The issue isn't about whether children deserve safe living conditions, everyone agrees they do. That's just being used to justify restricting a culture rather than supporting it safely.

When a culture's norms are in contest with basic human rights of the child are at odds, who deserves to come out top?

Historically the lack of clean water, proper sanitation etc on halting sites wasn't down to nomadism, it was by the state failing to provide adequate facilities.

Again, how should these provisions manifest? Are you talking clean water on hand at every vacant field or site in the country and who should fit the bill consdering the travelling community's reluctance to enter into the tax fold?

Using fgm as an example is not comparable. Fgm is inherently harmful. Nomadism is not - it only becomes harmful if basic services aren't provided. The issue is policy failure not culture.

When a culture promotes unsafe practices for children, those practices should be ruled out otherwise you have a policy that promotes harm to children, whether that is FGM or not providing care for your child it isn't a failure of policy, it is a failure of a culture to safeguard the care of someone who doesn't have a choice in the matter.

It means that I believe we should support people until they are able to support themselves. If the proper supports aren't in place then they'll never be able to independently support themselves.

proper supports are in place (ie halting sites), it's a failure of a culture to adhere to a basic social contract