Mr. Wayne Stanley:

That is a good question. The answer is difficult because we respect people’s privacy. We made some inroads in the way that HAP has been treated, as well as the way landlords have discriminated HAP. We need to make members of the Traveller community aware that they cannot be refused on the ground of a HAP payment. We should increase the awareness of this. We probably need to look at the legal framework and have a greater understanding of the rights-based approach. People have a right to housing. We are part of a group that is campaigning for the right to housing to be inserted in the Constitution. There are many reason to do that. One is to address the most egregious areas where the State fails. We have seen this in right to education. The right to education does not mean that people can have the school of the denomination of their choice, or to have the education provided in the way that they want at the end of their road for their children. Likewise, a right to housing does not mean that everybody gets a home. Rather, it means that where the State or society fails in an egregious way - for members of the Traveller community that is one of the areas - there are more legal remedies when those rights are inserted. That is a statement of where we would like to go. That is what we would like to see. I do not know if Ms Fitzgerald has anything more practical to add.