Equal Opportunities Committee

Meeting date: Thursday, December 13, 2012

Official Report 442KB pdf

---

Where Gypsy Travellers Live

Agenda item 4 is an evidence session with Gypsy Traveller liaison officers on where Gypsy Travellers live. I welcome our witnesses, who, I am glad to say, have all arrived safely, despite the slightly inclement weather.

Before we begin, I will introduce everyone round the table. Along with members and witnesses, we have the clerking and research team and the official report and broadcasting staff.

My name is Mary Fee, and I am the committee convener. I ask members of the committee and witnesses to introduce themselves in turn. I also welcome our observers in the public gallery.

Good morning, I am the travelling people’s liaison officer from North Lanarkshire Council.

Good morning. I am the member of the Scottish Parliament for Aberdeenshire West.

Good morning. I am a local manager with Argyll Community Housing Association Ltd. We have three travelling people’s sites.

I am an MSP for Central Scotland.

Good morning. I am the site manager and liaison officer from Perth and Kinross Council.

I am the MSP for Glasgow Shettleston.

I am the site manager and liaison officer from South Ayrshire Council.

I am an MSP for the Highlands and Islands.

I am a support and development worker for the Gypsy Traveller community with Shelter Scotland.

I am a Conservative MSP for North East Scotland and a substitute member of the committee.

I work for Grampian Regional Equality Council, and I am a Gypsy Traveller liaison worker for Aberdeenshire.

I am the MSP for Edinburgh Central and deputy convener of the committee.

Thank you. Committee members have a number of questions for the witnesses this morning, and we will start with Alex Johnstone, who will be followed by Dennis Robertson.

My question relates to the fact that, as I know from speaking to members round this table and from throughout Scotland, the issues surrounding the Gypsy Traveller community can be different in different areas. I ask our witnesses to say a little about what the Gypsy Traveller community represents in their particular area.

We are aware that, in some areas, the community is largely in settled accommodation. However, in my experience in the north-east, the Traveller community comes in on a seasonal basis in the spring and summer, so we have a large population at one time and a relatively low population at other times.

What does the community mean to you?

I am open to whomever would like to answer the question first.

I am happy to try to give a Perth and Kinross angle on that. Geographically, Perth is very much a passing-through type of place, so we do not experience unauthorised encampments in the same numbers as other areas such as Aberdeenshire in particular.

We have a settled community in a council-run site and in regular housing. We have had experience of 18 unauthorised encampments since February this year, which is all that we have dealt with in the area.

I am from a different area, in the south-west of Scotland. Girvan, where our site is situated, and South Ayrshire tend to have a double whammy. They have a transient Traveller population that goes back and forth from Ireland, due to the fact that the ferry leaves from just south of our area. We also have a transient group that seems to consist of the same people nearly every year, although since 2004 the group’s population has been in a downward spiral, with this year probably seeing the lowest numbers.

There are issues that come into play in that regard. One factor is the weather. Travellers tend not to go on to grass when there is weather such as we have today, because they cannot get back off, but the hard-standing areas and other areas that they have been to have probably been closed off or developed.

Our management of the north-west encampments tends to be the best way forward for us. We have considered transit sites, which have been mentioned numerous times, but we have been unable to find a location for such a site.

In Argyll, the travelling sites have traditionally been settled. Most of the Travellers have been there for quite a length of time and there has been a natural flow of many Travellers from the sites into houses. There is still a wee bit of antipathy towards Travellers in the local community but, in general, many of them have settled well. That bodes well for the future.

Recently, an influx of new families has filled the Lochgilphead site, which has been below capacity for a number of years. It is good that that site is now full, because it means that we have a good community there. However, the other two sites in Argyll are both below capacity and we are struggling to find applicants who want to move to travelling person sites.

Unfortunately, we do not have a site in North Lanarkshire. We tend to have a fair number of unauthorised encampments every year. In themselves, they do not present much of a problem, because the Travellers there are short-term stayers who move on mainly for employment.

Employment is the key. Travellers are no different from anybody else. In the current economic climate, they find it difficult to get employment. Seasonal work such as tree cutting or summertime work such as light building has decreased over the past year or two, because the settled community is reducing that activity. The Travellers are not getting the same frequency of employment, so they tend to be short-term stayers.

A fair number of Travellers have settled in houses under council and private tenancies. We see a slight drift of Travellers towards housing, perhaps with a view to travelling when they want to. That is okay for some, but not for others.

We do not have the bigger problems with sites, because we do not have one, but a number of Travellers are considering planning issues and are buying—or considering buying—pieces of ground to settle there. We have had a number of such planning applications throughout the council area.

I do most of my work in Aberdeenshire, which is the area to which Alex Johnstone referred. I agree that there is a growth in the travelling population during the spring and summer travelling period. There have been 75 unauthorised encampments in Aberdeenshire this year. A large reason for that is that there are no permanent sites in Aberdeenshire. There is one seasonal site in Banff, which is open from March to September, but it is largely populated by the same group every year, and there is no other provision to prevent the unauthorised encampments.

That number of encampments sounds high, but many of them just involve the same families moving from one place to another within Aberdeenshire, perhaps only a few miles at a time.

A fairly large number of people from the travelling community are in settled housing, but a large number of those people remain hidden from official statistics and do not want to identify themselves. I am not aware of a large number of such people, but I know that a lot of people are there who I just do not know are there.

John Finnie wanted to ask about mapping. Do you want to ask that now, as we are talking about unauthorised encampments?

We keep hearing about traditional stopping-off places being blocked up. We heard last week—and again just now—about the difficulties of acquiring sites. Do the witnesses see any benefit in mapping out the traditional stopping-off sites? No doubt that would raise speculation among the many landowners who own them now, although I can think of one in my area that is owned by the local authority.

The traditional stopping places in South Ayrshire have gone. The travelling tradition down there, going back to the romantic days of the Traveller, was purely for agricultural work. Ayrshire was a famous place for potatoes and other things, and there were traditional Traveller stopping places, but they are all gone.

Until about 15 or 20 years ago, Travellers used areas near the main town of Ayr. However, those areas were developed into things such as retail parks and industrial estates, so the Travellers were pushed further out. Because of that, they now come right into the centre of the town to car parks, including train station car parks, which is where the problems are starting to hit.

Dave Black referred to the issue of provision. Historically, most local authorities provided sites for Travellers, which was probably a great idea at the time, and the sites were used. However, that was more than 20 years ago. I know of a girl who was five when she arrived at a site and who now has a family of five herself. There was never any forward thinking about provision in that regard. We still have the same pitch targets and the same number of pitches that we had 25 years ago, but the extended families who use them have grown.

Following consultation with the Travellers, we are looking to identify areas that are suitable for transit sites. Perthshire is a big agricultural area, but we realise that the Travellers’ lifestyle has changed completely in a generation and that there is no longer seasonal work for them on the farms where they used to stop for whatever period they needed to do their jobs—that situation just does not exist any more. The Travellers still want to pursue their lifestyle, which they entirely have the right to do, but the traditional places no longer exist for them. We appreciate that, and we have identified one or two areas to try to help them in that regard.

It is the same in North Lanarkshire: the traditional places no longer exist and are now mainly just big industrial estates. In years past, Travellers might stay in Coatbridge, for example, but if they wanted to go to Motherwell, they would move the whole family there. However, they do not have to do that kind of thing now, because the road structure there is such that it takes only 20 minutes to get to Stirling, for example. That means that, if Travellers have one spot in the authority, they tend to stay there and branch out for work, if they can get it. The traditional stopping places no longer exist, so the Travellers look for a spot where they can stay.

Would a mapping exercise be useful, or is it your view that, because the traditional travelling routes no longer exist, a mapping exercise would not be beneficial?

I am sure that we all keep a record of encampments in our authority areas, so a mapping exercise would be easy. For example, in my authority, Cumbernauld and Bellshill are areas where we have increasing numbers of Travellers. I have not spoken to my colleagues here about it, but I am sure that it would not be difficult to do a mapping exercise.

The mapping exercise in my area has probably changed over the past five years. The unauthorised encampments have become what we term high profile, which refers to the number of complaints that come in from the public or businesses about the encampments. We have managed unauthorised encampments. We ask whether there are any health or education issues, and we try to supply some kind of refuse collection.

10:15

Only yesterday, I had a worry after receiving an email. We received money from central Government to set up a transit site but, over two years, we never made any headway with that. The matter recently went to committee, and the money was supposedly going back, but one of our local councillors emailed to ask whether it was possible to use the money for portaloos, portable showers, skips and an education pod—whatever that might be. The intention was to look at that. In thinking about one mapped area that is a local authority car park next to a hotel on Ayr seafront, my biggest concern is that I dread to think what the hotelier and the general public would think if we moved in and put in toilets, showers, skips and an education pod.

It is helpful to know that, but I still think that there would be a benefit in a mapping exercise. In particular, we have not heard about landward areas, certainly north of Perth, that traditionally would not have been subject to roadside fencing, but are now subject to it, or areas in which there were encampments over a great number of years, but where road improvements have been made. The reason that I ask about them is that engagement with the Gypsy Traveller community would be needed to establish those things. I can think of two particular cases: a wood in which Gypsy Travellers used to stay, which is still a wood, and a quarry to which they used to go, which is still a quarry.

This is not about folk sitting in Edinburgh pontificating; we need active engagement with those people. We are told that there are continual difficulties with stop-offs and that seasonal sites have their benefits. If people go to collect whelks on Skye, I am not necessarily suggesting that a site should be built there, but there must be provision for them to be able to live a traditional lifestyle. That means that the local authority, which has obligations, should not block off traditional sites, for instance.

I would like to pick up on Mr Kane’s comments. In his area, there are now retail parks and various other developments on traditional stopping points. How do you engage with the Gypsy Traveller community on planning applications? We have heard in evidence that there is very little engagement. Is the Gypsy Traveller community notified when a retail park is coming along, for instance? Are the community’s opinions considered? Other witnesses can comment on that, as well.

On the comments about a councillor asking for money to be spent, the money has, as Mr Kane said, been available for a length of time and has not been spent. We have visited many sites, and it is clear that, for instance, sanitary products are needed in portaloo toilets and that education facilities are needed for teaching children who cannot attend school, I think. I turn the issue back on you. You said that you could not imagine what the hotelier whom you mentioned would think. If you put yourself in the Gypsy Travellers’ position, could you imagine what they would think about not having those things at their disposal when they come to a local authority area?

I am taking two different lines. There are what we would call high-profile situations, which are basically in the public’s face. I will not go down the line of the traditional Traveller not having toilets in the caravan, the car park not having toilet facilities, unfortunately, and toilet facilities perhaps being a long way off. I can see where you are coming from on that but, as a local authority worker, I must look at the matter from the local authority’s point of view. In car parks in Prestwick and Ayr, as a result of public pressure—including on local councillors—height barriers and other measures to stop Travellers coming in have been put in. Unfortunately, that only causes impacts elsewhere because, as soon as one area is blocked off, Travellers move to another area.

I can see where the public are coming from, but I can also see where Siobhan McMahon is coming from in what she said about supplying toilets. A long time ago—I am going back 20 years—the issue was the supply of skips. When I started doing the job, people said, “We can’t supply skips because that would justify the Travellers being there,” but those people would probably spend twice as much cleaning up after the Travellers had gone. I could never see the sense in that.

The way in which we manage unauthorised encampments seems to work well. In relation to education, we had a group of 35 Travellers who turned up at Monkton in South Ayrshire looking to get about 12 kids into a very small school. It was about three weeks before the summer holidays, so the school was about to close, but they were accommodated. We have a contact for education and numerous contacts for health, including dentists and so on. We try to have named people for each facility that might be needed. We also tell people the location of the nearest toilets and recycling centre. On that side of things, I think that we are managing well.

The local authority and the Travellers Site Managers Association have discussed whether we should put in such facilities, and the answer that always comes back is no. If we tell people where those places are—they can even use the toilets in local supermarkets—they know where to go. We tell them where the nearest recycling centre is, where the nearest toilets are, where the nearest swimming pool is and so on.

And on the planning process?

I have no idea about the planning process. I would guess that the answer is that they are not consulted. One reason might be the difficulty that even we have in engaging with Gypsy Travellers. Unfortunately, as a traditionally recognised group—I do not want to use the word “ethnic”—they never seem to have a good ambassador that speaks for them. There have been numerous groups that claimed to represent Travellers, but unfortunately they fell by the wayside. We tried to engage with those groups. Sorry, but I cannot remember the names, because I am going back 20 years and the memory seems to go.

There have been three groups that I can remember during my time in the job, and as site managers or the Travellers Site Managers Association we have always engaged with them. The unfortunate thing is that they did not last long and they did not seem to have a good spokesperson. That is something that we have always wanted. We have always tried to have Travellers and their culture involved in the training side but, unfortunately, it has been difficult to get hold of someone.

To return to the original question, I agree that it is important to recognise where the traditional stopping places are and also where people stop with the new patterns of travelling. However, as Kevin McGown said, it would not be particularly difficult for people in most areas to set that out. The bigger problem has been not identifying where sites should be, but the challenges that have been faced in trying to bring sites to fruition in those places, such as the negative attitudes of communities, community councils and elected officials in those areas, who do not want that to happen in their back yard.

Those comments are useful.

I understand that a significant piece of work has been done in the north-east. Collaboration by the councils in Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire and Moray has identified that more than 30 sites are required—some static, some transient and some a mixture of both. At present, we have one traditional static site.

A mapping exercise has been done, and one static site has been established. Given the need that has been identified, I find it extraordinary—from the comments that have been made this morning—that although everyone seems to be aware that traditional sites either have been closed down or are now being used for alternative purposes, be they retail parks or whatever, absolutely no thought has been given to where we accommodate the Gypsy Traveller community now. Removal of a traditional site with no plan for an alternative does a disservice to that community. The situation is simply not equitable.

I have heard the “not in my back yard” comments and find them unacceptable, because Gypsy Travellers have a right to be accommodated. Almost every council has failed in this, and we need to get to the nub of the matter. Under pressure from community councils and other officials, councils are simply saying, “We don’t want this here—we’re going to pass it on” but all you are doing is passing it on from one council area to another. There is no co-ordination and there needs to be. My question, therefore, is this: if you have closed down a traditional site, why have you not provided an alternative?

Who wishes to respond to that question?

Dennis Robertson has made some very valid points. The Travellers feel that their lifestyle has been eroded with the removal of traditional stopping places and the closure of council sites. There is simply not the same number of sites that there were several years ago. Over the past 20-odd years, North Lanarkshire has had three sites. It might sound silly, but the one in Bellshill closed mainly because of low occupancy rates. A second site at the top of Coatbridge near the M80—an excellent spot, you might think—closed, again because of low occupancy rates. Another of our sites in Forrest Street in Airdrie closed because of low occupancy rates as well as antisocial behaviour.

Some Travellers welcome sites; others feel quite happy not staying there, even in the type of weather we can see out the window, because of their perception of site management, barriers and so on. “Barriers” is a horrible word; the sites do not have barriers for people coming and going, but those perceptions exist.

Some authorities still have sites, but they have not lived up to what they were put there for. Travellers do not use them and they fall into disrepair. There is antisocial behaviour and vandalism; and the authorities finally say, “We don’t have a record of Travellers wanting to stay on the site”. That might be happening in isolation in certain authorities, but it is certainly what happened in North Lanarkshire.

If there is underoccupancy on sites, might one not assume that the sites were not appropriate in the first instance? Having visited some, I have to be perfectly honest and say that it is absolutely no surprise that people do not want to live on them, for various reasons. Kevin McGown mentioned antisocial behaviour and vandalism, but are they attributable to the Gypsy Traveller community or to others who are impacting on that community? How much engagement has there actually been?

I was very surprised to hear Brian Kane say that Gypsy Travellers do not have spokespersons, ambassadors and so on. We have certainly engaged a lot with the Gypsy Traveller community, and I assure you that the evidence that we have heard has been excellent and articulate. There has perhaps been a lack of will on the part of some councils to find an appropriate Gypsy Traveller spokesperson. The engagement from the council may be on a negative footing, rather than a positive footing that might help to resolve the issues.

10:30

I absolutely agree with Dennis Robertson. The sites that we have visited have been in very poor locations—for example, beside an industrial estate or outside a town. There has been poor access to the sites, and they have lacked basic facilities. It is therefore not surprising that Gypsy Travellers do not want to stay on those sites.

Are Gypsy Travellers ever asked whether the site with which they have been provided is suitable for them, or do the councils simply say, “There’s a site, and that’s where you have to go”? There has been very little communication and co-operation from local authorities with Gypsy Travellers on sites—certainly from the evidence that we have heard—to improve the basic, and I mean “basic”, conditions on those sites. That is very disappointing.

It is true to say that we have heard evidence from some very good people who have advocated on behalf of Gypsy Travellers, and from Gypsy Travellers themselves. It would be interesting to hear the witnesses’ views on working with Gypsy Travellers—

Could we have a response to the question about the lack of mapping of sites in the north-east.

Yes. Mhairi Craig wanted to come in, so I will bring her in just now.

I will make a couple of points. I work closely with Gypsy Travellers in a support role, so I spend a lot of time in the community. They are very articulate, and they have a lot of good things to say. They know what they want, but historically they are used to not being listened to and to people just paying lip service to them. People from the council come in and tick the equalities box by saying, “Okay—we’ll take your views into account”, and then nothing happens.

The lack of engagement is not down to apathy among Gypsy Travellers, but to their experience. They end up taking a step back and saying, “What’s the point, because no one ever listens to us anyway?” I work with three different local authorities: East Lothian Council and Midlothian Council, which run one site, and the City of Edinburgh Council, which runs another. Everything that has been done on the East Lothian and Midlothian site, such as the planned improvements, has taken place in consultation with the Travellers; the site manager and I have consulted the Travellers on every issue. The experience in Edinburgh has been the complete opposite. Everything that has happened has been forced upon the Travellers and they have not been consulted.

I can see the difference that working closely with the community makes to the attitudes of the Travellers towards the local authorities. I agree that the sites are just put wherever it is convenient for the council. The site at Whitecraig, for East Lothian and Midlothian, is horrendous; I do not know whether anyone here has been to it. There is a row of pylons running right through the site, and it is in a really bad state of disrepair, although that will change soon. I agree that Travellers are not consulted enough.

I work for a housing association rather than a council. We have a site in Lochgilphead where we have just set up a—[Interruption.]

I am sorry to interrupt you, Mr Buchanan. I ask the people who joined us at 10 o’clock to switch off any mobile phones or put them on flight mode, because they interfere with our sound and recording system.

We have just set up a Travellers’ residents association on the site at Duncholgan outside Lochgilphead. The group is formidable and very active, and it has high aspirations for major improvements to the site. The site is in a poor location. It has a poor access road, it is poorly lit, the space standards are poor and the amenities are 20 years old. It is beyond its sell-by date. However, as I said to the Travellers, we fully support their aspirations. There is nothing there that we were not aware of or disagreed with, but it comes down to funding, and tackling those issues will require major resources that the association does not have.

We visited that site and I agree that it is in an appalling condition. I accept that it comes down to funding. However, would the same funding constraints apply to another group?

I would have to say yes. We have severe funding problems with a lot of our housing stock in many areas. I take your point, though. We are in a slightly different position from the other witnesses in that we are a housing association and are funded slightly differently from councils.

All local authorities and, as far as I am aware, housing associations have to meet the Scottish housing quality standards.

Absolutely.

I wonder where Gypsy Travellers and their sites sit within that. Surely, there is an obligation for Gypsy Travellers to live under the same standards as everyone else.

I am not aware that the housing quality standards are appropriate for Traveller sites. We have to meet certain standards to get the site licence and we have tenancy obligations, but I am not aware of SHQS being applied to sites.

I will respond to some of Mr Robertson’s comments about the north-east. I am not directly employed by any of the local authorities in the north-east, but work for an independent organisation in Aberdeenshire alongside Aberdeenshire Council, so I have some awareness of the problems and the challenges that are being faced in the area.

I refer back to the research that was done to identify where sites are required. Some actions have been taken to address the need for sites. In Moray, two sites were identified and developed following, as far as I know, a lot of consultation of the Traveller community and the settled community. However, both those sites were, near the final stages of site development, turned down by a policy and resources committee. Both Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire Council have included Gypsy Traveller site provision in their local development plans. They have given the go-ahead to larger site developments and have said that there should be Gypsy Traveller site provision in those larger developments. We hope that some sites will become available in the next few years.

Aberdeenshire Council has also tried to find sites outwith that approach. Recently, a bit of private land was identified and the landowner was willing to let the council lease that land on a long-term lease. However, news of that got out to the local community and, following pressure on the landowner, he decided to go back on the deal and no longer wanted to lease the land to the council. Aberdeenshire Council has identified a bit of land that it will try to develop as a stop-over site in the next year.

I have a concern that there is no mention of what I would term the failures of central Government. Twenty odd years ago, central Government said that it would supply funding for sites and actually ended up providing 100 per cent funding for sites. The carrot-and-stick approach that was taken by the Government at that time was that, if the sites were built, the local authority would not have to tolerate unauthorised encampments. However, that policy never worked because it never stopped unauthorised encampments. The sites, having been built 20-odd years ago with no forethought of families growing, have not changed and some are now falling into disrepair. After 10 years, the site that I am on was given another 100 per cent funding for an upgrading, which was done by the local authority. Fortunately, South Ayrshire Council is pretty active in supporting Travellers and their culture and has kept the site up to a very high standard.

Unfortunately, matters are left to individual local authorities when central Government says that it wants strategies to be drawn up to manage unauthorised encampments. When central Government sends out the requirement to local authorities, each local authority will draw up a different strategy. You can come into South Ayrshire with your family and your dog, but you must leave your dog behind if you go into Dumfries and Galloway. No two strategies are ever exactly the same. If central Government set out the strategy, I think that all local authorities would follow it. Requiring individual local authorities to come up with their own strategies does not work.

John Finnie has a supplementary question on that point.

My question is on occupancy, which we have heard about from a number of people. If I noted it correctly, two sites in North Lanarkshire were closed due to occupancy issues. I would like to direct my question to Mr Buchanan about the situation—I represent the area and I have visited the site—at Benderloch. Obviously, you are responsible for the sites and for the housing stock. We heard from one of the Benderloch occupants about this issue, so let me rephrase it in the following way. If I, as a Gypsy Traveller, were to come on to that site and then chose to travel, could my place on that site be retained?

Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, you cannot go away for just any length of time, so it would not be retained.

What is the allowed length of time?

Tenants who are to be away for more than a month need to let the association know. If that was clearly—

Forgive me, please. If I was one of your housing tenants, could I go away for more than a month’s holiday?

You could not do that without letting us know.

Really?

Yes—that is part of the standard Scottish secure tenancy agreement.

I have learned something already. How is that policy compatible with the traditional pattern of seasonal travel?

I appreciate fully where you are coming from. Having worked on Traveller sites in Argyll for a fair number of years, I would say that the vast majority of Travellers who come on to our sites stay and are settled. There are also some who come and go, which is fine. However, we do not have provision for transient sites; they are classed as permanent sites, so people come there permanently.

Does that not dismiss the travel element? For instance, we heard that people want to travel to the north-east, but their options are limited.

As an aside, let me say that many of the Travellers to whom I have spoken in the north-east have described themselves as Argyll Travellers.

I do not disagree with that. There are in Argyll some itinerant or transient Travellers who move around. They come into the area and there is no reason why they cannot move on to a site if we have a vacancy. I take your point that there may be an issue if a site is full, as has happened at Lochgilphead, but that is the first time for many years.

With respect, the emphasis is wrong. If we are saying that we recognise the Traveller lifestyle, if people want to have a base on one of your sites, surely it is incompatible to say “That can be your base for 48 weeks of the year, but if you go away for more than a month, you lose your place” when people are willing to pay rent for the site.

10:45

We permit people to go away for two or three months as long as we are aware of it.

Has that information been shared with your tenants? We have heard concerns about that.

It is certainly something that we can express to tenants.

It would be very helpful if you could do that.

That might be where there is a bit of inconsistency. Kevin McGown can correct me if I am wrong, but back when the sites were originally established, people could spend a 12-week period off-site and retain their pitch. That was the done thing at the time to allow people to go to Appleby fair or for other cultural reasons. As far as I am aware, that changed only if they were on housing benefit. If anyone went away from a house for more than two weeks, the council would look to find out why it was still paying housing benefit for a period of 12 weeks. That is still under consultation and the situation is about to change again.

When it comes to the tenancy agreement, it should be borne in mind that a pitch on the site is not a secure tenancy—in our case, the requirement is seven days’ notice in either direction whereas, in a house, people have secure tenancies. If Travellers want to up and go within seven days, they can just go, which is something that Travellers fought for years ago.

I can clarify for Mr Finnie that the ACHA lease permits people to leave for eight weeks. I would be happy to negotiate for any Traveller who said that they were planning to go away for the summer and would be back in August or whenever. We will normally accept that as long as we are made aware of it.

Thank you—that is very helpful.

Let us move on to the slightly different subject of liaison officers and site managers. The witnesses around the table have a variety of titles. Having recently joined the committee, I have the impression that a variety of titles are used in councils. Liaison officers are sometimes site managers as well, but that is sometimes a different role. In North Lanarkshire there are no site managers, only liaison officers. Advice was given years ago that the roles should be separate, but some people appear to be arguing that there are advantages to combining the roles, as well as disadvantages. I would be interested in your comments about how it works in practice.

In North Lanarkshire, the travelling people’s liaison officer post was associated with social work. It encompassed aspects such as childcare, benefits and housing issues. The site manager tended to deal with issues on the site, whereas the liaison officer was involved in all sorts of things—liaising with different departments within the authority, including education, housing and social work, as well as with outside agencies including the police. The liaison officer is the link between all the bodies within and outside the council.

Has that worked well?

Yes.

Has there been a good relationship between the different departments and police, social work and so on?

Yes, there has. Because I have been in post for a number of years, I have a great relationship with the Travellers. Planning now seems to be an issue, where Travellers are seeking planning consent for their own place to stay with their small family. That is an issue on which we liaise with the planning department at an early stage, instead of the Traveller saying, “I want to buy a piece of ground in X” where X is greenbelt land and there is no likelihood of their getting planning permission. We liaise with the planning department to find out whether the place is suitable and, if it is not, to see whether there are alternatives that they might want to consider. It is about liaison between all agencies, both inside and outside the local authority.

Would I be right in saying that perhaps that is not replicated all the way round the country?

In defence of site managers, I perform the same role as Kevin McGown in that I deal with estates and other departments within and outwith the council on behalf of the Travellers.

Does that give you the advantage of a closer relationship with some of the Gypsy Travellers?

Yes. The advantage is that I act on their behalf rather than as the site manager. I act as a liaison officer, liaising on behalf of the Travellers with, for example, the national health service, planning departments and so on.

Is there a clash between your two roles?

No. I have never had a clash between the roles—they are totally separate.

I would be interested in Mr Black’s view from a slightly different angle.

My role is probably quite different from that of most people here, in that it is independent from the council. The committee recommended some years ago that councils should consider that point.

There was a reference earlier to engagement. It makes it easier if we are not responsible for enforcement action or for deciding whether a group is allowed to stay where it is or whether it has to be moved on. I appreciate not having a role in that, which is done in Aberdeenshire by environmental health officers. I can deal with the liaison with health, education or social work, whichever services are appropriate, and I do not have to be the one who decides whether a group or family is moving on. That is a useful division of labour.

I echo Dave Black’s views. I work for Shelter, which is an independent organisation. We offer independent support, advice and advocacy to any Travellers we come across. I work closely with site managers, too. However, I think that the Travellers appreciate having an independent organisation that they can go to. Like Dave Black, I am not responsible for moving people on or anything like that. We are there completely to represent the Travellers.

I can see the different angles and the advantages of each. The North Lanarkshire model sounds attractive, because somebody in the council acts on behalf of the Travellers. However, you still feel that your independence is an advantage.

I think that the Travellers appreciate that. However, it is important to work closely with the council. I have always made a point of working closely with site managers and keeping them in the loop about what I am doing with Travellers, and they do the same for me. However, being independent has advantages.

When we were talking about unauthorised encampments, Mr Kane, you said in an answer to me that your responsibility is to advocate on behalf of the council. However, when we talked about the liaison officer, you said that you are for the Gypsy Travellers and that of course there is no conflict between your roles. That is confusing for me, so I can imagine why it is confusing for Gypsy Travellers. I would like clarification on that.

Some of the sites that we have visited have an approachable site manager, but they are there only one day a week and do not actually approach any Gypsy Travellers; instead, they sit and wait for the Gypsy Travellers to come and chap the door. I do not think that that is the best approach. Given that a predecessor committee specified in a report in 2001 that roles should be more diverse and that we have seen that kind of approach being taken, I wonder how there is no conflict between your roles.

Historically, there was only one liaison officer for the pan-Ayrshire area: North Ayrshire, South Ayrshire and East Ayrshire. Whenever he visited Travellers on a site or elsewhere, I accompanied him. I found that I ended up taking on his role if he could not make it to any places. When we went to the single-tier structure, I think that doing away with the role of liaison officer was purely a financial decision. It was decided that the site manager for North Ayrshire and South Ayrshire could perform that role. East Ayrshire does not have a site, nor a liaison officer; until recently, the local authority did not even have a contact for Travellers. We have looked over the two areas. We have a dedicated nurse for each Ayrshire; if there is no liaison officer for the dedicated nurse to go to, they tend to call on one or the other of the site managers.

As Kevin McGown said, you cannot train for a job with Travellers. You learn the job while you are in it. You have got to know the Travellers and if you are there for any length of time, that is fine. If you are not aware of the Traveller culture, and everyone comes into the job in ignorance, you will learn a lot.

I still do not see that there is a role in my area for a separate liaison officer, because I cannot see what they would do that I could not do.

The point that we are trying to make is that someone has to act as an advocate on behalf of the Gypsy Travellers. You said in your answer to me that your primary responsibility is to the local authority. Should the two functions not be separate?

I am employed by the local authority. If I had an example of a time when I could not assist a Traveller because I am a local authority worker, I could give it to you; however, I cannot think of anything.

Thank you.

You are a local authority employee, so if your manager takes a particular view of the Gypsy Traveller community or a site, you would be carrying out their instructions and not those of the Gypsy Traveller community. Do you not accept that?

Gypsy Travellers are just like people who live in houses. If people in houses had only their housing officer to deal with, they would not get impartial or independent advice. Organisations such as Shelter exist to provide people with independent advice and support and Gypsy Travellers are as much entitled to that support and advice as anyone else.

I think of my role as an advocacy role. I have fought against internal departments when I have questioned why we are doing something for Gypsy Travellers. I have taken up their issues when they did not feel that they were getting a fair crack of the whip. I can take up those issues and argue with the council on their behalf.

We are dealing with a lot of issues these days, because older Travellers’ health is a big concern. We deal with a lot of benefit and housing issues by acting on behalf of the Traveller. Filling in forms is a particular issue. I am sure that we are all aware of the disability living allowance forms, which can be horrendous for some people to fill in. People are only asking for their entitlements—they are not asking for anything special, just what they are entitled to.

That would include accommodation.

Yes, whether it is on a site or in a house.

In response to Siobhan McMahon and Dennis Robertson, the other thing to say is that site managers in different authorities have different roles. There are site managers, or liaison officers, if you want to call them that, who have nothing to do with unauthorised encampments. Either environmental health or, in some cases, the legal department deals with that. I can never find out how that is of assistance to any Traveller.

If I needed an independent view, I could contact Mhairi Craig—I have her phone number—and say, “I have a problem here. Can you assist me?”

People having different roles and local authorities having different rules and strategies causes problems. There is a lack of co-ordination in local authorities. We are trying to pull things a little bit tighter. In our pan-Ayrshire work, we looked at having a transit site that might cover the three Ayrshire council areas rather than just the one. It is very early days and the issue is still open for discussion. I do not think that we are anywhere near considering what we could use such a site for and what it would consist of.

11:00

Marco Biagi is next. After him, we will hear from Siobhan McMahon, who has a question about housing needs assessments.

We have focused heavily on the sites, but it has come up intermittently that some Gypsy Travellers will move into houses, although they may well move back to sites. What sort of issues does that throw up? I presume that, from a liaison point of view, people who are in houses are harder to reach. I would be interested to hear participants’ views on that.

I think that most people would agree that Travellers who move into houses try to keep some anonymity—they do not want it to be known by local people that they are Travellers.

On the other hand, Travellers whom I work with in the town of Girvan will come to me for simple things such as help with filling in passport forms or advice on where to go. We liaise with Travellers and—hopefully—advise them correctly on matters such as housing benefit. We perform a signposting role. As Kevin McGown said, the health side of things is very important to Travellers. We work closely with health services and assist Travellers with that. We still perform a liaison role with Travellers, even when they have moved out of a site into a house. Some Travellers move off the road into houses. Traditionally, a lot of Travellers do that over winter.

We tend to find that Traveller families who go into houses want to stay beside one another, or in the near vicinity, so we will have a number of Traveller families within three or four streets of one another. That is a result of their applying for accommodation through the local housing office.

In your experience, do Gypsy Travellers tend to encounter more acrimony, for want of a better word, from the settled community, for want of a better term, if they are in houses rather than in sites, or is it the other way round?

As has been said, when they live in houses, they tend not to identify themselves as Travellers. Unfortunately, that can result in families becoming distanced from each other, because people who are in houses do not want members of their family who live in caravans to come and visit them, as they will be recognised as Travellers. That can cause family splits, which is extremely unfortunate.

Can I clarify something? You said that Gypsy Travellers do not identify themselves as such when they are in houses. I take it that they would still self-identify as Gypsy Travellers; it is just that they do not publicly identify themselves as such.

It is difficult to know that. It is only in the past six to eight months that I have made contact with Travellers in houses. I have done that through site contacts. People have been referred to me by extended family members. They have identified themselves as Travellers to me, but I tend to think that they would still not do so to other people.

When the information emerges from the most recent census, it will be interesting to find out how many people who are in houses identify their ethnic origin as Gypsy Traveller.

I want to pick up on some of the points that have been made. I find that word of mouth is definitely one of the main ways in which members of the travelling community find out about me—people whom I visited in encampments will pass on my details. I have had a few phone calls from people who are from a travelling background who are now in housing.

I have noticed that Gypsy Travellers in housing, on a site or on the side of the road have some of the same cultural attitudes towards secondary education. They still do not feel that standard secondary education is suitable for their children because of fears about bullying or the issues to which they will be exposed in secondary education.

Those issues come up for Travellers in settled housing as well. I have received quite a few contacts and phone calls about that and have tried to help people who want to get home schooling for their children even though they are in settled housing.

On housing application forms, applicants are asked for their ethnicity. We have a space for Gypsy Travellers, just as we would for any other nationality, but it is not always filled in. I agree with Mhairi Craig. Perhaps because of previous generations’ fear of the bullying and anti-Traveller feeling that has existed, Travellers do not tick the box for Gypsy Traveller.

Mhairi Craig mentioned the census. There are huge disparities between the figures for the number of Gypsy Travellers in Scotland. There are four or five different figures, but I am not sure whether the census will help because, although I told families that there was a box specifically for them and asked them whether they would tick it, they just ticked the box for white Scottish.

There is a heritage not so much of suspicion but of wariness and not wanting to be identified as Gypsy Travellers.

I agree with Mr McGown. I know that there is a bit of suspicion regarding ethnicity on forms.

I have a fair bit of experience of Travellers moving into settled accommodation. In general, in mid Argyll, that has been a wee bit different from experiences such as Mhairi Craig’s because the community is transparent. Everybody knows everybody and the Travellers are well known, so any Travellers who move into the settled community are transparent in the community.

That has had major advantages and disadvantages. In general, the travelling community is reasonably well respected locally. However, one or two families are well known and we have experienced severe prejudice from local communities when looking to house one or two families that had a bit of a reputation.

In general, there is a lot of support for Travellers and all people moving into accommodation nowadays, such as welfare rights, support to help them settle into the tenancy and post-settling-in visits. Those are all picked up on and most Travellers have assimilated well into the community.

I have a supplementary question on tenancy agreements. Amnesty published a report that found that there was no single model for tenancy agreements, although the Equal Opportunities Committee recommended the development of a model agreement in its 2001 report. What are the witnesses’ opinions on that? How can the matter be addressed?

Gypsy Travellers who are in settled accommodation may want to travel for the summer. Is that built into their tenancy agreement when they take up a house? How does it work for them if they are on site?

Can central Government help on tenancy agreements? Should it come up with a model that everyone should follow or should it be down to each individual local authority to develop one?

It would be really good to have a main model for occupancy agreements, particularly for sites, because there are big differences between the occupancy agreements even between the three authorities that I deal with.

In East Lothian and Midlothian, we drew up a new occupancy agreement last year that was as closely modelled on a secure tenancy as we could possibly get it to be without it actually being a secure tenancy because it did not involve a house. That has given Travellers the right to repair and so on. Included in that agreement is a break clause of 12 weeks so that they can leave when they want to travel, provided that they give notice. However, there is an issue with the benefits side of it, as mentioned earlier. Although they can leave, that is not always practical because of claiming housing benefit.

Are you aware of anyone making representation to, for example, the Parliament’s Welfare Reform Committee, which is looking at how housing benefit will be administered in Scotland? To your knowledge, is any representation being made for Gypsy Travellers in that regard? The issue has not been raised in the chamber.

To my knowledge, no representation has been made.

One of the main issues, as Mhairi Craig said, is that if Gypsy Travellers are settled on a site and move away in the summer, they cannot claim housing benefit in two different areas. We can build a rule book, but some facets get missed that we have to take into consideration. There is no benefit in leaving Travellers sitting on the roadside because they cannot get housing benefit. If we can put them on a site, they can get facilities and access to our services rather than just being left in an encampment somewhere.

I am a great advocate that things should come from central Government, because a lot of pressure is put on local authorities to come up with things. That is fine if we all sing the same tune, but we do not. Some authorities are far apart. Again, it is down to individual local authorities how the site manager is supported and what his roles are. Some site managers or liaison officers do not carry out duties with regard to unauthorised encampments; they do not offer services. The only time that I am not involved is if the local authority decides to take legal action. I take a back seat on that because I cannot act in two roles: I cannot act for the local authority to carry out an eviction and act for the Traveller for services.

Central Government has laid a lot of things on local authorities. Policies should be laid down by central Government rather than things being interpreted in different ways by different local authorities.

From listening to the discussion, it seems to me that there are quite different situations in the north-east, in North Lanarkshire and in Ayrshire. Is there not a wee bit of danger in things being too centralised?

I see where you are coming from. However, although we have a good site managers association and we try to pick up on good practice from other local authorities, what annoys me sometimes as a site manager is that without the backing of the respective local authorities in allowing their site managers to copy that good practice, it is never going to work.

If the rules come from central Government and set out what each authority must do with regard to housing, tenancy agreements and so on, we would be fine. We were asked to mirror the new Scottish tenancy as far as we could. Mhairi Craig mentioned two local authorities that did that. We have done it as well, but other local authorities have not and it is about different rules again—rather than a tenancy agreement, it is four sheets of paper with rules and regulations with regard to the site.

Thank you.

I have a question for Dave Black, but I am also keen to hear the views of the other witnesses. How did the dialogue day change the relationship between the Gypsy Traveller community and the settled community, what work did you do before you had the dialogue day and what on-going work do you do? My question for the other witnesses is this: what on-going work do you do to build relationships between the Gypsy Traveller community and the settled community?

11:15

Most people will be aware that there were a lot of tensions between Gypsy Traveller groups and settled communities in the north-east in 2010-11 and earlier. In April 2010, we held a dialogue day event to address the issues and to get a lot of the stakeholders in the same room together. We built that day, and we worked alongside a Gypsy Traveller volunteer at GREC. We tried to make the day informal so that people would feel comfortable coming along to it. We invited a lot of the relevant people from local authorities in the north-east and about 20 Travellers came from the more settled sites in Aberdeen. The work prior to the event was to encourage people to take part and to build on the relationships that we already had. Especially useful was having someone on board from within the community who could encourage people to see the benefit of coming along.

The day worked well. We asked people to identify the issues that were important to them and then split up into discussion groups to discuss those issues, which included education, health, unauthorised encampments, the role of the police and developing sites.

I guess that an important thing that came out of the day was the fact that people from community councils were sitting around the same table as Gypsy Travellers—even though there have been plenty of opportunities for each group to speak about each other, that was probably the first time that that had happened. It was a useful exercise for people to see things from the other side and to think of solutions that work for everyone.

A few suggestions came out of the day that related to working with the site at Clinterty, including developing the community centre, which had been unused for a few years, addressing some of the equality issues, such as access to health and education, working with the residents to take ownership of the community centre and encouraging long-term engagement with the groups of people who are discussing Gypsy Traveller issues without any Gypsy Travellers being present. We are working on those areas at the moment. Any opportunity that requires increased engagement and building up trust is good because, when it comes to looking at site development, it is much easier to speak to people whom you have started to build relationships with and to have an open and honest conversation about what is being planned or suggested by the local authority.

Has that changed perceptions of Gypsy Travellers in the settled community? Has there been more interaction between the two communities?

That is difficult to assess. One positive difference that we have noticed is the media coverage. The dialogue day presented a good opportunity for people in the media to cover a story and hear the different sides of the argument. We had Gypsy Travellers speaking to the press outside the event and that has made quite a big difference. It also led to a bit of a difference in the positions adopted by elected officials, in that they were no longer saying that Gypsy Travellers are a problem that they needed to get rid of; instead, they were saying that there is a problem to which the answer is that site provision is needed and things need to move forward. In fact, we heard some elected officials saying in the press, “We have been the problem and we need to stop being the problem,” which is positive.

We are working to increase engagement on a small level. Such things take a lot of time to build up and that is what we are trying to do at the Clinterty community centre, for example. However, the issues cannot just be changed with a one-day event; they will change only over the long term.

Dave Black mentioned engagement with the Travellers. The other word that has come up over the past 10 years is “consult”—we never consulted Travellers before. The first time that consulting Travellers was mentioned to me was regarding the upgrading of the site. With the grant that we had, we finally realised that we had to consult the people who were going to live on the site. When the site was originally built, it was a case of, “This is the site and here are the guidelines of what it will look like,” and there was probably no or very little consultation with Travellers.

You learn a lot through consultation. We had our meeting with the Travellers and I am so glad that we did, because there were things that I had never noticed. Even when only small amounts of money are available, you can ask for any ideas of what is needed or what people could do with. I am going through that process again, just now. Something that must always be remembered, especially when on-site, is that you should consult with those who will live there.

The term “transit site” was mentioned. I had to go to Travellers and say, “If there was a transit site—or short stay site or whatever you want to call it—what facilities would you require? What would you want?” Very little was asked for. The problem with transit sites is location. Where do you put them?

Although we do not have such sites, on North Lanarkshire Council’s website we have a section on frequently asked questions regarding Gypsy Travellers, which, for the settled community, is well worth reading. It provides a lot of information, particularly on unauthorised encampments. That is something that we developed.

Is there interaction between the settled community and the Gypsy Traveller community and do you act as a link between the two?

Yes. Unfortunately, we do not have such sites, so the issue for us is unauthorised encampments, and I liaise with the Travellers and the settled community on the subject of rights, as well. The first thing that people in the settled community say is, “Get them moved,” and I say, “Move back a bit—you can’t do that. Let’s see what the legality is.” Building communication is a big issue.

I would be keen to hear the views of Mr Buchanan and Mr Goodall.

With regard to engaging with Travellers, things have moved on. As I said, in Lochgilphead we have a residents association, which is a good forum for communication with Travellers and aspirations are quite specific. Obviously, we can deal with the smaller things right away and be seen to be doing something. Our bigger aspiration is basically that we would like the site to be rebuilt and we would like a site like the one in Perth. The Travellers say, “This is what’s coming through. We would like a site much like the Perth one.”

However, we have the legacy of where we are, which is the difficulty that we have. It is way from our ideal, but in terms of—

That is very useful, but I am keen to hear what you do to bring the two communities together to break down the existing barriers.

We have education and health projects on the go that involve travelling people. In terms of specifically trying to break down barriers, I am hearing feedback from Dave Black and people like him about what they are doing, which sounds quite useful.

So you are not doing such things now.

We are not doing anything specifically on that, no.

We at Perth and Kinross Council have a very settled site and it is nice to hear that someone is envious of it. I do not think that we experience the same friction as other areas. We get tradesmen who visit the site who know, for example, that they have played football or gone to school with the chap at number 10. There is not the same friction between the settled community and the Travellers as there is elsewhere.

There is very little movement around Perth. As you may know, we installed three-bedroom chalets five years ago and we upgraded them with full gas central heating a year ago.

It is one of the sites that the committee visited.

I do not think that the Gypsy Travellers who stay there want to travel. I know that, without exception, none of them travels a great deal, other than to visit families for a week or so a year. They are very settled.

I go to Bill Goodall’s site, which is unique. I do not know of any other local authority that could afford to do what Perth and Kinross has done. I know that mine could not. I have also heard a rumour that there will be another site in Perth and Kinross along the same lines. Where the money is coming from for that I do not know.

I am struggling to get new flooring on the site, due to budget restraints. I do not like to make comparisons with Bill’s site. He has built a small village with houses. It is not along the lines of a Gypsy Traveller site.

Mhairi Craig, do you work with the Gypsy Traveller community and the settled community to try to build relationships?

In my work with East Lothian Council and Midlothian Council last year, we ran a series of awareness-raising sessions with council employees, police, teachers and voluntary organisations. They were well received and a lot of people said that they had learned a lot that they did not know about the travelling community. Travellers were involved in those sessions as well. There are organisations that do the same sort of thing in Edinburgh, but I am not involved with them.

I work closely with the Travellers and support them in relation to benefits and so on. I do not really have a lot to do with the liaison between the settled community and the travelling community. In my experience, however, the Travellers at the site in Duddingston seem to be very much a part of the community of Craigmillar and are quite well accepted.

We are aware that, when new sites are being planned, an accommodation needs assessment takes place. What does that entail? We have heard in evidence that, when they are conducted, little happens with them. When you decide not to act on them, what are the reasons for that?

The difficulty with new sites is location. I spent two weeks going around the whole of South Ayrshire, looking at potential sites that we owned. I identified half a dozen, but there was no political will to do anything with them.

Would the assessment just involve you visiting a potential site?

The Government asked us to assess whether there was a need for a transit site. At the time, the Government seemed quite keen that each local authority would have a transit site. However, there was no consultation with us about the definition of transit. Does it mean six weeks? Eight weeks? What facilities are required? Where would the money come from?

I am trying to get at what an assessment would entail. I have never conducted an assessment. What processes do you go through? I understand that you were looking for a transit site, but how would you conduct that assessment?

By consulting the Travellers in the area. We ask them whether they would use a transit site if we had one. We consulted people in unauthorised encampments and on the local authority site.

That goes back to what we were saying about the mapping exercise. We identify hotspots where Travellers go year after year, and authorities might want to set up a transit site rather than just having people use the edge of an industrial estate.

What I am trying to get at is, when you conduct an assessment, do you consider issues such as whether the site has access to toilets or whether you have to build toilets, where the road links are, where the closest site is and whether it will be accessible to elderly and disabled people and so on? Do you tick all those boxes and then come to a conclusion based on those factors, or do you simply say that you do not have the funding for it? The evidence suggests that the assessments are conducted—although I am still not sure what happens in that assessment, apart from you going to visit a potential site—but nothing else then happens, because the site is not what the Gypsy Travellers want. Are all those issues considered?

11:30

They are some of the things that are considered. As we said earlier, sites tend to be in the worst places in the local authority area. However, the site has to have accessibility to services such as schools, doctors, roads and local authority first-stop shops, where people can go and ask questions.

Building a site in the middle of the country might be nice from a nimby point of view, as it is not near anyone, but that is probably the worst place to build it. You have to build a site where there is access to facilities. That is what you should consider when you do your assessment. Is the facility near a school with capacity to take the children? Is it near a health centre? Are there good communication routes? All of those things have to be in place.

I have a brief supplementary question—I am conscious of the time.

People might feel reluctant to answer this question, I suppose. Do you feel that councils are more content to deal with the consequences of unauthorised sites than to engage proactively in the creation of permanent or transient sites?

In Perth and Kinross, it is something that we are considering closely at the moment. The issue of location is difficult. There are a million and one questions to ask. How is this going to work? How is it going to be appropriate?

I get the feeling, from the evidence that we have heard, that local authorities seem to be more content to deal with the consequences of unauthorised sites than to develop sites, whether they are permanent or transient. To be perfectly honest, I think that that is pretty clear.

We have few transient Travellers, compared with other areas. I take my hat off to the council for the fact that it is considering locating a transient site somewhere.

Unfortunately, I must draw the meeting to a close. I thank the witnesses for giving evidence this morning. It has been useful to the committee.

Our next meeting will be on Thursday 10 January 2013.

Meeting closed at 11:32.