Ms Sinéad Lucey:

The Commission's view on this would be that most protections from discrimination in terms of the Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, CERD, are linked to ethnicity. Therefore, if one does not recognise Travellers as an ethnic group, one does not recognise that they are automatically entitled to the protections under CERD, the framework convention or any similar instruments. In that regard, the State has been saying that it confers the same protection on Travellers anyway and, therefore, it does not make a difference. However, it actually makes a significant difference in terms of how the State brings back what those committees are saying to it, how it discusses those issues with Travellers and how it seeks to resolve them. If the State is having a dual relationship, stating at an international level it is affording them those protections but at a domestic level stating they are not entitled to those protections, that must have legal implications in terms of recognition of ethnicity.

More specifically, a more obvious example that has been raised quite consistently is that under EU law, protection from discrimination for minorities is based on race and ethnicity. It is far from clear whether Travellers can automatically rely on those protections, and that could come up in the context of domestic proceedings before the Equality Tribunal if a question arises regarding the interpretation of the EU race directive. If it happens in the context of a case that is based on a race ground, there is no question that directive will apply but if it happens in a case of somebody claiming discrimination on the Traveller ground, it is far from clear whether the directive applies, and that merely creates an anomalous situation for Travellers.