Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

This is difficult for me in some ways because the witnesses nailed the issues in their contributions. I was present in the Dáil Chamber last year when the Private Members' Bill was discussed and it was heartbreaking. Everyone who participated in the debate had a tangible feeling.

The witnesses dealt with the "Sure, what does it matter?" argument, which is one that is often thrown around. The marriage equality referendum probably helped in this regard because people used to make similar arguments about gay people when they would say they had access to civil partnerships, for example. The delivery of the referendum result quantified for people what something like that means. There is an onus on members and the witnesses to package this argument.

The decision to add this issue to the committee's equality agenda is an indication that it is an important issue for us. I do not have questions, other than to ask what the barriers are to achieving recognition of Traveller ethnicity. The witnesses stated it would not have a cost. Is that not part of the problem?

Equality does not mean treating everybody the same but recognising difference and allowing people to achieve their potential. It is argued in a duplicitous way that, in the name of equality, Travellers should not be singled out and everyone should be treated the same. At the same time, we are slashing the transport budget which de facto means that Traveller children cannot get to school.

Inequality saves the State money in the short term but denies Traveller children their potential and also has health impacts. Is that one of the reasons behind this or is there anything more? All of the arguments the witnesses have made are straightforward. There is a contradiction involved to the extent that we recognise Traveller ethnicity in some ways and deny it in others. Is the issue one of cost? The arguments for recognising Traveller ethnicity are clear-cut and we will push the issue.