Mr. Martin Collins:

As Ms Quilligan alluded to, our people have been here since the 5th century. There are sporadic references in some historical texts which suggest our people date back that far. The reason the references are sporadic is history is always written by the victors, the powerful, the privileged and the elite; therefore, minorities and women, in this case, were largely excluded from the texts. Their contribution to the evolution of the State has been largely overlooked. We have been on the island since the 5th century and, in that context, are an integral part of it. Travellers and settled people have a shared history. As Travellers, we also, unfortunately, have a discrete history of oppression and persecution. In some cases - I do not mean to be emotive - there was attempted genocide or ethnic cleansing to rid society of Travellers through assimilationist policies.

We need to be careful in looking at Travellers through a cultural lens because we can end up pigeon-holing people. That is why, in terms of a legal framework, we would be better off considering this issue from an ethnicity point of view because ethnicity recognises a distinguishable group, but, within it, it allows people to be individuals also. In other words, not every Traveller is in favour of having large elaborate headstones when a loved one dies. Some Travellers like it and are quite flamboyant and extravagant, while others are more modest. Likewise, some celebrations of christenings and weddings are flamboyant and extravagant, while others are not. Similarly, some Travellers value nomadism, while others do not. Some Travellers see language as valuable, while others do not. It the same for settled people when it comes to ethnicity. They do not all share the same cultural practices and do not have the same values and beliefs. That is why it is better to look at Travellers from an ethnicity point of view in terms of a legal framework rather than through a cultural lens.