Ms Sinéad Lucey:

The principle of self-identification is quite separate from the question of how one recognises an ethnic group. The main point of our submission was to argue that they are different. With regard to ethnicity, it was stated at a meeting of this committee in the past that various legal tests have been set down in UK case law, most famously in the case Mandla v. Dowell-Lee. It establishes the legal test that has been set out in terms of the criteria. Certain criteria are essential and others are optional. Irish Travellers have been found to fulfil the necessary criteria and also certain of the optional criteria. In strict legal terms, it is an objective test as to whether an ethnic minority exists in the state.

Self-identification, as the commission understands it, is in essence a protection that has been put in place for ethnic minorities for reasons related to historical events in which ethnic minorities were targeted in a particular way. There are examples in the Irish context where Travellers were segregated in services. This was because the principle of self-identification was not properly applied to them. It would allow them to say they are not subscribing to a particular service in a particular way just because they are Travellers. They could say they do not have to identify in a particular way to gain access to the service available to the community in general.

It is probably more appropriate for Traveller organisations to address the question as to whether somebody is half in or half out. There have been discussions on Travellers who may conceal their identity in certain contexts for reasons associated with negativity and the perception of Travellers in society, but I do not believe I could elaborate on it much more than the Traveller representatives have done.