Reporters
Professor Sheila McLean is not due to give evidence until 10:45, so I suggest that we take item 4 in the meantime. We will run through the reporters' reports, starting with Irene McGugan.
I had a meeting with Alison Taylor, from the clerking team, on 2 May. We decided to forward the list of questions that was prepared after the committee heard evidence from the Disabled Persons Housing Service to that agency for its comments before we did anything else, so that we could be assured that we had identified all the relevant issues. The list may be amended in light of any comments that we receive from DPHS; we will then bring it back to the committee before forwarding it to the relevant ministers for their comments.
We also decided to ask DPHS for its advice on how to progress any review of the building regulations, which are, as members know, extremely complex.
The committee paper on correspondence includes notification of a letter from Disability Scotland offering me a presentation. We decided, as a sub-group, that it would be better if that presentation were made to the whole group, rather than just to the reporter. We will proceed on that basis.
Are there are questions for Irene? No. Thank you.
We will hear the report on gender issues next.
I will begin with an apology, as I was unable to attend the group's meeting. I understand that a number of members met, along with Alison Taylor from clerking; one of those members may wish to report on the substance of the meeting. We will meet again next week.
I should highlight to members that one of the reasons we invited Professor Sheila McLean along was the work she has been doing on women as offenders. I outlined to Professor McLean what our sub-group had been doing, but we were keen to get her information on the record through the Official Report and available to a broader group. Professor McLean sent me a copy of "The Inter-agency Forum on Women's Offending". I did not realise that that document had not been sent to everyone else, so we will circulate it later; it is useful and interesting and will add to anything Professor McLean has to say. The subject of women's offending is opening up and we will want to pursue it.
Does anyone who was at the meeting have anything to add?
We had a follow-on discussion about an issue that was raised with the committee by the Scottish Rape Crisis Network and others when they gave evidence. The discussion concerned strategies that are in place to protect women against violence, and centred round guidelines from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. There was some concern that those guidelines may not be being implemented cohesively across the country. The minister advised that responsibility for implementing the guidance lay with COSLA, so I have written to COSLA to ask for an assurance that the guidelines are in place and information on what sort of monitoring system is available.
We have had a response from the chief executive of COSLA, which focuses on the new Scottish partnership and the domestic abuse development fund, which goes some way towards putting systems in place to deal with domestic abuse. There is a distinction to be drawn between domestic abuse and violence against women in general. They are different problems and will require different strategies. There is an issue about the extent to which each local authority has regard to some of the excellent recommendations that were put together after extensive consultation with all the relevant agencies. We will continue to consider ways of making progress on that issue.
As Johann Lamont suggested, we will distribute the report to the rest of the committee as soon as possible.
We will now hear from Michael McMahon on race issues.
I circulated the report to the committee by e-mail yesterday and I have brought a hard copy this morning.
The meeting focused on the issues raised by the gypsy travellers and the Scottish Travellers Consortium. The report outlines the major concerns that they raised and the evidence they hope to give when they come to the committee. Issues were raised about the difficulties of overcoming the public's negative perception of travelling people and the fact that the media and politicians do not always help to portray travelling people in a positive light.
Practical difficulties were also raised, such as the fact that the Race Relations Act 1976 does not refer to gypsy travellers as an ethnic minority. That curtails the ability of organisations such as the Commission for Racial Equality to act on their behalf when issues of discrimination come up. Benefits issues are not for the Scottish Parliament, but we must bear in mind the difficulties travellers experience with procedures that some of us take for granted.
The major problems that we heard about were to do with accommodation. Local authorities' policies on how sites are operated, what access is allowed to sites and what is allowed on sites caused difficulties. Those issues broaden out into justice areas, as the travellers feel themselves to be discriminated against. The policies have an impact on their ability to find jobs.
Two of the people to whom we spoke gave practical examples of the difficulties that they had encountered. Although they were graduates, they had felt discriminated against in terms of gaining access to the work place. One was a teacher, the other was a linguist, but they had been unable to get jobs because of their lifestyle. It was also hard for those who were unemployed to get access to training schemes. Because they are not regarded as an ethnic minority, they do not have the same rights as other people under legislation relating to discrimination in training.
There were other difficulties, such as access to doctors. Also, as they do not have letter boxes, all their mail goes to the site manager, who is responsible for passing it on—even important mail such as benefit cheques.
Young travellers have made a short video in which they talk about the difficulties they experience. I was sent a copy and it might be useful for committee members to see it. If we cannot get a copy for everyone, I can make mine available. It was made by young people, for young people, about their lives, and they talk about the issues that are discussed in my report.
The travellers also invited the committee to visit one of the sites to see at first hand the type of things that they are talking about. There are some difficulties in doing that. Because there is a general perception that politicians are not particularly friendly towards travellers, resentment might be felt towards us were we to visit a site as a group. The committee would have to overcome those difficulties if it felt that such a visit would assist it in its consideration of the issues. The people who came to speak to us last week felt that it might be to our advantage. However, they were aware that when local authorities, the police and so on visit sites they tend to bring problems with them, and that we might be seen in the same light. The visit would have to be conducted very tactfully and would probably require some organisation.
When the travellers' representatives appear before the committee we will have a chance to broaden our understanding of the issues. They will be very forceful in telling us about their problems. However, we need to get information on those problems either from the video or by visiting a site. I would be grateful to hear members' views on that.
I ask Alison Taylor to ensure that all committee members, particularly those who are not here, know that there is a video that they can borrow from Michael McMahon. Representatives of the different organisations that represent travellers and the gypsy community will appear before the committee on 23 May. This paper provides useful background information on some of the issues that will be raised at that meeting. Between now and 23 May, members can think about whether we want to organise a site visit. I feel that it would be worth seeing first hand some of the problems with the sites and the conditions in which people are living. Do members have any questions for Michael McMahon?
Before they do that, I would like to make one further point. The group that I met included representatives of formal organisations and people independent of those groups. Although there were no difficulties between the individuals present, it was made clear to us that one organisation that represents gypsy travellers had tried to talk people out of attending the meeting. The four people who attended as independents would like to raise issues with the committee independently of the formal organisations. I ask that those people be given a slot at our evidence-taking session so that they can do that. I can give Alison Taylor the names of the people to contact.
That is fair enough. The committee wants to be as flexible and to hear as wide a variety of views as possible.
I want to draw the committee's attention to one matter that arose during the forum that the Scottish Travellers Consortium held at the city chambers, which a number of us managed to attend. I am referring to the lack of a uniform policy across Scotland on accommodation. One major problem is that the travelling community is treated differently, depending on which local authority area it finds itself in. That creates all sorts of problems when it seeks to respond to its treatment, as there is no protocol or standard against which that can be measured.
I hope that the committee will address that issue, along with the issues that Michael McMahon has raised in this report, which is very good and summarises the points that were made at the forum. Some issues, such as the designation of travellers as a distinct group in the eyes of the Commission for Racial Equality and issues to do with benefits are problems that we must flag up but may not be able to solve.
Something we could make progress on is trying to encourage, perhaps via the Local Government Committee, sponsorship of a protocol that would be expected from all local authorities in Scotland so that we do not have lack of uniformity on respecting the rights of the travelling community.
That issue was raised at the briefing at the reporters group. That is a useful suggestion. We could invite representatives of the Local Government Committee to hear the evidence on 23 May and we could ensure that the report is sent to that committee, for it to consider the issue.
Johann and I are on the Local Government Committee—we can liaise between the two committees to ensure that the issues this committee raises are taken up.
I was interested to hear Michael McMahon talk about the different factions involved. I have long been involved with this situation in the Highlands. There are two types of traveller: gypsy travellers, who contend that they are the genuine, traditional travellers; and the new age travellers, who are a hindrance, if you like, to the gypsy traveller. The two can never be in harmony, yet both need consideration.
Efforts that have been made to accommodate the needs of the traditional, gypsy traveller are not the same as those required for new age travellers. That causes difficulties. Suggestions to a local authority on providing facilities that one imagines would be appropriate for gypsy travellers are not accepted by new age travellers. I am sure that, at the debate he was at, Michael saw the distinction and the aggro between the two groups.
We do not want to get into too much discussion about the issues today, because we will hear the issues raised on 23 May. However, Michael's report is a useful starting point for that discussion.
It is difficult to find definitions. However, we are talking about the traditional, or gypsy, traveller. No one there claimed or suggested that they were a new age traveller. It was the traditional travelling groups that were involved.
Professor McLean has joined us. I ask her to bear with us while we finish this item on the agenda.
There has been no meeting of the sexual orientation reporters group since the most recent one on which I reported, so there is nothing to report.
That was brief—thank you.