Good morning, everyone, and happy new year to you all. Welcome to the Equal Opportunities Committee’s first meeting in 2013. Everyone should set their electronic devices to flight mode or switch them off completely, please.
I am the MSP for Edinburgh Central and deputy convener of the committee.
Good morning. I am the MSP for Aberdeenshire West.
I am an MSP for North East Scotland and a substitute member of the committee.
I am an MSP for Central Scotland.
I am the MSP for Glasgow Shettleston.
I am Elizabeth Rhodick, but I like to be known as Betty. I am the vice-convener of Lochgilphead community council.
I am Kenneth Johnstone from Girvan. I prefer to be known as Ken.
I am vice-chair of Cockenzie and Port Seton community council and I am representing all the community councils in East Lothian.
I am vice-chairman of Nigg community council in Aberdeen city.
I am Chris Ahern. I am the chairman of North Muirton community council in Perth.
Thank you. We have apologies from John Finnie MSP, who is unwell and is unable to attend the meeting.
The Double Dykes permanent site is about a mile away from where we are, and we have two areas that the people like to use as sites. About three months ago, I visited the Travellers on one of the unofficial sites. That was by accident, as we were up there with planners who were planning to build on the site on which they were camped.
Nigg community council covers the southern part of Aberdeen city, which is a fairly rural area but is close to industrial estates. The area seems to have been fairly attractive to Gypsy Travellers over many years, primarily in summer, but also in winter. Our experience in the community council is purely of unauthorised campsites. There is no halting site for Gypsy Travellers in Aberdeen city, but they have one site at Clinterty, outside the city, which is criticised as being a bit far out and remote.
In preparation for today’s session, I emailed all the other community councils in East Lothian. There is one official site in East Lothian that is used throughout the year, and no problems are reported from that.
I have a totally different perspective. To be honest, I had had no interaction with Travellers until I knew that I would be coming here today. We have a permanent site in Girvan, and there has never been any trouble at all that I know of. It all seems to work very well, and it is very well managed.
In Lochgilphead, we have a permanent site as well. I know that work has been done with Argyll Community Housing Association, which has modernised one site—I think that it was Torlochan. There are quite a few permanent sites in Argyll and Bute.
As a follow-up, I ask you all what your community councils have done to try to engage with and understand the culture of Gypsy Travellers. I hear what you are saying about their transient nature—you say that they come in, leave a mess and move on, that they seem to leave just antagonism and that the community’s view is not particularly positive. Have your community councils done anything to improve that by engaging with Gypsy Travellers, perhaps by inviting them along and having a social evening at which they can talk about what their culture means to them?
We have not done that, but I think that that is because many people feel intimidated by them. The site that we have the main problem with is by the side of a footpath that goes to a school. When they are there, nobody goes along it. Nobody takes their dogs for a walk along the river, and the local youth football team tends to move away because they are on one of the pitches where the team plays football. I do not think that they want to interact.
Do you mean that the Gypsy Travellers do not want to interact or that the local community does not want to interact?
I do not think that either the community or the Gypsies want to interact.
But no effort has been made to try to do that.
No.
I mentioned before that our community council and the community council forum in Aberdeen have made approaches. There were three places for Gypsy Travellers to be on the forum, but all have led to nothing. That is as far as we have gone. To learn more about the culture of Gypsy Travellers, we can read transcripts of meetings such as this, for instance, but approaching them directly and sitting down with them has not worked for us.
We have had no interaction with them at all. I suppose that that is partly because the encampments are a little bit distant from the settled places, so it is perhaps a day or two before we find out that they are there and, by that time, there is a good bit of a mess.
As I said, we have had no trouble with the sites. Gypsy Travellers have never even been mentioned at any of our community council meetings, because we have plenty problems without trying to look for any. There have been no problems, so we have had no interaction until my visit this week.
I do not think that my community council has had any interaction with the Gypsy Travellers, but the people in the community have had loads of interaction. There are old worthies who just talk about Gypsy Travellers, but the younger ones are more inclined to see a more positive side and be friendly.
We have a permanent site at Double Dykes, which is about a mile away from the two temporary sites in our community. The problem is the interaction not just between the community and the Travellers but between the Travellers and the Travellers—the people who want to have settled sites and the ones who do not.
It has been interesting to listen to all of you. From what most of you have said—with some exceptions—it strikes me quite starkly that there seems to be much less of a problem with permanent sites and much more of a problem with unauthorised or informal sites. That suggests that, if we had more permanent sites for temporary use that had proper toilet and refuse facilities, that might go some way to solving some of the problems that you are talking about. Is that what you feel?
A lot of the Travellers do not want such sites. We have different problems with the permanent site, such as the police having to go in with the electricity board because the Travellers were bypassing the electricity supply—that made the news.
You are saying that they do not want second-rate permanent sites.
Yes. Perth and Kinross Council is trying to build another site and has had the money to do so for a long time, but it cannot find a place to put it. Either the landowner does not want it or members of the council argue among themselves when they vote on the policing of it and do not put forward a proposal. Such sites are often dirty, which is why the Travellers do not want to use them and use sites elsewhere.
Is that the experience in East Lothian?
I asked councillors what their policy was. They would like to have a site for temporary use, where there was a maximum stay of, say, two weeks, but their difficulty is finding a site. There is the nimby problem—no one wants a site next door to them. The councillors have not been able to identify a suitable place to have such a site.
From the community council’s point of view, it might be better to have a permanent site that everyone knew about than to have people appearing in different places. Is that right?
That would be the case if the Travellers were willing to use such a site.
There is another problem with temporary sites. I know that Travellers pay a weekly rental charge to stay at the permanent site in Girvan, whereas Travellers who just turn up and camp somewhere pay nothing. If a temporary site was created that people did not have to pay to use, Travellers would probably go there rather than camp somewhere else, but the people at the permanent site would ask why they should pay when they could move to the temporary site for a while and pay nothing. It is a catch-22 situation.
I do not know whether we are getting our terms mixed up, but I think of a permanent site as one where the council provides permanent facilities. It could be for Gypsy Travellers who want to stay there for a long time, on a semi-permanent basis, or it could be a halting site where Gypsy Travellers just stay for a defined period.
In previous evidence sessions with Gypsy Travellers, we have heard about the lack of transit sites, and it has been suggested that a solution might be to carry out a mapping exercise with Gypsy Travellers in order to properly map their routes and build—if you like—permanent transit sites. Would fixed transit sites be a good move?
If you knew the area where they were going and if you had proper maps, the answer might be yes, although you might end up with the settled community being prejudiced against them. However, the settled community is just going to have to like it or lump it, because it is part of life.
Involving Travellers in discussions about the location of sites might be a step forward in getting them to use the available sites instead of the unofficial sites that undoubtedly cause problems.
I read the comments about mapping traditional sites in the Official Report of the committee’s previous meeting. My personal view—this is not the view of Nigg community council—is that although I agree with some of the arguments that were made, the situation is, as we have heard, changing quite quickly for Gypsy Travellers and their old lifestyle is disappearing. To me, mapping their traditional sites would be a little bit of a waste of time. It would be a nice thing to do for historical purposes but it is not going to help us to move forward. We would be better to spend our time on liaising and creating a good dialogue with the Gypsy Travellers to identify their needs and expectations very much alongside those of the settled community and the council’s capabilities, and to come up with a package, which might be a permanent site with permanent residencies, a halting site or the kind of local housing that, as we have heard, has worked. However, such a package needs to be discussed by the Scottish Government, the councils, the Gypsy Traveller community and the settled community in order to reach the best solution.
I do not think that individual community councils in East Lothian would welcome such an approach. The association of local community councils in East Lothian might be an appropriate place for such a discussion, but I think that individual community councils would find it quite difficult, partly because of the transient nature of the Travellers’ stay. After all, they move on. You cannot have a relationship with people if they are only there for two weeks.
I agree with the rest of them; I think that local communities would find it very difficult. I would certainly not agree to a transit site where we are. We have one permanent site. In the Perth and Kinross Council area, and in Tayside, there is going to be an increase in housing outside the cities, so where would we put a transit site? Most of the land that we have available for building is being used for local housing, so we would certainly not appreciate that being used.
I agree. Within the city boundaries it is tough, because there is not that much space. In my experience, there is very little space in Aberdeen city. I am not saying, after all this dialogue and discussion, that the answer is necessarily that the best site would be within the city. I believe personally—and it has been recorded elsewhere—that the Gypsy Travellers like their seclusion. They like having their family around them, and they like their privacy, and they do not get that among the settled community, at least not close up. They need to be somewhere where they are slightly detached from the settled community.
You have outlined a wide range of issues that have come up in your experiences. Where, primarily, do you think responsibility and leadership should come from to resolve those issues? Some of you have already touched on that issue, but I would be interested to know where all the participants think the leadership should come from.
At one of the committee’s previous meetings, someone—I cannot remember who; it could have been you—talked about the three Ls: legitimacy, land and leadership. We need legitimacy for Gypsy Travellers’ human rights and equality—I am sure that all of us here agree with that, as does Nigg community council; the land on which they are going to live temporarily; and the leadership that will sort all this out.
I think that leadership has to come from the Scottish Government and the Gypsy leaders. However the Gypsy community is formed and whoever is in charge of it, the leadership must come from them.
I feel that leadership should come from you here at the Scottish Government, and work down through the councils.
I agree. Leadership should come from Government, because everyone will then have to sing from the same hymn sheet whether they like it or not. That is the problem: a lot of people are just pushing the issue under the carpet.
I will allow Alex Johnstone a brief supplementary before we come back to Marco Biagi.
On that subject, my experience is that the Scottish Government guidelines are probably inadequate, but they provide some guidance, and there is a view that they help to guide what happens. Coming from the north-east, I have experience of working on the problem in a range of rural and city local government areas. In my experience, local authorities will interpret the same opinion or guidance in a whole series of different ways. In the witnesses’ view, does local government need to be given much stronger guidance, or is the current system involving a series of different interpretations sustainable?
Given the diversity of the different areas of Scotland, I think that it would be impossible to have the same interpretation of Scottish Government guidelines in each area. As well as cities and rural areas, we have areas that are attractive to tourists and areas that are less so. There are all sorts of different things in each area, so it is unrealistic to make a blanket ruling for all and expect everyone to interpret it in a similar manner.
You have suggested that we need strong guidance to come down from the top, but if it will be interpreted differently everywhere, what is the advantage in having strong central guidance?
It would be the same across the board.
But if it is interpreted differently in different areas—
That depends on how the Gypsy Traveller community feels about being dictated to. Anything that comes from central Government feels like diktat.
What I am trying to get at is whether we need a one-size-fits-all approach or whether we need to build on the current piecemeal approach.
If central Government decided what was going to happen, the matter would still be pushed out to the local authorities, which would still need to get involved. The decision about what is to happen should come from here and be passed down to the local authorities. For example, councils in Perth and Kinross and Tayside might be told, “This is what you have got. These are where the Travellers come. You must provide one site. You must find it.” If the edict came from central Government in consultation with the Travellers, I think that you would get a much better result. However, I do not think that the Travellers would like being dictated to.
I am not sure about this, but I do not think that East Lothian Council has had any interaction with the Travellers themselves. In a way, interaction is key to developing relationships with the Travellers and getting the ones who do not behave very responsibly to respect the settled community.
You mentioned setting up a route that the Travellers might follow. If you did that, you would have to go to each local authority and say, “We need a site within so many miles of point A”, so that there was a day’s travelling or whatever between the sites. Some body—although only the Scottish Government could do this—would need to say to each local authority, “Okay, we need a site in your area.” The local authority would need to be told that a site was required perhaps not in a specific spot but in a given area. That is the only way that it would work.
Alex Johnstone may be familiar with the Cairnforth report that was produced for Aberdeen City, Aberdeenshire and Moray in 2008. Those three authorities were complimented on getting together to try to evaluate what the Gypsy Travellers required. I was not involved with the report or aware of it at the time, but I have read it and it seems to me that the authorities consulted the Gypsy Travellers and came up with some facts and figures about what was required.
I am no expert on the report. It is certainly a commendable effort but it has been lying for a long time with little progress, for all the reasons that you outlined earlier.
I return to the idea of national leadership, which Alex Johnstone fleshed out quite well. Why would national leadership be able to achieve results and deliver something noticeable on the ground in a way that council leadership has not thus far? You all have sites in your areas at the moment. However, let us say that you did not, and that after some kind of national guidance or decision you were told that you should have a transit site in your area and that you would just have to live with that. How would you respond? I would imagine that such guidance would throw up the same difficulties, opposition and community issues as if it came from the council.
If it came from central Government, it would be standardised across the board. If it was just left to local authorities, you would have one opinion from one local authority and another opinion from another local authority, and so forth across the country. Travellers might say, “They’re too strict there. They’re not interested. We’ll move elsewhere.” We would just be pushing the problem around the country. However, if there was a standardised approach throughout the country, the Gypsies and the Travellers would not have to battle with different standards throughout the country.
Certainly in East Lothian Council, there is a negative approach to the Travellers because they make a mess and it costs the council to clear up the mess. A more positive approach could be floated. Rather than seeing the Travellers as a problem and reacting when they arrive, which is what happens, there could be interaction with them.
I agree that there is a negative approach in a lot of council areas. You hear Travellers talking about it. Rather than councils waiting until the temporary sites get mucky and unhygienic, why do the liaison officers not ask, “Do you require toilet facilities?” There are mobile ones—the ones that are used for events and so on. That might let Travellers see that they are not just out on a limb and being dictated to. Rather than saying, “You have to have it,” be nice about it. Instead of going in and saying, “You can’t do this or that,” if you go in with a positive approach you will come out with positivity at the end. Let’s face it, no one wants somebody to come into their home and tell them what they can or cannot do. There must be a change in approach.
As I said earlier, Perth and Kinross Council has put aside money to do another transit site with somebody on it and permanent facilities. However, the council is not going to make any money from the site, so it is a cost to the council that we—the council tax payers—are going to have to come up with the money for.
We talked about the 2008 report from Aberdeen City Council. Nothing much has been done since then. The problem has not gone away and seems to have got worse and worse because there are more and more unauthorised campsites.
Siobhan McMahon has a supplementary question.
It is just a point about a language problem that is starting to irritate me. Some of the witnesses have said that they have read the committee’s reports. Throughout our reports, we have used the term “Gypsy Traveller”. That is an ethnic grouping that we talk about. We do not talk about “Gypsies”, we certainly do not talk about “Travellers” and we do not talk about “these people”. There are other issues that I would like to deal with but, frankly, if this committee is being consistent in all its reports, all we would ask is that everyone uses the same terminology. If we were talking about any other ethnic group, we would do the same. I would appreciate it if we could do that.
If my understanding is correct, none of the witnesses has engaged with the Gypsy Travelling community. Therefore, it appears that a lot of what they are saying is based on assumption and perception. It is becoming fairly evident that, with a couple of exceptions, the approach is that something needs to be done, but not in close proximity to where you live. If it is not going to be in close proximity to where you live, where will it be? Mr Brownhill referred to a report in the north-east in 2008 in which three councils came together and which highlighted that there should be about 35 pitches in the north-east, but there is only one site. If we take that basic arithmetic, we can see that there is a problem for our Gypsy Travelling community about where they can go. They are an ethnic group of people who travel, and even those in the settled community still prefer to be called Gypsy Travellers, regardless of the fact that they have settled in permanent housing.
I do not agree that, because we have not had any dialogue with Gypsy Travellers, what I have been saying is based on assumptions and perceptions. What I have been saying is based on direct experience. I explained that we had endeavoured to liaise with the Gypsy Travellers but that that had failed. This is not based on perceptions.
Did you not say that you have had no dialogue with them?
I said that because they did not take up the invitation. That does not mean that what I have been saying is based on assumptions and perceptions; it is based on experience. As I explained, I have been through the sites after they have left and I have seen what they leave behind. I have spoken to people in the community who have lived close to the unauthorised encampments, as I have, and I have heard what goes on. It is not assumptions and perceptions. I do not take notice of the media because I do not believe a lot of what they say. What I have been saying is not what I have gleaned from the media.
Is not the statement that the Gypsy Traveller people do not want to be part of and do not want to be near the settled community based on assumption if you have had no dialogue with them?
I did not say that the Gypsy Travellers do not want to be near the settled community.
I will check the Official Report.
You are talking about not having dialogue, but I have not had dialogue with the people at the bottom of my street, whom I do not know. Why would I go and have dialogue with them? I have had no problem with them and I have no problem with them. Why should I go and have dialogue with them?
I appreciate the fact that Girvan has a permanent site and that it seems to be a very settled community. However, I suggest that the council has a responsibility to have liaison officers or site managers—
There is a site manager.
Fine—that is absolutely perfect. I would hope that councils would have the appropriate liaison officers to enter into dialogue and engage with the Gypsy Travelling community and then engage with settled communities. Would you say that perhaps a way forward is to have a liaison officer to engage with the settled community and the Gypsy Travelling community so that the communities can try to understand each other’s fears, aspirations and needs?
I think that we have to manage the situation. Several years ago, a Travelling community arrived at Maidens, which is 7 miles from Girvan, and South Ayrshire Council offered them medical treatment and refuse collection before they moved on. The site was left quite clean.
People are entitled to medical treatment and so on anyway.
Yes, but I have read in some of the committee’s earlier reports that they have not been getting those services.
Absolutely.
I started off the session by saying that I spoke to the Travellers in our area and that they were very pleasant. I had great conversations with them and found out what they wanted, what they thought about the area and why they had to choose the particular areas that they did. The fact that, when they left, they left the caravan behind and it took two weeks for the council to get rid of it, is another matter. There are also groups that use the other site where we are, which is at the corner of two footpaths and a football pitch. That is not an appropriate site even for temporary accommodation, for people parking cars or for somebody putting up a tent or anything, be it members of the settled community parking their cars or kids pitching tents. It is certainly not a suitable area for caravans.
A lot of councils look on this as a problem. I never say that I have a problem; I always look for a solution. So there is never a problem in my life—there is a problem looking for a solution, but not a problem as such. That is the problem with the councils. The problem gets worse—it is like a dog with a bone: the council gnaws away at it, rather than side-stepping it and looking for a proper solution. Whether it involves Gypsy Travellers, any ethnic minority or any person, they should think, “There’s no problem; there’s only a solution.” Sorry, but that is my ethos in life.
Do you accept that there are not enough sites for Gypsy Travellers?
Yes.
Thank you.
Do you have any further questions, Dennis?
No.
I will bring in Siobhan McMahon. John, do you want to come back in after that?
No.
I want to follow up on the last point about the lack of provision for sites. Mr Ahern gave an example of Gypsy Travellers pitching up at a site that might not be appropriate. Obviously, I have not discussed that with them, but they, too, might think that it is not appropriate and might want to be settled somewhere else when they go. It is about getting appropriate sites. If you have read the reports that we were discussing, you will know that we are looking to the planning process in that regard.
The Double Dykes site does not come within our community council boundary—it is about a mile outside it—but the liaison officer for the site liaises with any transit camp in the Perth district, although I do not think that he covers the one in Kinross, as that is too far away. He was put in a number of years ago purely to manage the Double Dykes site, but his remit now is to manage all the other sites as well.
I understand that, but let us look at the other side of the coin. If you are continuing to develop land that has been used in the past, where do Gypsy Travellers go? That is the problem that we are trying to examine. Earlier, we were given the example of the power station. I do not think that, given the option, anyone would want to pitch up beside a power station. Those are the differences and the engagement that we need to have. Indeed, that is what Fiona Townsley said. We are all different—you are all different—and those differences are recognised in communities. However, if a site cannot provide clean water or a caravan without smashed windows, why would anyone stay there? You would not ask anyone to do so. I do not understand why the current view—I am not saying that it is your view—tends to be that that is okay. It is not.
I cannot speak for other areas of the country, but I know that in Tayside TAYplan is trying to cope with the increase in housing that the Scottish Government says the council must provide. Any available land has been put aside for development. I had a look through the plan—it is a couple of inches thick—and any spare land around the villages, the towns or the cities is being put up for development. If that land is suitable for development and houses are being built on it, where else are you going to put them or build temporary sites? All the sites have been taken up.
I would argue that a temporary site is housing—we could have that argument. It would be building new houses for people, just a different type of housing.
Build them houses, then.
No, no, no.
If the local authorities have mapped out all the areas to fit in with the housing that they have been told to produce—
That is your interpretation of what a house is. You just said, “Build them houses”. If they travel, their caravan is their house.
I was just responding to your point about housing.
Yes, but we should build sites as houses for them. The site will be their house.
But where is the site going to be built when all the suitable land has been taken up—
That will be their house.
—to ensure that the council can comply with the housing policy laid down by the Scottish Government? If all the available land has been taken up, where are you going to put the site? The only place you can put it is away from the villages and the towns. All the land around Perth that was available for building on has been put aside in the TAYplan strategic development plan for building—I do not know what to call them now—permanent houses, be they local government or private houses. No suitable land is available for a temporary site.
That comes back to my point that it is very hard to find a suitable site in a city because the land in cities has been taken up with housing or industry. As I have said—I think that this is the third time now—the optimum site is not right next door to the settled community but somewhere remote. If there are no such remote areas in a city, you are not going to be able to find a site there. Hopefully, you might be able to find a site outside the city boundaries in a more remote rural or country area that would be suitable for Gypsy Travellers.
I am sorry, but I must correct you. They have been settled on the Lochgilphead site for 20 years but the new houses were built after they put in an application and were successful. They have not been in houses for 20 years; they have been in the area for that time.
I stand corrected—and it is a very valid correction. Nevertheless, it shows that within the Gypsy Traveller community there is a diverse range of needs, requirements and expectations. The council should be trying to provide the Gypsy Traveller community with the kind of package that I mentioned earlier, whether it be permanent housing, permanent sites where they can stay in their caravans for however long or temporary halting sites. There is no single solution; there needs to be a complete package.
I agree. That applies to the whole community. However, I am interested in your remark that the best solution is a rural site. Where does that view come from? Is that your opinion? Is it the view of the community council? Has it come from engagement with Gypsy Travellers?
No. As I have said, I have never had any direct verbal engagement with Gypsy Travellers.
How, then, can you state that the best solution for Gypsy Travellers would be a rural site?
I know from reading that they like the family around them and their seclusion, and we have heard today how a remote site is a successful one. In my experience, if we get the various organisations or groups together, including the settled community, we will find that the settled community does not want Gypsy Travellers on its doorstep.
Alex Johnstone has a supplementary question.
It is more a comment than a question. At least a couple of our witnesses have been getting a bit of a hard time. From my experience of living in Stonehaven, which is a community that has suffered from illegal encampments in the town on a number of occasions, I know that it is important that a broad range of views is presented to the committee. I therefore welcome the fact that people have come here today and expressed views that are regularly expressed to me by people who live at close quarters to illegal encampments, in particular. You expected to get a hard time when you came here, but I hope that you will feel that your contribution has helped us to make some progress in the inquiry by ensuring that we have a good, broad understanding of the problems from every perspective.
Does Dennis Robertson have a supplementary question?
Yes. I will be brief.
We are very fortunate in Lochgilphead, where I am classed as an incomer because I have been there for only 30-odd years. There is a mental hospital in Lochgilphead, so people have been used to prejudices and so on. People there are more accepting of Gypsy Travellers, Polish and Ukrainian people—you name it—and people from the mental asylum. Lochgilphead’s populace is a bit more understanding and accepting of people’s traditions and ways of life. In that respect, Lochgilphead has had a bonus for those other communities.
I, too, live in an area—Stonehaven—that is quite used to having unauthorised sites, and I am certainly aware of the other sites in Aberdeenshire.
I am not quite sure what you mean by the integration of people who travel. Surely, integration would mean that people would become part of the community, but people will not become part of a community if they keep moving on and somebody else takes their place.
We must understand that a lot of Gypsy Travelling people become fairly permanent. As we have heard, a lot of people who live in Lochgilphead are fairly settled. Although some people will travel, they often do so during the spring and summer months and come back to permanent sites.
We heard from Gypsy Travellers that they have a fairly fixed travelling pattern. In my view, that should make it easier to integrate them or reach some kind of understanding with them. They may be in an area for three months and then move on, but they come back. Although Gypsy Travellers may stay in an area for a fairly short time, from what we have heard they are fairly regular visitors to that area. I expect that, over time, it would be fairly easy to build up a relationship with the people who kept coming back to the same area. That is one of the points that Dennis Robertson was trying to make.
Maybe I was taking integration too literally. We have heard that integration at Lochgilphead has occurred over a period of 20 years. I can see that happening and feel that it is definitely a way forward if Gypsy Travellers who want to integrate into a settled community can do so, but it will be harder for those who want to keep travelling. They cannot travel and be integrated, so to speak. Integration is the way forward, but it will take time. It is not a solution for this year or next year, but we need a solution for this year and next year that will lead towards integration over the next 20 years, from the experience that we have had. As with any project, there are short-term, mid-term and long-term goals. I hope that we will achieve integration in the mid term or the long term, but it will not happen in the short term and we need a solution for the challenge—if I cannot call it a problem—that we have right now.
In the olden days, the communities were semi-permanent. They had their set routes and ways to go. They wintered down in a certain area with a certain farmer, on a certain estate or whatever and they did odd jobs to pay for their campsite. Now that has changed and even the work that they do on farms and estates has changed. The Gypsy Travellers’ work is different, but they still visit the same areas regularly. My husband’s uncle used to look forward to the same Gypsy Traveller family coming every year. They had a whole day with them because they used to collect the white heather from his garden, which the woman would sell at the Cowal games. She came regularly and they had regular routes. That is missing now because they do not have the same places to go—the farms, the estates and wherever they used to stay. I am not saying that that is the solution, but the council needs to stand up and be counted. It should do something to fix the problems.
I certainly do not think that it is an issue to be dealt with by community councillors, who are volunteers. In our area, people stay temporarily for a fortnight and then, a while later, different people stay for another period. I must say, in their defence, that many of them come for the odd jobs that are given to them by the local community—hedge cutting and so on. They leave the hedge cuttings on the site, but that is beside the point. To a certain extent, the community gives them work, which is why they come. That is how it is. However, I do not think that integration should be spearheaded by community councils; I think that it needs to be spearheaded by local councils, focusing on the permanent sites rather than on the temporary places.
What role do you see for community councils? Community councils represent the views of people in their communities.
They do indeed.
When Gypsy Travellers are in your community—whether that is for three months, six months or permanently—they are members of your community. How do you represent their views?
There are only temporary, unauthorised sites where I live. There is one authorised site in East Lothian; I do not know whether it has any integration with the relevant community council.
Is the role not to represent Gypsy Travellers’ views?
How can we do that when they are there for only a fortnight?
They are still part of your community.
I would be reluctant to go to some of these places to speak with them.
That is prejudice, right or wrong. Community councils should encourage the members of their communities—whether they are Gypsy Travellers, settled people or whatever—to converse, liaise and get on together. It is not a case of them and us; we are all a community together, regardless of whether we are in a community part time or full time.
As I said, I have never really had any dealings with the Gypsy Travellers on our permanent site. However, I would like to think that, if anyone from that community came to the community council for help on something, I would deal with them in exactly the same way as I would deal with anybody else.
I agree with Sheila Chambers. If somebody is in an area for a fortnight or three or four weeks, I do not see how we can express their views. They are there, then they have gone.
No committee members have further questions. Would any of the witnesses like to make points that they feel have not been raised in the questions that we have asked?
I have a point, which is probably for Siobhan McMahon, although I am not sure of her remit. It is always assumed that the incumbents on the unauthorised campsites in Aberdeen city are Gypsy Travellers—I have used that term correctly throughout the meeting. Gypsy Travellers are an ethnic group, which does not include new age or occupational travellers. There appears to be no check on whether the people on the unauthorised campsites are genuine Gypsy Travellers or whether they are new age travellers or occupational travellers.
The point is not specifically for me to address; it is for everyone. We have heard about the issue in evidence; you have turned the coin the other way. We have heard evidence that people are asked to prove to a general practitioner or whatever that they are a Gypsy Traveller. Why should they be asked that? That is the key to the matter. Some of us are in ethnic groups—be they Italian, Irish or anything else—but no one asks us about that, unless we are completing a census form.
To assess the magnitude of the challenge of Gypsy Travellers, we need figures.
You said that you have read the report, so I am sure that you are aware that we do not know the numbers of Gypsy Travellers because they do not report the fact that they are Gypsy Travellers for fear of people expressing opinions and taking action against them because of that.
The committee has posed that question. The Government has a figure for the number of Gypsy Travellers in Scotland, but the Gypsy Travellers themselves and Minority Ethnic Carers of People Project tell us that there are far more. However, it is difficult to get an accurate figure for the number of Gypsy Travellers. One of the reasons that we felt a mapping exercise would be beneficial is that it would help us to better assess the exact number of Gypsy Travellers.
Can anyone advise me why the twice-yearly count of Gypsy Travellers that the Scottish Government published until 2008-09 came to an end and whether there is anything to replace it?
The Gypsy Traveller ethnic grouping was included in the census. Off the top of my head, I cannot tell you why the twice-yearly count came to an end, but I will find out.
I repeat that we are all human beings, regardless of whether we are Gypsy Travellers or from other ethnic minorities, and we should all respect each other.
Thank you very much for that.
Previous
Attendance