Thank you chairman. The paper has just been circulated to the members of the committee. I will not go into everything in it, except to give members a flavour of what it contains. Pavee Point has argued since the mid-1980s that Travellers are a minority ethnic group, that the nature of the exclusion they face is racist and that the denial of human rights to them is at the core of the problem. It is ironic that at a time when racism is finally being acknowledged as an issue to be addressed within Irish society, Traveller organisations find themselves constantly having to remind others that racism is not a new issue and is at the foundation of the marginalisation they face.
What is an ethnic group and why is it not only helpful but essential to recognise Travellers as one? In 2000 a number of Travellers wanted to take a discrimination case in England under the Race Relations Act 1976 against a number of pubs that had refused them service. It was decided that before the case could proceed, it must be ascertained if Irish Travellers should be recognised as a minority ethnic group under the Act. The court took into consideration other cases where the issue of ethnicity had been discussed. In a 1983 case in particular, referred to as Mandla, the judge noted that the two essential characteristics that define ethnicity were: a long-shared history of which the group is conscious as distinguishing it from other groups and the memory of which it keeps alive; and a cultural tradition of its own including family and social customs and manners, often but not necessarily associated with religious observance.
In a New Zealand case cited during the English hearing it was noted that:
A group is identifiable in terms of its ethnic origins if it is a segment of the population distinguished from others by a sufficient combination of shared customs, beliefs, traditions and characteristics derived from a common or presumed common past, even if not drawn from what in biological terms is a common racial stock.
In the end the judgment in England decided that the two criteria, namely the long-shared history and the cultural tradition, were sufficiently satisfied and concluded:
It follows, therefore, that our conclusions, clearly, are that we are satisfied that the Mandla criteria are satisfied in this case, and therefore Irish Travellers may be properly identified as an ethnic minority, so we answer the preliminary question in the affirmative.
By that they meant that it had to be established before the case could proceed under the Race Relations Act 1976. The case did proceed. How relevant are these definitions in an Irish context? A definition of Traveller is included in the Equal Status Act 2000, based on that used in the Northern Ireland race relations order. It in turn evolved out of British case law. That definition states:
'Traveller community' means the community of people who are commonly called Travellers and who are identified (both by themselves and others) as people with a shared history, culture and tradition, including historically, a nomadic way of life on the island of Ireland.
Travellers are identified both by themselves and others as a separate group within Irish society. It is particularly interesting to note that the inclusion of Travellers within the Republic's Incitement to Hatred Act 1989 gave weight to the arguments for their inclusion in the Northern Ireland race relations order, which, in turn, influenced how they were defined in the equality legislation in the Republic. Ideally, as we argued at the time, the ground of race and the Traveller community issue should have been combined in what could have more properly been called the ground of racism - with Travellers named among the range of issues and communities to be covered.
On the official position, Ireland has never explicitly recognised Travellers as a minority ethnic group, but has, implicitly, in a variety of ways. Travellers and Traveller representatives have been included in committees such as the European Year Against Racism, in 1997, out of which grew the National Consultative Committee on Racism and Interculturalism. Similarly, Ireland has reported on the issues facing Travellers and the progress made in this regard, under a range of conventions including Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states:
In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practice their own religion, or use their own language.
Likewise, in the Council of Europe's Framework Convention for the Protection of NationalMinorities, the bulk of the report concerned Travellers.
We feel all of these initiatives make the State's stance in the CERD report appear odd, particularly as the State argues that the definition of racial discrimination is not inclusive of Travellers. Racial discrimination is defined therein as meaning:
Any distinction, exclusion, restriction preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.
It is interesting that Travellers are included in the report's appendix. How they are defined there is much in keeping with the definition of ethnicity that has evolved out of British case law and is now included in Irish legislation. The appendix notes that Travellers "are an indigenous Irish community with a shared history of a nomadic way of life and cultural identity". That is a summary of the two essential characteristics established under the Mandla case in England in 1983.
We are concerned that the report states it does not feel CERD covers Travellers. We feel CERD is particularly relevant to Travellers and that it is unfortunate, to put it mildly, that they have not been included in the report.
On a cynical note, we feel one of the reasons Travellers were not included is that the report would not look as good as it currently does, if they had been. In particular, it would have had to be acknowledged that not every citizen may exercise his or her right to vote and that legislation has been introduced to systematically undermine one particular group's cultural identity; in particular the criminalisation of trespass has been implemented under that legislation. We feel it is extremely important that Travellers are acknowledged to be a minority ethnic group - and that their rights as Travellers are acknowledged and their cultural identity resourced. I will leave it at that.