Senator Flynn will be with us shortly but she asked me to chair the meeting in the meantime.
I remind members that they must be physically present within Leinster House in order to take part in public meetings of the committee. I will not allow members who are not in Leinster House to take part in the meeting. We will suspend while we await the arrival of the witnesses.
I welcome all our guests. I will read out some housekeeping rules we have here. The evidence of witnesses physically present in Leinster House is protected by absolute privilege. Witnesses should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.
They should not engage in speech that may be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. I propose that we publish the opening statements and submissions from our witnesses on our website. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I suggest we invite our witnesses to speak for five to ten minutes and that we allow members to ask questions or make comments for approximately five minutes each. Members will then have the opportunity to ask more questions. It will go around and around until members, or the witnesses, are completely exhausted. Is that all agreed? Agreed.
Senator Eileen Flynn will join us shortly. She asked me, as Leas-Chathaoirleach, to chair the meeting in the meantime.
Are the draft minutes of the meetings held on 15 and 22 February 2024, which were circulated and already approved in private session, agreed? Agreed. Is the draft work programme, which was circulated and already approved in private session, agreed? Agreed.
Both the previous committee and the current one have undertaken considerable work in the area of Traveller accommodation policy. I welcome back our witnesses from the Free Legal Advice Centres, FLAC: Ms Sinéad Lucey, managing solicitor, and Mr. Christopher Bowes BL, legal officer. I understand they were before the previous committee on 22 July 2021. I also welcome our witnesses from Community Law and Mediation: Ms Mary Heavey, housing solicitor, and Ms Jane O'Sullivan, managing solicitor. Both organisations work closely with Traveller communities, where there is a large amount of unmet need for legal services. We are grateful to both groups for agreeing to appear before the committee today and sharing their expertise in the area of Traveller accommodation policy and law, as it is and as it should be.
I now call Ms Sinéad Lucey to make her opening statement on behalf of FLAC.
Free Legal Advice Centres, FLAC, is grateful for this opportunity to appear before the Joint Committee on Key Issues Affecting the Traveller Community. Our evidence and our written submission, which have been circulated to members, focus on access to justice, human rights and equality for Travellers in the context of housing and Traveller accommodation. Since 2017, FLAC has provided targeted and specialised legal services for members of the Traveller community. In early 2020, FLAC, with the national Traveller organisations, established a dedicated a Traveller legal service, supported by Community Foundation Ireland.
In each year since 2017, access to accommodation has emerged as the single most prevalent issue among people seeking legal assistance from FLAC’s targeted legal services for Travellers. During its first two full calendar years in operation, the Traveller legal service dealt with more than 100 housing queries. FLAC frequently represents Traveller families in cases concerning access to social housing, Traveller-specific accommodation and emergency accommodation, as well as cases concerning the adequacy of each of these forms of accommodation, and cases where Travellers living on the roadside are subject to evictions. FLAC believes that rights-based reform of housing law is needed to address the current housing and homelessness crisis, which disproportionately impacts members of the Traveller community. Beyond the introduction of a constitutional right to adequate housing, legislative reform is required to ensure housing rights are comprehensive, clear and enforceable.
When we last appeared before the joint committee in 2021, as has already been mentioned, FLAC proposed a number of reforms to housing and equality law which we view as necessary to vindicate and give effect to the accommodation rights of Travellers. We were pleased to see several of those recommendations reflected in the committee's ultimate report. However, it is disappointing there has been no meaningful legal changes in the areas of Traveller accommodation or equality law during the intervening period. This is despite the introduction of the Housing for All plan, the establishment of the Housing Commission, a Government commitment to a referendum on housing, the initiation of a comprehensive review of the equality legislation, and the development of a landmark Planning and Development Bill which is still going through the Houses of the Oireachtas.
Similarly, a trend that runs through FLAC's current submission to the joint committee is the failure to implement the recommendations of the Traveller accommodation expert review, which was published five years ago, where those recommendations would require legislative reform. As a result, our current recommendations to the joint committee focus on steps we believe should be taken to expedite law reform in the areas of Traveller accommodation and equality law. We believe that the joint committee should engage with the programme board overseeing the implementation of the Traveller accommodation expert review and the Department of housing on a number issues, including reforms to the planning process for Traveller accommodation, including the creation of a bespoke process for the planning approval of such developments which permanently excludes them from the part 8 process; reviewing and amending eviction legislation in light of the McDonagh v. Clare County Council Supreme Court decision to ensure that, other than in the most exceptional of circumstances, a family home can never be interfered with in the absence of a merit-based determination involving a proportionality assessment by a court, accompanied with a requirement to offer alternative appropriate accommodation to homeless families; and the introduction of enforceable minimum standards for all forms for Traveller accommodation. The joint committee should also seek to ensure local connection tests are not applied by local authorities in considering requests for emergency accommodation and urge the Minister for housing to issue guidance on the proper exercise of discretion in applying such tests in the social housing context.
Similarly, guidance should be issued to local authorities and An Garda Síochána on the statutory vetting process of applicants for social housing. Ideally, the housing Acts should be amended to clarify the exact nature of the information which may be exchanged between local authorities and An Garda Síochána and the impact of previous convictions on present housing applications or allocations.
There are major weaknesses in Ireland’s equality legislation that limit its effectiveness in tackling discrimination and inequality in the context of social housing and Traveller accommodation. These include the fact that the prohibition of discrimination does not clearly apply to the general functions of the Department of housing, local authorities and An Garda Síochána, and an absence of an effective remedy for racial profiling and for discrimination that has a legislative basis. I refer to the criminal trespass legislation as an example. The joint committee should engage with the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth to ensure those issues are dealt with in the context of the current review of the equality Acts. That Department should also clarify the present status of the review and be asked to provide a specific timeline for its completion.
Measures to promote access to justice are vital to ensure housing and equality rights are effective and enforceable in practice. The establishment of the Legal Aid Board’s Minceir Traveller legal support service was a positive step towards achieving access to justice for Travellers. However, that service employs only one full-time solicitor who has a national remit. Unfortunately, this is nowhere near the level of resources necessary to tackle the huge amount of unmet legal need among the Traveller community. This should be a matter of concern for the joint committee, and we believe it should engage with the Legal Aid Board about the resourcing of its Traveller service.
My colleague Mr. Christopher Bowes and I are happy to address any questions that members of the committee may have. I thank the committee for its attention.
I thank Ms Lucey for her submission. I welcome our witnesses from the Community Law and Mediation. Both organisations work closely with community services. I ask the witnesses from the Community Law and Mediation to make their submission.
We are delighted to be here today alongside our friends in FLAC. I thank the committee for the opportunity to speak. I am the housing solicitor at Community Law and Mediation, and I am joined by my colleague Ms Jane O’Sullivan, who is the managing solicitor and who specialises in equality and employment law.
Community Law and Mediation, CLM, is an independent community law centre and charity working since 1975 with communities impacted by disadvantage and inequality. We provide free legal, mediation and education services and work in partnership with other organisations to provide targeted outreach services. We operates out of two locations: Coolock in Dublin and Limerick, but our services are available nationwide.
In our work as an independent law centre, we see a huge unmet legal need for advice and representation for members of the Traveller community, particularly in the area of accommodation. Last year we established a dedicated free legal advice clinic for members of the Traveller community who are experiencing accommodation problems. The objective of this legal advice clinic is to promote advice, advocacy and representation of people experiencing social housing issues, homelessness or risk of homelessness within the Traveller community. More broadly, this legal advice clinic aims to affect greater and more meaningful access to justice for Travellers around accommodation issues and to attempt to reduce impediments to that access. We also work with and assist Travellers in a broad range of areas where they are disproportionately affected, including access to education and services and employment.
We thought it would be useful to briefly outline some of the issues that have presented to our services lately, particularly as they reflect so much of what was highlighted in the final report of the joint committee. Many of those issues also feature in the Traveller Accommodation Expert Review, published in July 2019, which reviewed the effectiveness of the Housing Traveller Accommodation Act 1998 and other legislation regarding the provision and delivery of Traveller accommodation. We will then set out key barriers and opportunities for change in the legal and policy landscape.
Looking to the key issues presenting to our outreach legal advice clinic, the first is the failure of local authorities to provide access to emergency accommodation. This has left clients sleeping in cars, in tents or in dangerously overcrowded or grossly unsuitable living conditions. Second, we see the failure of local authorities to provide Traveller-specific accommodation and inadequate standards of Traveller-specific accommodation. Many of our clients have been on housing lists for many years and in the interim they are living in inadequate and substandard accommodation, sometimes without running water, heating and with poor sanitation. Finally, we see a lack of transparency and consistency in decision making of local authorities. For example, some local authorities incorrectly apply social housing support eligibility criteria to accessing emergency accommodation. Another consistent theme in our work is the lack of fair procedures in how certain local authorities carry out Garda vetting of social housing applicants. Discrimination under section 19 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act and issues relating to education have also presented to our clinics. We have provided detailed case studies of these issues in the note appended to our opening statement and I invite members to take a look at those later.
Turning now to the legal and policy landscape, first, we will briefly talk about access to justice. The above described issues are often of an acute, complex and very urgent nature and generally require access to expert legal assistance. While the right of access to justice is accepted as a constitutional principle and a right under European convention on human rights, the reality is that the current legal and policy landscape in Ireland makes it very challenging for people to realise these rights. Without effective access to justice, people are unable to have their voices heard, exercise their rights, challenge discrimination or hold decision-makers accountable. This is particularly true for marginalised groups or at a vulnerable time in a person's life, such as in a housing crisis. As noted by the UN special rapporteur on adequate housing, "access to justice for the right to housing is inseparable from the right itself."
The severely outdated civil legal aid scheme is currently under review by the Department of Justice. A year on we are still awaiting its report. In our submission as part of the review, we highlighted the barriers that prevent marginalised groups, including Travellers, from accessing justice and we advocated for an expanded system of legal aid. For example, under the current civil legal aid scheme, it is very difficult to access legal aid in housing and homeless cases. Legal aid is generally unavailable in housing disputes, subject to a limited exception. In our experience, there is a fundamental lack of clarity as to the availability of civil legal aid in housing law matters, such as access to social housing supports or emergency accommodation. This has resulted in a huge unmet legal need in the area of housing, which is felt most acutely by vulnerable and socially excluded communities in Ireland.
Travellers are disproportionately impacted by the absence of legal aid in disputes concerning land. They can find themselves involved in complex legal proceedings against well-funded, legally represented opponents, without any legal assistance. While we welcome the introduction by the Legal Aid Board of the Traveller Legal Support Service, its scope is unfortunately limited by the current restrictions of the civil legal aid scheme. With a general election approaching, we are particularly concerned that if reform of the scheme is not prioritised as a matter of urgency, it will once again fall through the cracks and public money will continue to fund a wholly inadequate system.
On a separate note, in relation to the review of the equality legislation, as members will be aware, membership of the Traveller community is a protected ground under the Employment Equality and Equal Status Acts. However, significant reform is required to improve the effectiveness of the Acts in combatting discrimination. The Acts are currently being reviewed and we have made a series of recommendations focusing on access to justice and on the return of section 19 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act to the remit of the Workplace Relations Commission. We also recommend that the Equal Status Act be amended to remove the effective exemption from the Equal Status Act for public bodies administering legislation in key areas such as housing. This can ultimately limit the recourse of claimants who have been discriminated against in accessing accommodation from local authorities, for example. We understand that a Bill to reform the Acts, the equality (amendment) Bill, will be published during this legislative term.
Second, we will briefly discuss the trailer loan scheme. In 2020, funded by the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, we published research into the legal implications and lived experiences of the caravan loan scheme. Our report examined the Traveller accommodation experience through the lens of the trailer loan scheme and was based on consultations with relevant Traveller organisations and focus groups, as well as with primary healthcare providers for the Traveller community. A number of specific issues are identified in our report, including first that the loan amounts were not sufficient to cover the cost of a quality caravan that provides for a warm, safe and secure home and are more often holiday or starter trailers, meant for temporary and not long-term use. Second, substandard trailers lead to increased utility costs, with poorly maintained trailers being significantly less energy efficient and using a substantial amount of resources such as water, fuel and electricity. Third, there was a lack of awareness among Travellers of the existence of the scheme, caused by its sporadic and inconsistent implementation across local authorities. We understand that since the publication of our report, a preferential and affordable trailer loan scheme was extended across all local authorities with a view to introducing a national scheme.
Finally, I will go through our recommendations. As a general comment, we endorse the recommendations of the expert review group and the joint Oireachtas committee and believe that they should be implemented in full. We also make the following specific recommendations: we recommend that the report on the review of the civil legal aid scheme is published as a matter of urgency and that the civil legal aid scheme be expanded to include all areas of law which are currently excluded, such as including housing-related matters and employment and equality matters. We recommend also that the scheme be restructured in line with the community law centre model to include a public legal education and law reform function. In parallel with this, we recommend that the review of the equality legislation address the barriers that prevent Travellers from challenging discrimination and that the equality (amendment) Bill is published as a matter of urgency. We recommend that a referendum on housing be held to insert a right to adequate housing into the Constitution and that the upcoming review of the pilot trailer loan scheme include a robust and effective consultation with the Traveller community and that it incorporates the numerous recommendations included in our report. Finally, we recommend that public sector duty training, and a cultural awareness workshop be put in place for local authorities and other stakeholders to educate officials on their obligations under the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission Act 2014, and on Traveller ethnicity and culture.
I would like to conclude with a quote from one of our clients, Maria. That is not her real name but she was referred to our Traveller accommodation outreach clinic by a local Traveller group. Maria and her husband had been sleeping in their car for a number of months, after encountering significant difficulties in getting assessed as homeless by a local authority.
After CLM’s legal intervention, they were eventually provided with emergency accommodation. Maria said the following:
I felt like I was stuck in the middle, until I got the advice that I needed ... It felt like a dark and miserable road that was never going to end – and then the sun came out ... Throughout the process, I learned to not hold back, and to speak up for my rights ... A lot has changed since then: I have a roof over my head, and I can come and go as I please. I feel like I can be my own person.
I thank the witnesses for coming in. I read the submissions and listened to the opening statements. There is frustration on their side and on our side regarding the people who are stuck in the middle, the Travelling community, and also the local authorities. Ms Heavey stated that the local authorities may ignore their legal obligations. However, if they are not given the resources, it seems to be very difficult. She recommended that the civil legal aid scheme be expanded to include all areas of law, which raised a red flag for me. What parts are not included?
I will give an example of that. In one case the local authority in my area provided housing - we will call it adequate housing - but the family has a number of children with autism and the house is not suitable. It is a two-storey house. The local authority cannot provide alternative accommodation. However, when the mother asked for safety locks on the windows upstairs, it said it could not do that because of health and safety requirements - if there was a fire, they would not be able to get out. However, one of the children nearly jumped off the top of the house.
Are either CLM or FLAC able to deal with cases like that which come into our offices? It is not about hitting the local authorities with a stick and pointing out they are not doing what they are supposed to be doing. However, if they are not covered or are not given the resources by Government, how are they supposed to do their job? Are the witnesses encountering those barriers? The people coming to our offices are encountering more extensive barriers because some of them are not even aware that CLM and FLAC exist. I commend the witnesses on the work they have been doing. It is a breath of fresh air because it is another angle that we can now pursue. I will actually be on to them all the time with specific cases.
Ms Heavey also spoke about public sector training. I am very interested in that. She referred to cultural awareness training facilitated by the Traveller Equality and Justice Project at University College Cork. What they do there is absolutely amazing. I was lucky to attend night classes there for two years. It took me two years to learn one line, the last line that always stuck in my head.
I would be concerned about the referendum on housing. Ms Heavey spoke about inserting a right to adequate housing into the Constitution. While of course we are in favour of it, how can we actually resource the local authorities to provide the adequate accommodation?
The committee has discussed the caravan loan scheme extensively. We know that they are not cheap. We spoke about modular homes as alternatives. Does CLM have the authority to work with a family and approach a local authority outlining the specific needs of the family. They may not want to be in a trailer home, but would prefer an alternative to be on site in a modular home. Can CLM go in and mediate with local authority for stuff like that?
I can first respond to the questions the Deputy raised on the public sector duty training and the adequate housing, and then I can talk about the trailer loan scheme. The cultural awareness training that we did with the Traveller Equality and Justice Project was fantastic. Our legal team participated in it. It really informs my work on a day-to-day basis. The training was delivered by Travellers and through the Traveller Equality and Justice Project, we would be advocating for that type of training to be provided across all local authorities. It should be included in the same way that other diversity and inclusion training is provided in the workplace. We would be big advocates for cultural awareness training.
The Deputy's second question was about a referendum on adequate housing. We chose the term "adequate housing" because that has already been defined by the UN. The UN has said that a number of conditions need to be met in order for housing to be deemed adequate and that includes that the housing must be affordable, accessible, habitable and culturally appropriate. We chose that specific wording deliberately. What a constitutional right to housing would actually require the State to do would ultimately depend on the wording put forward. As we noted in our submission, we are still waiting for the housing commission to publish its report on those recommended wordings.
Given how constitutional rights work or the way in which we are advocating for them, it would be a socioeconomic right which means that it would be limited by the State's resources in how it would go about fulfilling that. A right to housing could provide a constitutional basis and a constitutional responsibility for the State in adopting progressive housing policies to ensure that the right of people to adequate housing is met. It would not necessarily require the State to go out and build everyone homes; that is not what a right to adequate housing is about. It would potentially require the State to take the necessary measures, be it through legislative reform or policy reform, to ensure that the right to adequate housing for individuals is met.
I will make a couple of comments about the trailer loan scheme from our experience in our legal advice clinics. Very few of the clients who come into our clinics are actually aware of the existence of the trailer loan scheme. I believe that has been caused by its sporadic and inconsistent application across local authorities. Just yesterday, I had a quick look online to see what information the local authorities were advertising about the trailer loan scheme they were offering. I could hardly find any information. The first barrier is that many of the clients who come into us do not even know that scheme exists.
Regarding CLM's role in any mediation, we provide free legal advice, advocacy and representation to people. If there is a legal issue in play, we would be able to provide that legal assistance and support. My colleagues may have something else to add.
The issue of resources is interesting. Very few of the cases we deal with come down to an issue of resourcing. They often come down to an issue of attitude and perspective. Ms Heavey gave an example of a family sleeping in a car. It was a legal intervention that caused the shift. We dealt with a similar case where we had to go to the High Court last year. A family of six were sleeping in a car. The matter had to be brought to court before suddenly a house was procured. It often is not a question of resources.
Regarding a constitutional referendum, maybe this is not the year to be bringing it up, but the point about it is that it would put the focus on central government to look at the resourcing and set the resourcing at the appropriate level rather than the local authority having to allocate its resourcing if it is overstretched or whatever. It goes back to central government to decide what is adequate.
The Deputy has pointed out the complexity of issues that come up. It can often be very difficult to deal with standards in Traveller-specific accommodation because there simply are no standards in place. That is a huge legislative gap. There are quite elaborate standards for private housing and private landlords need to comply with those. There are certain standards for standard social housing. There are no standards for Traveller accommodation, and that is a significant gap.
Many Travellers living on halting sites simply have no recourse to the law because there is no standard they can enforce, unless it can be proved that there has been some kind of breach of constitutional rights, etc., but that is setting the bar at a very high level. It is not useful to local authorities to not know the standards. If they knew what the standards were, at least they could see whether they are on the right side or the wrong side of this, and then they could remedy it. However, they do not know and again they are grappling for resources.
As a final point, it has recently been reported there has been a full drawdown of the funding allocated for Traveller accommodation by the Department of housing and it is good to hear local authorities are drawing down that funding. There is a huge amount of opacity with that. We do not know how many new units of accommodation are being delivered and what that funding is going to. Is it building units of accommodation or going into estate management, or where is it going? That needs to be broken down so we are very clear where that spending goes and we can ascertain whether the public are getting value for money and whether Travellers are getting value for money out of that allocation of funding.
I thank the Vice Chair. I will come back in during the next round.
I thank the witnesses for their presentations. Unfortunately, I had two other meetings this morning and I apologise for being late. I am a former member of Cork City Council, which was very go-ahead in relation to Traveller accommodation. I think we had, and still have, five different sites when an awful lot of other local authorities had nothing at all. One of the problems that has arisen with Traveller accommodation is where a site is designated for, say, 15 residential units and then suddenly that increases dramatically. The local authority is then being reprimanded when in fact it is very difficult to control additional units going in there. How would the witnesses advise a local authority to deal with that issue?
The second issue is about legal aid. I am aware of a situation where people have acquired properties and then totally breached planning and in this case a number of court orders have issued regarding breaches of planning and extensions being added to houses without planning in total breach of every rule. Is Ms Lucey suggesting people would also be entitled to free legal aid in a scenario like that where a local authority had to take action because there was a breach of planning? The court orders were there for over four or five years and it is getting very difficult to enforce them. What is Ms Lucey's view on that? Is she suggesting in the expansion of the legal aid scheme that someone should be entitled to get legal aid to defend a case where a local authority is taking an action due to a breach of planning?
I am happy to take the last point. In any case the legal aid board takes on, it must assess whether there is merit to the case. In that type of scenario where there is an alleged breach of planning-----
No, it is not alleged; it is a breach of planning.
Obviously, if it is a matter that is going to go to the court, it is for the court to determine whether it is a breach of planning. In any event, either somebody has a valid defence to that claim or they do not. If they have no defence, legal aid will neither be of assistance to them nor would it be a good expenditure of public money. Where we have seen planning legislation coming into play it has been used as well against what you would call roadside Travellers with no accommodation. That was the situation in the case I mentioned earlier, namely, Clare County Council v. McDonagh. While the legal process may be under the planning Acts, the real issue may be an absence of access to adequate accommodation. In those circumstances, there can be a good defence to planning enforcement and it would certainly be important for somebody have access to legal aid and be able to put up a robust defence to a planning enforcement. FLAC is currently dealing with very much that situation in the case of a family who have nowhere else to go, but there is a criminal prosecution being taken against them under the planning process. It just seems a very disproportionate measure in a context where a family is homeless and dependent on the local authority for their housing. That is on the planning point.
I raised another issue. Cork City Council has been very progressive with regard to making available accommodation - in fact, it has five different facilities - but a problem arises when we say that a facility is suitable for 15 different units but suddenly there are 30 or 40 different units in there. The local authority then finds it difficult to provide the infrastructure because the site was never suitable for that number of additional units.
That is a really important point, but it goes back to the issues that arise around the absence of an adequate supply of Traveller accommodation. Also, local authorities were previously required to plan around future family formations and have plans for the future, but that particular requirement was removed in legislation, so local authorities now focus on current need in the Traveller accommodation programmes without regard to future need.
It is very hard for a local authority to plan out the need if it has a certain number of families living in its jurisdiction and plans for that number, and then all of a sudden a whole lot of other people come in from outside the local authority area, which is what has occurred in the Cork case. They were not people who were residing within the local authority area prior to the facility being developed. As a result you may have 40 different residential units, where previously there were fewer because that is what the local authority had seen as the number of families who needed to be accommodated. It is very difficult in that situation for a local authority to then try to provide services in there because of the expansion that has occurred. The existing facilities are not able to cope with the demands that are on the services.
The question there is why those other families are coming into the area. Do they not have access to accommodation in their local authority area? There could be all sorts of reasons for that movement, but at a national level where there is not a sufficient supply of Traveller accommodation families will move to where they think they can get access to services, even if that may mean doubling up on a site and putting pressure on existing services. It has be looked at in an holistic way and at a national level. If there is a lack of supply in one area, people will move to another area where they can access those services. That is human nature.
Does Ms Lucey not think there is a need for a more co-ordinated approach involving all local authorities, rather than one taking it on?
Absolutely.
That is one of the problems that is there. In fairness, Cork City Council has been very progressive in its approach, but we have others where the same approach has not been taken.
I could not agree with the Deputy more. If there was more rigour with respect to the preparation, adequacy and subsequent implementation of Traveller accommodation programmes it would not be one local authority doing the heavy lifting but each local authority dealing with the situation in their functional area at the same level. I totally agree with the Deputy.
All right. I thank Ms Lucey very much.
Just on that, one of the recommendations of the expert group from 2019 was that a national Traveller accommodation authority be established. That has not happened yet, but that kind of body might provide that kind of national perspective.
The problem in Ireland is we have a whole lot of authorities. For instance, the HSE is paying out funding to 2,500 different organisations and every one of them is looking after its particular aspect of healthcare.
However, that does not necessarily mean it is an efficient way of dealing with it. What I am saying is, if you need an authority, would you be better off having local authorities working together rather than having a brand new authority which is then going to have to be dealing with the local authorities anyway?
The expert review group made that specific recommendation because it needs that national oversight. As Ms Lucey said, having that holistic national approach may be a way of dealing with the individualised approach of local authorities. That kind of framework could provide an oversight body to ensure sufficient Traveller accommodation is being delivered.
I thank Ms Heavey.
Did Deputy Buckley want to come back in?
Following up on the last Deputy's point, I know the place he is talking about in the city.
I am just throwing this out regarding local authorities and the county council. When I was on Cork County Council, we had a Traveller's consultative committee and it was absolutely excellent. Members of the Travelling community ran that committee. We were the ears while they were the mouths. It seemed to work and was very progressive. I always felt in that committee that the local authority was the one that seemed to be restrained by what it could provide. Some of the Traveller families wanted to be on a site but also needed land for the horses and so on. Cork County Council progressed that project a number of years ago and fair play to it. I listened to what the Deputy said as well. I can understand the local connection to an area but it is human nature to shop around. Why go into one shop and get five things when you can go into the next shop and get ten of the same things for €1? People will go to that one. Without setting up another entity, as referenced by the last speaker, is there a way, even as committee members, for us to do something that could force - though "force" is the wrong word - or put forward some kind of a legislative measure or a rule book for local authorities? Cork, Limerick and Clare all have the same rules but if you have a local connection to a particularly area, the first thing to be said to those families is that they will not be going out to Cork from Clare or whatever. However, would that be a discriminatory thing that they are being stopped from free movement and so on, and then you are caught between a rock and a hard place again?
I will go back to the original question when we were discussing the caravan loan scheme that people did not know about. That seems to be a massive issue in this country. No matter what the subject is, whether mental health or disabilities, the signposting is practically nil. When you do not know where to go, how do you access something to assist you? When we are talking about getting value for money while spending public money, would it be more productive to possibly go back to the start? The chair may not like this but would it be better if we went back to the start and to brass tacks? First, training needs to go into all local authorities. The Travelling community also has to be involved with a rule book that states what the rules are. There has to be to and fro on this because - I am very frank on this - you will get troublesome families and attitudes from certain local authorities where some are more progressive and others do not want to deal with it at all. Some local authorities have the attitude that it is not their problem and they push it on. How do you find a balance in that through a legislative measure to say that from here on in these are the rules which both sides have to respect? Then if both sides play the game, whatever kind of accommodation programmes will be facilitated. At the moment, it all seems to be given free rein which is very frustrating for the Travelling families but also for the local authorities. Nobody has set out a basic set of rules to say things cannot be done. I understand where the witnesses are coming from regarding the discrimination within law but there also has to be rules like in any civilisation. There are rules there and they are there for a reason. I will go back and ask a simple question. Would it be better to start at the beginning and give, say, Cork County Council, given that I was on it, a new rule book through the Traveller's committee, the housing Department with the assistance of the community law mediation companies, FLAC and the whole lot? This would be the new rule book and we could start on that basis. Would that be a better plan? We seem to be going around in circles all the time. That has to frustrate everyone. It frustrates us. Can we not start again and say from here on in these are the rules and the parameters within which we work? If people do not like it in one place, they can go to the next place but by the way those rules will be the exact same there. It harmonises the problem if that is the way I can look at it. That may still be a better way than what we have now because at the moment, it just goes left, right and centre and it is not working. It really frustrates me on a personal basis. The Traveller families are trying to get the best they can get which is totally understandable. The local authorities are trying to provide, within their remit, the best they can provide. However, nobody seems to be able to go above and beyond and as we said, many of these have to be done case by case, based on their needs. As I said, would we be better to start again with a new rule book and say, "Right lads, from here on in, this is it"? Then you can make a case. Each local authority could then make a case. As we were on about it, nearly €20 million was allocated to Spring Lane. It started as 15-unit site. Now, there could be up to four units. That blows everything out of the water when it comes to planning, Part 8 and it could take another ten years. Where does that money go? Does it sit in the bank? Does it go back to the Exchequer? Members can understand how it is frustrating me, so I can imagine how people out there who need this accommodation feel. The local authorities are bursting to provide it but because there is no legal rule book there, it frustrates the whole system. I am with the Deputy when he referred to the local connection to the area but you cannot use that because it would discriminate against those Traveller families. I will stop here because I could be going around and around in circles.
The thing about the source of frustration, which the Deputy identifies, really comes down to the lack of focus on legal reforms and the introduction of new legislation. There has been the report of the expert review and the report of the previous iteration of this committee, and as Ms Lucey identified in her opening statement, we have not seen the recommendations in those reports advanced when they required new legislation to be introduced. Those reforms called for, particularly in the expert review, are looking for an overhaul of the existing legislation in all elements insofar as it relates to Traveller accommodation, starting with supply and going all the way down through delivery, management and maintenance of sites. That is the new rule book referenced by the Deputy. The key focus now needs to be on that. Perhaps the focus of this committee should be on that agenda for legislative reform, giving a push behind and getting those measures through.
Resourcing local authorities to provide Traveller accommodation was mentioned in the initial comments. Ms Lucey discussed the issue of financial resources but what is also key is a statutory framework which allows them to deliver Traveller accommodation and carry out their housing functions insofar as they relate to the Travelling community. That is crucial as well when we are discussing a right to housing or adequate housing. It is ultimately through legislation - like any social right - that this right will be delivered and where people's rights will actually be vindicated. Before we talk about a referendum on a right to housing, we also need to have the discussion on what a rights-based legal, statutory framework look like to vindicate people's housing rights, and as we are discussing here, the Traveller community's housing rights. The Deputy specifically mentioned the point on the local connection test and normal residency requirements. The key point there is that the law is in place regarding local connection tests and it applies. The issue we have identified in this and in previous submissions is that the exercise of discretion as to when the local connection test is applied to someone who is looking for social housing supports. Since our last appearance before the committee, where we called for guidance on that exercise of discretion, this area of law has gotten more and more confused. Now there is guidance from the County and City Management Association which seems to imply that a local connection test can be applied in the context of emergency accommodation.
Previously, the Minister was quite clear that no such requirement exists in law. His guidance to local authorities was that it should not be applied in the context of requests for emergency accommodation. However, there is now guidance from the CCMA which contradicts that. Therefore, on the local connection issue, we reiterate that there is an urgent need for guidance from the Minister. Under the Housing Acts, there are mechanisms through which the Minister can give statutory guidance to local authorities on the issue of normal residence and local connection requirements.
Another key issue that goes back to what we were talking about is co-ordination between local authorities. A key role for this committee could be to consider what a national co-ordinating body would look like. The committee recommended the introduction of such a body in its previous report. This was also recommended in the report of the expert review. Yesterday, Ms Lucey and I were reviewing the various national housing and planning bodies. There is work to be done to carve out what the role of a new body for Traveller accommodation would be, how it would interact with the other national bodies and how those bodies could co-ordinate on Traveller accommodation.
I now go to our Chair, Senator Flynn.
I apologise. I am late due to another commitment this morning. I met Ms Heavey and her team from Community Law and Mediation and people from FLAC a few weeks ago to discuss issues that have an impact on the Traveller community around accommodation and from a justice perspective. This committee is dealing with accommodation, health, including mental health, education and employment at the moment. However, a big issue on the ground is that of Travellers in the justice system. The representatives from FLAC and Community Law and Mediation are here to speak about accommodation and the issues Traveller have. However, I feel we have a justice system that is for the few rather than the many within Irish society. Many members of the Traveller community are in many cases very nervous and afraid of going to court for petty crimes, if you like. My definition of a petty crime would be breaking a red light or someone's motor tax being a few weeks past the renewal deadline. Ms Anne Costello of the Travellers in Prison Initiative did much work at national level gathering evidence of how Travellers are - I will not say ill-treated - but judged on the basis of being members of the Traveller community instead of being judged for crimes that were committed or actions that were taken. I wanted to say that for the record.
As I said yesterday at the disability committee, it is difficult for everyone to get accommodation now through the private rental system, but it is even more difficult for members of the Traveller community because of the level of racism and discrimination. They are judged straight away with the stereotypical ideas about Travellers not keeping houses clean. This also happens to migrants and refugees. That type of racism and discrimination exists. Do the witnesses deal with many members of the Traveller community who face discrimination when it comes to the private rental sector? What can we do to tackle that? In the same way a landlord cannot just kick people out - it happens, but there are rules and regulations that notice is needed for an eviction or tenants need to get a new house if they are required to move - we should have rules in place that landlords cannot discriminate against people because they have a disability, are a member of the Traveller community or are people of colour. I would like to hear the witnesses' opinion on what can be done.
How can we make housing around justice better? I see Travellers and settled people, people from the general population, on the ground who struggle. We have a housing crisis. Even in the context of this committee, someone would have to be a member of the Traveller community to really understand the level of discrimination, ill-treatment and hatred Travellers have to go through on a daily basis. That includes in respect of accommodation. I do not believe the services are available. I am delighted that FLAC and Community Law and Mediation are before the committee today, because we do not speak about the level of discrimination that Travellers face. I know this is not what the witnesses are here to speak about, but if Travellers are put out of a public house - they are called public houses because they are for the public, but they are not for Travellers - there is no support for them to take a discrimination case. We should be long past that.
I took numerous discrimination cases before I was a Senator and it is like pulling teeth because of the system. The case goes through the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, but Travellers are discriminated against. There are many avenues, but they do not deal with the situation of discrimination if you bring a case. In 2012, the pipes burst in our kitchen. My father was dying of cancer at the time. We needed services, so we had to go to the Traveller accommodation emergency line. I saw that as discrimination, that there was an emergency line just for Travellers to contact. I took a case to the WRC. It went on for four years. I decided not to take it any further because I did not have the money or the energy to do so. In 2018, I was refused access to a pub in Lucan. I brought that matter to court. Again, it was through the WRC. Gary Daly, who is a brilliant solicitor, took on the case without charge. He does a lot of work in the area of human rights and equality. The case went on for two years. I was six months pregnant with my first child, Billie, and the judge said to me that I did not look like a Traveller. As a result, he threw out the case. Again, I just gave up. What is the point? There is no safety net - there is no net at all, never mind a safety net - for Travellers to take cases against discrimination and racism. Without services like FLAC and Community Law and Mediation, genuinely Travellers would have nowhere to go.
I missed some of the opening statements unfortunately, but I will look back over them later. I am aware of the work FLAC and Community Law and Mediation do. What can we, as a committee, do collectively? What do the witnesses think is needed? I think we should give Travellers access to free legal aid to allow them to take discrimination cases. I do not know whether that is the answer. The opinions of the witnesses as professionals is very welcome on issues they see on the ground that they have not yet had the opportunity to speak about and that they would like to address at the committee.
I thank them for coming . I am sure we will cross paths as the committee evolves in the next few years because we will look at Travellers in the justice system.
I know that I go on about this but I am passionate about getting it out there that every single day, even as this committee is talking right now about the racism and discrimination that Travellers face, a Traveller woman in a shopping centre somewhere is stopped by security or followed just because she is a member of the Traveller community. I have been followed numerous times in shops. Now I have the tools to address it but for many members of the community that level of intimidation has a big impact on their self-esteem and well-being. When you walk into a shop you think you are going to be followed. You lose your train of thought and forget why you went into the shop. This has happened to me numerous times. Travellers should not have to feel like that going into a supermarket, a pub or whatever it may be. We need to move forward as a society and as professionals.
I would appreciate some feedback on those questions. For the committee, this is about the little wins and what we can do. In this place, we do not know from one minute to the next what is around the corner. It would be brilliant if, before this Dáil term ends, members could have recommendations from the witnesses to this committee, which we can then start to act on.
I thank Senator Flynn. I also thank the committee for inviting us. I am sure we will all have a lot to say on this issue. On the point about discrimination in the area of private rented accommodation, that is certainly something we have dealt with and on which we have advised and represented people, as have our colleagues in FLAC. I direct the committee to our report, which is linked to our submission to the review of the equality Acts. Members will be aware that under the equality Acts, people are able to take a case against a private landlord if they can establish that they have been discriminated against. There are an awful lot of barriers there, particularly when it comes to Travellers and migrants. These barriers are reflected in the annual reports of the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, which show that the number of cases taken by Traveller complainants is very low compared with the levels of discrimination that we all know Travellers face.
It is about education. Ms O'Sullivan is talking about the Equal Status Acts. There are 40,000 Travellers in Ireland. Activists are educated about the Equal Status Acts because we are in the sector and we know where to go. Many members of the Traveller community would not have the first knowledge about those Acts to enable them to decide to take a case. Many do not know about them. If, for example, my brother was refused somewhere, he would not know his rights.
That ties into what Ms Heavey said about there being no legal aid available to people in these cases. One of our recommendations around the expansion and reform of the civil legal aid scheme is that the Legal Aid Board would have an outreach function. There is no point in having all of these laws if nobody knows about them and people cannot access them.
One issue we see with the Equal Status Acts is that the deadlines are unmanageable for people. A notification must be submitted within a couple of months of an incident happening and then the time limit for lodging a complaint is six months from the time of the incident. That is a very short period. Another issue in these cases is that it is not the case that when the person arrives in the WRC the other side does not have legal representation. It is often the case that the complainant is trying to represent himself or herself but is sitting at a table opposite two barristers and two solicitors acting for the other side, whether a landlord, the State or whoever else it might be. It is very unequal in that regard. In these cases, people often have to make written submissions in advance. We see lots of barriers there. Reforms of the equality legislation are key here. I will pass over to one of my colleagues because we all have a lot to say on this issue.
I will contribute briefly and then hand over to FLAC. Senator Flynn said we are here today to talk about accommodation and not necessarily access to justice but that is what CLM is about. Fundamentally, it is about access to justice and that is at the core of the work we do and all our recommendations. Those barriers to accessing justice were identified in 1977 in the Pringle report, which found that they were felt most acutely by marginalised communities. The issues are not only costs but relate exactly to the points the Senator raised, namely, intimidation of the legal world, inaccessibility of legal services, fear of not being taken seriously and not knowing that the issue you have is actually a legal issue. This goes back to our calls for reform of the civil legal aid scheme. We believe the scheme should be completely overhauled and that a community law-based model should be adopted. As my colleague Ms O'Sullivan said, there should be an outreach role that involves going out into the community. There is an education role as well, where people learn about their rights. Information and knowledge are not only empowering. Early advice can often resolve a matter when people know their position and know what their legal rights and entitlements are. We will also be calling for the civil legal aid scheme to be reformed to have a law reform function. Those kinds of broad asks underpin the specific recommendations in our submission on the reform of the civil legal aid scheme. That is a key priority for us and we encourage members to look at our submission in greater detail.
For the record, the committee invited CLM and FLAC as part of the discussion on accommodation. That was my point.
We need at least 20 CLM and FLAC offices to deal with the demand. You have to live in the community to understand the number of cases that Travellers would have to take given that these incidents happen daily as a result of the level of racism and discrimination. Hatred has gone through the roof in this country and is worse than ever. I see myself as a public representative who happens to be a member of the Traveller community. People are in dire need of support in the justice system and with accommodation. As Ms Heavey said, this is all linked. In the context of services such as CLM and FLAC, what can the Government do?
I would say that we need 20 Senators from the Traveller community. Sometimes I play the roles of a Minister, a local councillor, a Deputy and a Senator because people are in dire need of basic services. It is heartbreaking that in 2024 we are speaking to two services that try their hardest, with very little financial support, to support the Traveller community around justice. I am sure the witnesses know that things are getting worse around discrimination and racism in this country, not just for Travellers but also for people from other ethnic minority groups. What can the Government do to support services like youth services to deliver on the ground and get information out to the community?
I largely endorse what our colleagues from CLM said. These comments are timely because reviews of the equality legislation and our civil legal aid system are taking place. There is no doubt that the reviews will be fine but unless the resources are put into our civil legal aid system, any other changes will be cosmetic and will not deliver results for people who really need the services to which they relate.
FLAC’s experience is in line with what the Senator pointed out. We get calls on a daily basis about Travellers being refused from pubs, hotels, shops and what have you. It is often in the context of an important family event and that is what is often so upsetting. It is a baptism, holy communion, wedding or, even worse, a funeral. Somebody dies and you have to ring 20 hotels before you can find a place that will accept your booking, and then, you might get a call to say they are suddenly double-booked. The experience is absolutely harrowing for people. All these significant life events are marred by discrimination against the Traveller community. We cannot touch a fraction of the calls we get. We try to advise people, but we cannot take on all those cases. Therefore, it does come back to access to legal. I am sure FLAC and CLM will take any additional resources the Government wants to give us, but that is not a structural answer. In addition, there is a need for local services. Why does somebody have to ring somebody in Dublin to take a case in Cork? That is why the initiative that was mentioned, namely the Traveller Equality and Justice Project in Cork, is so important. That received funding for a period from the EU, but that funding has ended. Funding could certainly be poured in at a local level in Cork. It is a brilliant initiative. It is grassroots and collaborative in nature. FLAC was delighted to partner with UCC on that project.
One point the Senator picked up on relates to the experience of judges in the District Court or whatever, where people are dealing with prosecutions. You might be dealing with a particular judge in respect of a prosecution and then be bringing your case against the relevant local licensed premises to the same judge. Judges are human. They have the same biases, and often harbour unconscious bias that the rest of us have. That is not properly addressed in their training. In the UK, the Equal Treatment Bench Book details how judges can deal with particular groups, whether it is people with disabilities, members of the Traveller community or whomever. There is clearly articulated guidance for judges. Even being conscious of having it stated means it is brought into the reality of the courts. A judge can say, “All right. I have to think a little bit about bias here in how I am approaching this particular community.” They have to understand cultural issues and so on. We do not have that in Ireland, and it is a massive gap.
Training judges is a brilliant recommendation. In the past two years, the Minister, Deputy McEntee, has appointed more women judges. It is important to know that members of the Traveller community can go on and be judges too. It is also important to create that opportunity for members of our community.
We could go from here until Christmas talking about experiences. For example, a young man came to me four years ago and said that he had to go to court. I remember he was nervous because he was a member of the Traveller community. I will never forget what he said to me. I told him he would be fine because it was his first offence, and it was simple. No crime is simple. I am not saying that anyone should commit a crime – far from it. The majority of women in the Dóchas Centre are members of the Traveller community. The majority of prisoners in Castlerea Prison and Mountjoy Prison are members of the Traveller community. This young man said to me, “Do you know something, Eileen? I am guilty before I even walk into that courtroom.” It makes me emotional because I live, see and breathe it every day. That got me thinking about young men from the Traveller community. Getting into trouble or whatever can be seen in all walks of life. It may be because of economic disadvantages and trauma that some members of the Traveller community have to go through. Racism and discrimination are traumatic in themselves. All of these underlying issues have to be dealt with. We, as a committee, will absolutely take the recommendation of training judges on board and try to have it acted upon at national level. It is well needed.
No member of the Traveller community should have to feel that level of intimidation and feel patronised walking into a place. My mother used to talk about walking into places with your head up high. However, many members of the Traveller community and even myself - and I am a public representative - still get nervous going into a pub and into public places.
It is appalling that we do not have wraparound supports for Travellers. I again refer to the Dóchas Centre, where I have done some work. I am sure the witnesses know Anne Costello. It is in every country. Looking at Australia and New Zealand, it is the indigenous people who, for some reason or other, are overrepresented within prison systems. I am not taking away from the points relating to access to the system, but it is a discussion we need to keep having. We need to have the witnesses in and have actions and meaningful changes for the Traveller community when it comes to the justice system.
Deputy Ó Cuív has done some work with Travellers in prison. I am sure he would have probably more to say because of work he did, as Minister but also as a Deputy, whereas I was a community development worker.
I am passionate because I know settled people do not see this. Like judges, solicitors should also receive training. In many cases, society thinks it is part of Traveller culture to engage in domestic violence, commit crimes and be refused from places. However, these are all norms that society has never dealt with and where it has failed, and will continue to fail, members of the Traveller community. Imagine the impact it has on a person to feel guilty just walking a courtroom.
If I were going out in Donegal, at 34 years of age and as a public representative, I would walk into a place with my head down wondering whether I was going to be refused. Imagine how hard it is for ordinary Travellers in not being able to try to enjoy life like everybody else. That is the rejection we are subject to within society, and it is not being dealt with.
Does Ms Lucy have anything more to add?
I think CLM covered it in that the equality legislation, access to legal aid and training for judges and lawyers in these areas would all be huge steps forward.
To add to what Ms Lucy mentioned about a bench book, that is a measure to mainstream equality and human rights in the system. Rather than having a system where people have to challenge discrimination or take cases in order to vindicate their rights, it is about trying to put in place these systems where their rights are vindicated in the first place and they do not have to vindicate them. In addition to all the important points around amending the equality law and legal aid, and because of the reviews going on in those areas, there is an opportunity for the committee to make those important recommendations.
Recommendations on mainstreaming human rights and equality are also significant. Our submission has a section on improving the public sector human rights and equality duty so that there can be specific duties on local authorities. We talked earlier about training members of local authorities so there are ways whereby the requirements for training and the requirement to take the needs of specific communities into account can be mainstreamed into decision-making and planning through the equality legislation. It is that side of things, such as promoting equality on an active basis, rather than-----
That is fine to a certain extent. We can do training for judges because that has not been done before. I am gone past the point of training teachers or training people to deal with other human beings. As Deputy Ó Cuív has said here numerous times, pilot programmes and training can be a pure waste of time. We are kicking the can down the road. We are not doing the implementation we are supposed to do and the Government is not doing its job. I am not taking away from anything. I agree with training for judges because we have never done that, but when it comes to local authorities, Travellers do vote and they are part of electing county councillors. It can mean letting them off scot-free. Even when we deliver programmes on Traveller culture in school, we never deliver what Traveller culture is. We talk about the issues. The whole thing of Traveller training is someone like me going in and saying, “Traveller women die 12 years earlier.” That is nothing to do with Traveller culture. It is meeting the community where it is at and meeting an individual where they are at, but when it comes to training and pilots, we as a committee are past that. I support training for the judges, but again, when they do the training, it is not really Traveller culture they are educated on but rather issues that impact on the Traveller community.
The hope with the public sector duty is that it would go beyond a pilot and that there would be a legal requirement to consider the needs of protected groups when making plans for how resources are spent. The hope is that it will go beyond simply training. The criticism of things like the public sector duty is that they do not have teeth and can be a tick-box exercise.
Yes.
The hope is that it can be enhanced and can have a legal obligation on decision-makers and public bodies to take the needs into account when they are carrying out their functions.
I thank CLM and FLAC for coming in today. I think justice is a critical part of equality for Travellers. Whether it is top down, bottom up or however you might like to describe it, we have to deal with the over-representation of Travellers in our prison system and the level of homelessness in the Traveller community. Even last year, Travellers did not have access to the €300 everyone else had access to. This is by the Government and I know there are Deputies from Government parties here. We had Traveller primary healthcare workers who worked during the pandemic. They worked on halting sites and worked with our community. Every other healthcare worker received that €1,000. That is money which they were entitled to. I would never say they should not. It is the same with migrants and refugees, with the two-tier system of Ukrainian refugees and refugees of colour, people who are black and brown, where we pay some refugees €21 and others €200. I am not saying those who receive €200 should have that taken from them and that they be given €20. My belief is we need to bring provision up. Equal it up rather than bringing it down. It is like that for the Traveller community and you can see it through every single system. Travellers have organisations over the past 40 years, like Pavee Point and the Irish Traveller Movement, which also has a legal part. David Joyce is a qualified barrister, and while I cannot speak on his behalf or anything, Travellers are good enough to have those roles so we create those spaces for members of the Traveller community to be judges, solicitors and be successful. Even in prisons, it would be for Travellers to be prison officers and for Travellers to be members of the Garda. We do not always have to be the ones who are in the prisons. The opportunities are just not there. My colleague Senator Ruane is doing a lot of work in the area of legalising drugs, for instance, cannabis, for personal use. Where a settled person might get a warning if they had something in their pocket, a member of the Traveller community does not get the warning. It is a tougher prosecution for a member of the Traveller community. All that information is there. Anne Costello has done so much work at national and international levels on how Travellers are over-represented in the prison system.
I thank FLAC and CLM. It was brilliant that Seán reached out to me a few months ago. It opened up such a can of worms, but in a positive way. We need to deal with this. We need to deal with over-representation and how, in Ireland in 2024, Travellers face such discrimination and racism in this country. We are not looking to put down another group. It is not a race to the bottom. I am doing some work with the Irish Network Against Racism, INAR, today. People often say if you were gay or black you would get better treatment, but discrimination is discrimination. Racism is racism. Hatred is hatred. We need to protect all people. It is so dangerous now to be a person of colour, a member of the Traveller community or to have a disability. It is important to have this platform as a member of the Traveller community and to be able to tease out these issues. I would say to Ms Lucey and Ms Heavey that the most important thing is having these solutions brought to us and for people to know that FLAC and CLM exist. They may have very few workers and little funding support from the Government. There is also Chris McDonagh and the Traveller Mediation Service. That is another group the committee should bring in. Chris does absolutely brilliant work with members of the Traveller community on the ground in the area of mediation.
Again, I thank everyone so much. We look forward to working with them in the future. Most important, we look forward to the implementation of the recommendations. We cannot implement them, however, because, as a committee, we have little or no power. We do not have a shilling to our name beyond getting a lunch if we bring in a group. We have very little power. All we can do, and that includes the Government TDs who are here, is keep up the pressure and hold the Government to account. That accountability is for racism and discrimination that is considered acceptable in our country now.
I thank the witnesses. The meeting has been extremely beneficial and is a breath of fresh air. I have so many notes written down and I have plenty of work to do. The one point that sticks out to me, which would be easy to address, relates to the equal treatment bench book, and I will definitely look into that. We have a superb library and research service in the House, which people do not use enough, and if we mention something like that to the staff, they will whip it out. It might be a matter of copying and pasting but they can change that into procedure we could introduce through legislation. We did something similar with sepsis and the New York law. Obviously, the US's laws are very different, so that was a bit complicated but we worked on a policy document to try to normalise it. That will, I hope, become a standardised rulebook, such as we spoke about earlier, that will help people. I thank our guests very much. The meeting has been amazing.
I have a few questions. Recourse to the courts should be a last resort, and in an ideal world, nobody would have to have recourse to the courts because the services would be provided. In the case of discrimination by private entities, there is little that can be done except through the courts. If the law were adequate, would we be able to resolve a lot of discrimination or the lack of performance by local authorities or other State agencies through having more enforceable law and a faster, more efficient Ombudsman service? In other words, lawyers would not have to take the case and get involved in litigation and somebody such as the Ombudsman could look at the case and say it is clearly outside what is permitted. I have used the Ombudsman previously in respect of caravan loans and so on. Unfortunately, however, the law could be a lot stronger. I am interested in hearing whether there are quicker ways of ensuring justice. The main focus of this meeting was accommodation, which, in a large number of cases, is provided by the local authorities. Should there be a quicker and less personal way to access the law and make sure it stands by people?
The second obvious issue is that we should recommend that the legal aid board of the Traveller legal support service be funded and resourced. I think we would all be on board with that.
We have had a lot of discussion about the caravan loan scheme and it is a bit scary that we all agree. There should be full funding of the scheme and it should be on a positive basis, that is, we should identify the full need and fund it now. It should be new caravans only and they should be of high quality and for permanent living. The loan sum should involve standard repayment and so on. I think we are there, but we need to get the Government to introduce a scheme such as that and just do it. It should not take long. It is within the competence of the Government.
The witnesses talked about the planning process and I think we all agree that, unfortunately, Part 8 is not working. I say "unfortunately" because I am always reluctant to take powers away from the elected representatives of the people but it is not working and, as a public representative, I would be the first to accept that. What legal process would replace it? Is it one that would go straight to An Bord Pleanála or what kind of process are we talking about? It is important the public have their say, but the law has to clearly state that Travellers have to get suitable accommodation and that that cannot be in question. In general, people should have their say, and I doubt whether a system that did not allow for some type of representation would stand.
On the constitutional right to housing, I often worry these issues can confine more than they achieve, because it is short of resources. I would like to see the wording but I think it would be difficult for it to be strong enough while, on the other hand, being able to withstand a downturn in the economy. I am talking about a general right to housing for every citizen. I think it would be tricky to right that into the Constitution, so I would be interested to see the wording. In the meantime, something else could be really effective. I am always looking for things that give you a fast bang for your buck. We have all these committees and we have set up the Traveller accommodation programme, TAP, but then the targets are missed, everyone shrugs their shoulders and there are a million excuses. We need to have some sanctions if the legal obligation to produce and deliver on the TAP is not adhered to. The great advantage is that the individual would not have to take the case but rather the system could do so on behalf of all the individuals.
I recall that Irish language speakers, of whom I am one, were routinely discriminated against, even though Irish is officially the first official language of the State and has huge constitutional status, which just shows that does not give you everything. That is why we set up the Irish language commissioner, such that if a clear provision is broken, all you have to do is contact the commissioner and sit back. It was to take away the necessity to go to court. Most of us, even those with access to reasonable resources and so on, would always put a court case as the last course of action, especially if it is going to take two or three years and so on to achieve a result. Therefore, the first port of call is to try to eliminate the organisations’ backlog by doing what should be done, namely, providing suitable accommodation. The witnesses spoke about standards of accommodation, and I take it that is for Traveller-specific accommodation because normal accommodation has standards in any event, so that must relate to caravans. We would have to be careful, however, that we did not say caravans or trailers, which I think is the correct term, were themselves inadequate if they reflect the preference of the Traveller community. We would have to have standards that would encompass the wishes of the Traveller community as to what standards they would like to see in that regard.
On the local connection issue, is that legal under European law regarding the right to move and live anywhere you want? This goes as much for the settled community as it does for the Traveller community. We hear all the time that people move from County Mayo to County Galway or even from Galway city to Galway county, and we have to deal with two local authorities and so on. Is this in line with the right to settle anywhere in the European Union? This affects Travellers, in particular, because they tend to be mobile.
I think I have probably asked enough questions. If I think of any more, I will come back in.
I might take a couple of those. On the first point, regarding whether there is a way of resolving matters that is quicker and more efficient than having to go to the courts to vindicate your rights, a key part is the role of education. If individuals know their rights, and equally if local authorities know their statutory obligations and apply them in a consistent and fair manner, that could do an awful lot to limit the number of disputes that might arise and to protect people's rights. There is a core aspect relating to education.
We believe the civil legal aid scheme should include that remit.
Turning to the point about the trailer loan scheme, I do not think there needs to be legislative reform in order to introduce a scheme. A couple of points arise from our report. The first point, to which reference was made, is that there has to be engagement with the Traveller community. They have to be involved in consultations about the roll-out of any standardised scheme and there needs to be a consistent and standardised approach across local authorities in how such a scheme is implemented. That is a core piece of the roll-out of any successful scheme.
One of the recommendations in our report relates to the potential introduction of a rental scheme. Our colleagues in National Traveller MABS have also called for such a scheme. It may require legislative reform. There is a clear statutory basis in section 25 of the 1998 Act which allows local authorities to make provision for loans for the purchase of trailers but I am not clear whether there is a statutory basis for the introduction of a rental scheme. I am aware anecdotally that some local authorities are operating a rental scheme. If a rental scheme was to be introduced, it would be important for it to have a clear statutory basis. There would be a need for regulations governing the minimum standards of trailers in orders that tenants availing of the trailer loan scheme would have the same protections, such as security of tenure and protection from eviction, as other tenants of local authorities. Legislative reform is not required in order to roll out an enhanced trailer loan scheme but there does need to be substantive consultation with the Traveller community. If a rental scheme was to be introduced, there may be work to be done around legislative reform.
I will pick up on one or two points. With regard to the local connection, something that probably has not been articulated clearly enough this morning is that Travellers are defined as a nomadic people; they move and travel. Local connection tests inherently discriminate against Travellers on the basis of their nomadic identity. The system has to accommodate that aspect of their identity. If it does not do so, that would be saying that a core part of Traveller identity is invalid and cannot be accommodated within the housing legislation.
The trespass legislation in this country stops the Traveller community from being a nomadic people. Since 2017, Travellers have been recognised as an indigenous people of this country but we do not have the right to be able to travel. One of the recommendations from the committee is to repeal the trespass legislation. Legislation dating from 2002 that deals with trespass blocks Travellers from being travellers. When we are talking about Travellers on a European level, Travellers have more rights to be travellers outside Ireland than they do in Ireland. In Germany and France there are transient sites, such as campsites with really good facilities where Travellers can pull in. In this country, there is an attempt to turn Travellers into fake and settled people. There are so many obstacles in the context of the trespass legislation. When we are talking about Travellers having the freedom to travel, we should not forget about that legislation. It is pure State discrimination from the top down that impacts on Travellers. Obviously, the legislation does not state it will stop Travellers from travelling, but it was tailored and brought in to stop the Traveller community from being travellers.
The European Committee of Social Rights reported on Ireland's performance in the context of a case that was taken against Ireland in respect of evictions and Traveller accommodation. It found that, to this day, Ireland remains in breach of Article 16 of the revised European Social Charter. There is work to be done there and it would be worth the committee's while to consider that.
With regard to a referendum to amend the Constitution, it is very interesting and we could debate it all day. We talk about resources a lot but Ireland is a rich country. We have been living with a housing crisis for more than ten years, yet it goes on and on. Something radical has to be happen, whether that is a referendum or something else. The value of a referendum is that it is a choice by the people on what they want to see in the future and where they want to see resources going. We adopted a Constitution with a right to education and that has never caused us significant difficulty. There are issues around disability and so on but, as a fundamental right, we have never questioned it. Our children go to school and we never question that. Why would we question citizens having access to housing? It is something about which, fundamentally, the people should be asked. Obviously, everything will come down to the wording of any proposed amendment. The Housing Commission has been set up and has significant expert input. We await the wording that will emerge from the commission in due course. That may be a matter for the committee to consider. The wording has to be calibrated according to the particular society and political system and so on, but it is not impossible to enshrine socioeconomic rights in the Constitution. We already deal with them. How much longer do we want the housing crisis to go on? Do we want a strong statement from the people that enough is enough and housing is now a rights issue, rather than it being about whatever political Government is in place or choices between competing resources? It would a really interesting debate and I hope such a referendum would be successful. Ultimately, it would be up to the people to decide where their values lie and what they want the State and the Government to deliver for them in that field.
May I ask one further question? This may come back to bite me but I wish to address the issue of hate crime legislation. The witnesses are professionals who deal with discrimination every day. I am strongly in favour of hate crime legislation. I came into the Oireachtas with a vision of bringing in legislation that protects people who are part of minority groups. Do CLM and FLAC support hate crime legislation? Credit where credit is due, the Minister, Deputy McEntee, did a lot of great work in creating the Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill 2022, which addresses incitement to hatred and stirring up hatred. I am passionate about seeing that Bill across the line. People in the Houses of the Oireachtas are afraid to even talk about hate crime legislation because of the backlash from outside the Houses. I am passionate about getting this hate crime legislation enacted. It will not stop hatred or discrimination but it will offer a level of protection to people from our community and people with disabilities. I refer to the referendums held two weeks ago. If we really want to protect people with disabilities, we should enact this hate crime legislation. I do not wish to put words into people's mouth. I could be in big trouble for raising this issue. Are the witnesses in favour of the hate crime legislation as it stands?
Hate is a growing problem in our society and there has to be a legislative response to it. FLAC would be supportive of legislation in the area. One of the things we have said before, and this is probably the perspective of an organisation dealing with individual clients, is that victims of hate speech and hate crime should not be passive in the process, whatever remedies are in place, and they should own their own remedy. It is not just a criminal matter. There may also be a civil aspect to it linked to equality legislation, where a victim of hate speech or hate crime can seek a civil remedy as well, rather than just being dependent on the Garda Síochána, the DPP or whoever else to make a decision about whether they have been a victim and whether this will be prosecuted. It requires a legislative response.
We in CLM would endorse that as well. Going back to Ms Lucey's point on the referendum on housing, when we face the housing crisis and the upsurge in hate, it is essential for the Oireachtas to be a beacon, set out clearly that this is our position and give the people the opportunity to say clearly where they want to go and what kind of society they want to live in. A legislative basis for all that is essential.
If all members have asked their questions, we will adjourn. Beimid ag tógáil saoire na Cásca, we will be adjourning for Easter. I know members will be out canvassing but I hope everyone else will have a good rest over the Easter period. Most members will be busier than ever with the local and European elections coming up.
