and which have a big input into what is decided for their site? Many ordinary halting sites have very small residential accommodation units and some of them have serviced units. After that, there is very little personal space for storing things and so on or for any small business the residents may have. Have residents' associations been set up on the various sites?

On the issue of the design of Traveller-specific accommodation, the submission states: "The CCMA has already engaged with DHLGH around the design of Traveller specific accommodation and looks forward to updated guidance for both Local authorities and AHBs in the design of Traveller Specific Accommodation." I have a straight question on that. I am stunned that the most important people, that is, those who will live in this accommodation, are not central to that process and that the submission does not state that the CCMA has discussed this with the Travellers who will live in this specific accommodation.

The submission refers to transient sites but seems to include a get-out-of-jail clause in that regard. It states:

The CCMA wishes to highlight that the legislation is there to protect the rights of all and repealing it is an imposition on the rights of the entire community. It should be noted that our priority is to provide suitable permanent accommodation in the first instance.

That seems to me to indicate that the CCMA is not going to provide a national network of transient sites. However, we know some Travellers will travel in summer. They have been doing so forever. Just as many people go to matches and some people are involved with horses and horse racing and all sorts of things, there are Travellers who travel to certain areas. It has been agreed for many years that they should be accommodated in doing so. That is from where the idea of transient halting sites came. Until we face up to that reality, we will not make any progress. Is the reference in the submission a get-out-of-jail clause? Is it a simple statement that this transient halting site thing is a nice thing to put on paper but will not be implemented in practice?

There are 1 million issues I would like to raise, but there is one final issue I will address. The submission state: "The CCMA notes with concern that the report fails to acknowledge that the demand for Traveller specific accommodation is diminishing, especially among the younger generations, whose preference is not to live in halting site accommodation and who are increasingly seeking standard housing and group schemes." Is that a reference to Traveller-specific group schemes? Is the CCMA saying that, given the choice of a caravan halting site or Traveller-specific accommodation where people live with their relatives, neighbours and communities with whom they have always lived, many Travellers would, obviously, take the better class of accommodation, as would most people? Alternatively, is it saying these group schemes are something else, which does not relate to Traveller-specific group housing? The one type of housing the vast majority of Travellers do not want is HAP or RAS housing. The figures before us show there are a significant number of Travellers in such housing. The other option they definitely do not want is homeless housing. Unfortunately, many Travellers are forced into it.