I move amendment No. 15:

In page 21, between lines 42 and 43, to insert the following:

"(d) where, in the opinion of the Minister, a housing authority has fulfilled its obligations under section 16 of this Act and there are no vacancies in any site in its functional area nothing in this subsection shall prejudice the absolute power of that housing authority to serve notice on a person to remove the said temporary dwelling.'.".

Of the several amendments fairly comprehensively rejected on Committee Stage by the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, I chose to resubmit only this one on Report Stage. I did so because it is fundamental to the success of this Bill if it is to achieve its aim to take travellers off the roadside. This amendment fundamentally seeks to change the Bill because, as it stands, it is open-ended. It places a limitless responsibility on local authorities to provide for all travellers so that no matter how many sites any local authority has provided, it still has responsibility to provide accommodation for any and all travellers who may turn up unannounced even though they may already have been allocated a site elsewhere. To most rational people, it would appear that an obligation on local authorities to provide a halting site must be matched by a similar obligation on the part of travellers to use the halting sites which have been provided and at least not to vacate a site without first ensuring that there is a site available before they travel.

Unless the Minister introduces this requirement, we will continue to see the spectacle of illegal roadside encampments, children uprooted from school and the continued confrontation between the settled community, the travellers and the local authorities and this badly needed Bill will have failed in what it sets out to do. If the Bill is passed in its present form, it will inhibit progress in the provision of accommodation because not only is there no incentive for local authorities to proceed with their accommodation programmes but there is a disincentive. The local authorities see, even when they have provided for their indigenous travellers, that they have limitless responsibility to continue to provide accommodation as long as travellers can move at will around the country. It will also increase public resistance to the halting site programme.

I am sure all Deputies, including the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, and the Minister of State, Deputy Dan Wallace, are aware that there is great resistance to halting sites. Indeed, this Bill would not be necessary if there was no resistance. Only if we can guarantee an end to illegal halting sites will we have any hope of convincing the public to accept permanent sites.

I said yesterday that even the most reasonable people, those who are most receptive to the concept of providing halting sites, are gobsmacked when they hear that not only have they to provide permanent accommodation but also a choice of holiday accommodation throughout the country. I have heard it said again and again by members of the public that this is political correctness gone mad. It is wrong to enshrine this right in legislation and it is wrong to mislead travellers into believing that such a provision can or should be made. It is not good enough to throw our hands in the air, as did the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, and say travellers will travel. Of course they will travel and they are entitled to travel, but they are not entitled to wander.

Even if it were a reasonable provision, it is not a realistic one. It is simply impractical to ask a local authority to have largescale facilities ready and vacant on the off chance that any number of travellers may turn up unannounced even though, and not withstanding the fact that, they already have permanent accommodation elsewhere and despite the fact that the local authority in which they are located has already provided a comprehensive network of halting sites for travellers.

It is also unrealistic and impractical, particularly in the Dublin urban areas where there is already a shortage of land, where there is already a drift of travellers to those areas and where there is huge resistance to the provision of halting sites, to expect local authorities to provide the required network of halting sites.

It is not unreasonable to ask travellers to pre-book a site. It is a small curb on their behaviour but all of us, if we must live cheek by jowl with one another, must accept some curbs on our behaviour so that we can live in harmony with others. It is reasonable to ask them to pre-book a site before they leave the permanent site which they have been allocated.

I have little expectation of this amendment being accepted, given the response of the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, to it yesterday, but I ask the Minister of State, Deputy Dan Wallace, to listen to the import of this amendment and make provision, if not in legislation at least by way of later regulation, to set up a national co-ordination body which can facilitate the booking of sites before a traveller leaves an existing one.

As was explained on Committee Stage, amendment No. 15 is meaningless as it does not link in with any of the existing provisions in relation to follow-up action by the housing authority.

Apart from this technicality, I have an objection in principle to the purpose behind it. The Deputy appears to be suggesting that there should be some kind of quota system under which housing authorities would be obliged to accommodate their share of travellers and, once accommodated, there should be no further obligation on any authority to accommodate any additional traveller families. This could not be accepted by any Administration.

There are implications here for the right to free movement. It is also proposed to impose restrictions on a section of the community but not on all. If travellers wish to change their place of residence, that is their right. However, in doing so they must accept the consequences of loss of any priority on waiting lists which had been built up with previous authorities or no provision being made in the five year programme of the current authority in which these are situated. However, the choice to move must remain for whatever reason the traveller deems it justifiable to do so.

There are also difficulties from a resource point of view. The effect of the proposed amendment, if properly drafted, would mean that the Minister would have to investigate in the case of each unauthorised encampment whether the housing authority has implemented its accommodation. This could take a considerable amount of time and render redundant the question of serving a notice by a housing authority. It is envisaged that the need for accommodation programmes will be ongoing based on the most recent assessment of needs, which have been carried out periodically.

The amendment would also involve the Minister in local issues in an unnecessary and bureaucratic way contrary to Government policy of devolving greater powers to local authorities.

Therefore, unfortunately I cannot accept the amendment.

I do not believe it is true that what I am suggesting in this amendment is asking more of or placing greater restrictions on travellers than on the settled community. The settled community do not travel without making some provision for when they arrive. That is all I am asking; I am not saying that there should be a limit on local authorities' responsibility. What I am saying is that if travellers have a site, they should ensure there is a site for them to move to before they move. It is possible to produce a swapping system if there is national co-ordination.

At present, co-ordination is not possible and it will not happen under the Bill when enacted unless the Minister introduces changes. At present, travellers have realised that it is wiser not to apply for accommodation to a local authority because they feel they have a right to wander. They will go on doing that as long as they are given to believe that it is their right. They will never be off the roadside and there will never be a programme of accommodation throughout the country. I ask the Minister to take that on board.

I support Deputy Mitchell. The travelling people are the black community of this country and they are deprived from birth. I welcome the initiatives which are being taken to help make their lives easier. Their lives are not easy but they themselves do not make them any easier. Side by side with helping them, they should be made aware of their responsibilities. They are their own worst enemies.

I come from Dundalk, a town which has been to the forefront in providing halting sites and integrating the travellers into the settled community. It is one of the leading examples here. Many local authorities have not done their best or held back on that commitment because of the antipathy of the settled community towards the itinerant people. I welcome every effort to make their lot an easier one. However, side by side with the desire to help should be an obligation on the travelling folk to accept responsibility for their actions.

No group should be allowed to park willy-nilly on the public highway and defy everybody. That is one of the reasons the settled community is so antagonistic towards them. On the Dundalk inner by-pass, the national primary route between Dublin and Dundalk which has the heaviest traffic in the country, these itinerant people regularly park their fancy Volvos and wagons causing a hazard to traffic using the road. In doing so, they are aware of how long it takes to get the council to take them to court. A mechanism should be introduced in this House to enable local councils to tow them away immediately where they are a traffic hazard. This would go some way towards offsetting public antagonism to itinerant folk.

As it is now 5 p.m. I am required to put the following question in accordance with an Order of the Dáil of this day: "That Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed".