I am grateful to the Chairman and the committee for inviting me here today to address this important issue. I read with interest the views expressed at the meeting on 4 December when this issue was also discussed at this committee. The question of Traveller ethnicity has come to a head because of Ireland's first report to the United Nations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
As the committee is no doubt aware, Ireland ratified the convention in December 2000. The scope of racial discrimination in the convention is defined in Article 1 as "any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which impacts on an individual's human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life". Policy areas included in the convention range from equal treatment before the law to equality in education, employment or housing. Culture and media are also covered.
The convention requires that states report to the UN on the legislative, judicial, administrative or other measures put in place to tackle racial discrimination as defined by the convention. Ireland's first report has now been completed and copies are available in the Oireachtas Library. It will be submitted shortly to the UN by the Department of Foreign Affairs. Copies of the report have also been made
available to members of this committee.
The report demonstrates Ireland's commitment to tackling racism at local, national and international level. It is clear that while racism continues to represent a challenge for all countries, Ireland has in place an effective and wide-ranging equality and anti-discrimination framework.
In the course of drafting the report, the question of whether to include Travellers arose. Travellers do not appear to fall within the definition of racial discrimination adopted by the convention in that they do not appear to constitute a distinct group from the population as a whole in terms of race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin. The Government recognises that Travellers have a distinct cultural identity and that Travellers suffer discrimination and exclusion. It was decided, therefore, that a report on the position of Travellers would be included as an appendix to the convention report. This means that the relevant UN committee can consider the situation of Travellers and question the Government on its treatment of Travellers.
The position of the Government on the question of Traveller ethnicity is set out at page 90 of the convention report. Given that our position has, perhaps, been misunderstood, I should like to quote from the relevant section. It states:
Some of the bodies representing Travellers claim that members of the community constitute a distinct ethnic group. The exact basis for this claim is unclear. However, the Government of Ireland accepts the right of Travellers to their cultural identity, regardless of whether it may be properly described as an ethnic group, and is committed to applying all the protections afforded to ethnic minorities by the CERD equally to Travellers.
As outlined in Ireland's report under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Travellers in Ireland have the same civil and political rights as other citizens under the Constitution and there is no restriction on any such group to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion or to use their own language. The Government's view is that Travellers do not constitute a distinct group from the population as a whole in terms of race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin.
The Government is committed to challenging discrimination against Travellers and has defined membership of the Traveller community as a separate ground on which it is unlawful to discriminate under equality legislation. This was not meant to provide a lesser level of protection to Travellers compared to that afforded to members of ethnic minorities. On the contrary, the separate identification of Travellers in equality legislation guarantees that they are explicitly protected. The Government notes that the Durban Declaration and action plan recognised the need to develop effective policies and implementation mechanisms for the full achievement of equality for Roma-Gypsies-Sinti-Travellers.
I understand that some of the pressure to recognise Travellers as an ethnic minority in Ireland arises from a desire for Travellers to be protected by international human rights instruments such as the International Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, CERD. The Government is committed to applying all the protections afforded to ethnic minorities by the CERD equally to Travellers. To recognise Travellers as an ethnic minority would not convey any additional legal protection on Travellers. All the protections afforded to ethnic minorities in EU directives and international conventions apply to Travellers because the Irish legislation giving effect to those international instruments, such as the Equality Acts, the Unfair Dismissals Acts and the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act, explicitly protect Travellers.
However, the Government was not prepared to include in the report a statement it does not believe to be true, namely, that Travellers are ethnically different from the majority of Irish people. The point also needs to be made that the Government is not alone in making this assessment. It is clear from the meeting of this committee in December that a number of Senators and Deputies agree with the Government's position.
The 1995 task force report on the Traveller community, which consisted of Government Departments, civil society, political parties and Traveller representatives, did not recommend that Travellers should be identified as an ethnic minority. Contrary to the impression given by some Traveller organisations, academic opinion is also split on this issue. For example, in A Sociology of Ireland published in 2002, two leading sociologists, Hilary Tovey and Perry Share pointed out that the claim that Travellers constitute a distinct ethnic group is controversial within academic research. Even Pavee Point stated in its presentation to the committee that the ethnicity of Travellers has only been argued for since the mid-1980s.
My view, and one also argued in A Sociology of Ireland is that the claim that Travellers are an ethnic minority is part of a larger social and political agenda. I do not use the term “agenda” in a pejorative way; it is simply that it is part of a wider argument. Certain Traveller organisations have embraced the concept of ethnicity, based not on objective criteria, but because they see political advantage in such a course.
Turning to some of the other points raised by Traveller and human rights organisations in December, I fundamentally disagree with the suggestion that the Government is not the appropriate body to make this classification. It is a matter for states to draft reports to the UN. The Government had to make a call on the inclusion or exclusion of Travellers in the report. It would be strange if, having provided separately for protection for Travellers as a group in a number of legislative measures, we were then to say that was, in fact, unnecessary and surplus and was, effectively, a redundant excess of caution rather than a distinction based on a real difference.
Even if academics did agree on this issue, it is still the role of a democratically elected Government to make such decisions, not unelected academics. The Government may draw on academic research and obviously would do so when making policy, but that is not the same thing as academics making the decisions. It was further suggested that Travellers have a right to self-identification. The Government is not interfering with the right of Travellers to identify themselves as Travellers, but if it were open to any grouping within Irish society to identify itself as an ethnic minority and insist on this identification being accepted by the State, then the term "ethnic minority" would cease to have any objective meaning and would take on a subjective meaning, which is clearly not the case if it has an international law status.
Secondly, it is claimed that Ireland is out of step with England and Northern Ireland. The position in these countries is different. Irish Travellers are defined as "a racial group" within the meaning of the Race Relations Act in England, as a result of a discrimination case taken against pubs which had refused them service. In Ireland, Travellers are protected by name under the Equal Status Act against discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities or services. It was necessary for the English judge to define Irish Travellers as a "racial group" in order for legal redress to be available to the complainants before him. No such requirement exists in Irish law.
In Northern Ireland, Travellers are defined as an ethnic minority as part of the Race Relations Order to give them protection equivalent to the protection afforded to them here by equality legislation. The committee may be interested to note that English, Scottish and Welsh Travellers are not recognised as ethnic minorities in the UK.
It is also argued that Ireland has implicitly recognised Travellers as an ethnic minority by involving Traveller representatives in the European Year Against Racism and the National Consultative Committee on Racism and Interculturalism and by reporting on Travellers under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Inclusion of Travellers in these fora or reports reflects the Government's willingness to take a wide-ranging view of discrimination issues. It also shows the Government recognises that Traveller organisations have a major contribution to make to combating discrimination. This does not, however, amount to accepting that Travellers are an ethnic minority. It just means that their position is analogous to that of an ethnic minority for some purposes, particularly in the area of discrimination.
Traveller representatives also believe that referring to Travellers in Ireland's report under the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities constitutes acceptance that Travellers are an ethnic minority. Once again, this is inaccurate. That report clearly states that although Ireland does not recognise any national minorities, it recognises the special position of Travellers. This is consistent with the Government's position under this convention and elsewhere of recognising and tackling the particular challenges faced by Travellers, regardless of whether they fall within the strict definition of the target group. Moreover, the terms "national minority" and "ethnic minority" are not synonymous.
Finally, it was also suggested that Travellers were excluded from the main body of the report on the basis that including Travellers would have undermined Ireland's position on the right to vote. The Electoral Act 1992 recognises that a person may be ordinarily resident in more than one place and that while a person may only be registered once, the decision on where the person is to be registered is "subject to any expression of choice by such person". These provisions enable Travellers to be registered as electors, even where they have a nomadic lifestyle. Improving electoral registration for Travellers is also being looked at in the context of the recommendations of the task force on the Traveller community.
I remind the committee that looking to the Constitution, it is clear that representation by constituencies is required to be done on the basis of population. Equality of representation has to be done on that basis. Therefore, the question of where one lives is relevant to the electoral process as a constitutional principle in Ireland even though we have now extensively liberalised the law to recognise the concept which applies not only to Travellers but also to students. It is possible to have more than one ordinary place of residence in the State. Accommodation can also be made for late registration of people in an electoral process in order to enable them to participate based on where they are ordinarily resident at the time of their late registration.
Travellers were not included in the main body of the report for the reason that the Government is not convinced that they constitute an ethnic minority. They are clearly a minority but they are not deemed to be an ethnic minority. This view is backed up by a number of academics, by the 1995 task force report on the Traveller community, which did not define Travellers as an ethnic minority in Ireland, and by the Government's position over a number of years.
Although it is not the case in Ireland, it is possible for sub-communities to develop, for example among people who have fishing as a way of life. Their life, culture and community ethos can be different from that of other people in the wider community. For example, Newfoundland fishermen are distinctively different from the rest of the population in Newfoundland. While they are a distinct minority, they are not an ethnic minority and we cannot warp and bend language in order to do this.
The Government is committed to tackling discrimination against Travellers. This commitment is demonstrated by our approach on reporting on Traveller issues where possible and including Traveller representatives in various national and international fora dealing with racism issues. It would be regrettable if this positive and inclusive approach was hijacked and misrepresented in an attempt to discredit the Government's approach to this issue.
I thank the committee for its attention and am happy to deal with any questions that may be put to me.
