Ms Anastasia Crickley:

Deputy O'Callaghan asked why this had not happened up to now and what difference it would make. Up to now there has been an ongoing refusal to believe the evidence. First, there is a notion that Travellers were somehow dropouts from the Famine. The historical records from the day indicate fairly clearly that this was not the case. There was a Poor Law inquiry which predates the Famine. Different categories of people or their representatives came along to that Poor Law inquiry. Among them was a group then referred to as "tynkers" - not a term Travellers wish to be referred to - and another group referred to as "beggars". It was clearly understood well before the Famine that there were different categories. There is plenty of historical evidence from scholars to illustrate that point going way back beyond that.

There has been a sort of commitment to the notion of us as a monocultural society. I would welcome more time on another occasion to try to disperse that notion of ourselves. We have never been a monocultural society; there has always been diversity in Irish society, represented by Travellers, black Irish people, Jewish people and others. They may have been small minorities, but they did exist. Thankfully, we have greater diversity now. It is also about a power differential and use of denial identity as a mechanism for maintaining a power differential.

There is also probably a certain lack of awareness and a need to engage in some of the discussions the Deputy is talking about. He mentioned the difference between ethnicity and nationality. I speak as somebody who worked for nearly a decade with the Irish community in the UK. We have been able to recognise the differences between ethnicity and nationality when we are speaking about the Irish diaspora abroad - I am concerned for some of them today. When speaking about the Irish diaspora abroad we have been clear about acknowledging the difference between ethnicity and nationality. We may just need to apply the same logic to our capacity to recognise the difference between ethnicity and nationality for Travellers who are full Irish citizens and should be a full part of Irish society.

On this issue we need political leadership. I welcome the Deputy's question and I welcome the opportunity to say to members of the committee that in my experience as a member of CERD and having worked globally on these issues, I recognise that it takes political leadership to begin to create the conditions for a cultural shift. What the Deputy says and what the Taoiseach might be able to say in the Dáil are particularly important in that regard.

I accept that the Traveller organisations can contribute, as they already have contributed very substantially. I speak as someone who has been actively involved with a number of them in recent years. However, the powerless can do only so much. In the end, the Deputy represents the powerful political establishment even if he does not feel that some of the time. It is important that his words get heard in this Chamber and elsewhere.

The Deputy asked what difference it would make. Earlier I spoke about this acknowledgement, which is de factoalready present. For me this acknowledgement respects a floor of respect and recognition. However, it also requires the State to fully assume its responsibilities to address the other gaps and the contradictions Ms Fay outlined, by on the one hand acknowledging racism experienced by Travellers by reporting to my committee with the responsibility globally for monitoring racism and then at the same time Travellers not being explicitly included in programmes and initiatives to address racism in Ireland. It will make for an interesting discussion the next time Ireland's CERD report is brought before the committee which should be in 2018.

There are also a number of other gaps which my colleagues have already articulated. There is the possibility of the current inclusion strategy addressing those gaps, but it needs resources, commitment and that cultural shift.