Where Gypsy Travellers Live
Good afternoon, everyone. The first item of business is an Equal Opportunities Committee debate on where Gypsy Travellers live. I call Margaret McCulloch to open the debate on behalf of the committee. You have 14 minutes, minister.
As someone who has been a member of the Equal Opportunities Committee for less than a day, I was not—unfortunately—involved in the work that we are here to discuss, but I have before me two compelling and insightful reports that have left me eager to take the helm over the coming months. Those reports—“Gypsy/Travellers and Care” and “Where Gypsy/Travellers Live”, which were published in September last year and March this year—have raised clear concerns about whether the Scottish Government, local authorities and health providers are making due provision for one of Scotland’s traditional yet marginalised communities.
Before I introduce the reports and speak about the recommendations that they make, I would like to extend my thanks to my new colleagues and former committee members who worked on the inquiries. My particular thanks go to Mary Fee, who oversaw both inquiries in her time as convener of the committee.
The strong recommendations that are made in both reports are a clear sign of the committee’s engagement in the inquiries and the urgent need for action. Throughout its inquiries, the committee worked closely with Gypsy Travellers and the organisations that support them. Without the help of the Minority Ethnic Carers of People Project, which is an Edinburgh-based voluntary organisation that works with carers from black and ethnic minority communities, much of the committee’s engagement work would not have been possible.
Through MECOPP, the committee was able to attend an awareness-raising session with Gypsy Travellers, to invite Gypsy Travellers into the Parliament on a number of occasions and to visit multiple sites across Scotland. When the committee explored issues in the north-east region, the Grampian Regional Equality Council provided invaluable support and helped to set up the first ever committee meeting to be held on a Gypsy Traveller site.
The other voluntary organisations, health workers and liaison officers who contributed to the inquiries helped to give a clear insight into how joint working and the involvement of Gypsy Travellers in forward planning can lead to successful initiatives, which provided a basis for many of the committee’s recommendations.
Of course, perhaps the greatest contribution to the two inquiries came from Gypsy Travelling people themselves.
In reading the reports, I was pleased to see that a clear relationship between the committee and the Gypsy Travelling people whom it met has been formed. Given the emphasis that Gypsy Travellers and support workers place on the need for trust, that provides a clear starting point for implementing the recommendations that are made.
One of the committee’s aims was to instigate action. Though numerous reports and recommendations have been made in the past, including a report by the 2001 Equal Opportunities Committee, the Gypsy Travelling community has experienced few positive changes. By talking to the committee, sharing their views and experiences in evidence and informally, coming to the Parliament and inviting committee members into their own homes, the Gypsy Travelling people whom the committee met helped to ensure that their voice was heard. I hope that that will set a precedent for the Scottish Government and its agencies in moving forward.
The committee’s first report, “Gypsy/Travellers and Care”, explored the relationship between Gypsy Travellers and their access to health and care services. For Gypsy Travellers who travel, clear barriers can exist to accessing healthcare and education, and consistent support and funding. Those who live on permanent sites face challenges in securing appropriate adaptations, and cultural differences can mean that certain support options, such as respite care, are not delivered appropriately.
In its recommendations, the committee focused on ensuring that all Gypsy Travellers had access to general healthcare and more specific support as needed. Emphasis was placed on ensuring that support and treatment are culturally appropriate and that care and funding for care are accessible and portable. The Scottish Government’s response left much in the hands of NHS Health Scotland, Education Scotland and local authorities. I hope to hear reassurances today that the buck does not stop there.
The Government spoke of the revision of the general practitioner registration form, the adaptations working group and the relevance of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill and what was the Social Care (Self-directed Support) (Scotland) Bill. I am sure that the committee would welcome an update on progress and on how provisions are being put into action.
In its “Where Gypsy/Travellers Live” report, the committee shifted focus to the living conditions of Gypsy Travellers, and it visited seven sites over the course of the inquiry. The descriptions of site conditions in the report say it all. I quote:
“We were deeply disturbed to see that families paying rent to their local council were expected to bathe young children in freezing cold amenity blocks with extortionate heating costs, and that elderly and disabled people might have to go outside to a toilet block in the middle of a cold, winter’s night. At one site, as well as a putrid overflowing septic tank and a fire hose that couldn’t reach all of the pitches, we heard that, with no bus stop or roadside pavement, the only way for non-driving families to visit local shops or take children to use a playground was to walk two miles to the nearest town along a muddy, unlit woodland path. Another site was barely lit at night, with appalling and tokenistic attempts to make adaptations for a profoundly disabled resident and sightings of prowlers in the woods which provided the only place for children to play. We even felt the fear ourselves of being able to safely access one site up a steep, potholed and gravelled path, only able to imagine the danger it could present in icy weather. Disturbingly this site was lacking in either a fixed phone line or stable mobile phone signal, leaving residents with medical conditions unable to easily seek emergency care.”
That description is all the more shocking when we realise that the majority of the sites are council operated, with rental rates that are not dissimilar to those in standard social housing and tenants paying standard council tax rates, although many are paying purely for a pitch and an amenity unit. Recommendations in the report were aimed at creating equality in the standard of living for Gypsy Travellers through the establishment of minimum standards for site quality, established and consistent rights for site tenants through tenancy agreements and the adequate provision of temporary and permanent sites across the country.
One thing that stands out in both reports is that those outside the Gypsy Travelling community understand little of Gypsy Travellers’ culture and the challenges that they face in maintaining their traditional lifestyle. The committee heard—shockingly—of Gypsy Travellers hiding their cultural heritage for fear of not receiving medical treatment, of being harassed or of being unable to find employment.
Both reports highlight a lack of leadership at local, regional and national levels and urge the Scottish Government to set an example through clear guidelines and a zero-tolerance approach to discrimination, including the development of a national awareness-raising campaign. The Government’s response to “Where Gypsy/Travellers Live” set out details of a new cross-Government group that is designed to take forward the recommendations that were made in the two reports, with the aim of meeting the Government’s equality outcome that
“Gypsies/Travellers experience less discrimination and more positive attitudes towards their culture and way of life by 2017”.
Before the summer recess, the committee wrote to the Scottish Government about its response to express the concern that, although the Government seemed to agree with many of the findings of “Where Gypsy/Travellers Live”, there was a lack of action. That, sadly, reflects the committee’s concern that there is a lack of leadership at ministerial level. As the new convener of the Equal Opportunities Committee, I hope to hear more about that today. Going forward, we will look for as evidence a tangible action plan with clear goals and, more important, clear results.
The committee made strong recommendations that were aimed at the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in both reports. It raised the need for stronger leadership and consistency among local authorities. I am relieved that both COSLA and the Scottish Government have highlighted their intention to work together, but that intention must become action.
Will the member give way?
I do not have long to go, so I will continue. I am sorry.
Since the publication of the reports, the committee has revisited progress and received updates from the support organisations involved. I am pleased that both MECOPP through the Scottish Government and Grampian Regional Equality Council through the national lottery have received further funding for their work and that national health service staff in Grampian are exploring a new joint approach to health engagement with Gypsy Travellers, but I am concerned to have heard of on-going issues in planning for new sites in the north-east. It is clear that political leadership is needed in tackling the negative attitudes that present a barrier to such development.
The committee’s goals in bringing about real and desperately needed improvements to the lives of Gypsy Travellers are the stand-out feature of both reports. To that end, it has agreed to revisit the recommendations of the reports as time passes. We will expect regular updates from the Scottish Government, and I hope to see in the near future the development of a clear action plan emerging from the work of the cross-Government working group. It is crucial that that has a timeline, an assurance of consultation with Gypsy Travellers and other stakeholders, and measurable outcomes. We also hope to continue to monitor progress by keeping in touch with not only MECOPP and Grampian Regional Equality Council, but the Gypsy Travellers who contributed to both inquiries.
As convener of the committee, I look forward to leading the committee’s on-going work and to hearing and seeing for myself the improvements that the Scottish Government and local authorities have in their power to bring about.
I give my apologies to Margaret McCulloch, Margaret Burgess and other members for confusing the running order and positions of the opening speakers.
I call the minister, Margaret Burgess, who has 10 minutes.
14:42
I welcome Margaret McCulloch to her new role as convener of the Equal Opportunities Committee. It is something that she has had only one meeting before coming to the debate. I congratulate her on becoming the convener.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to provide opening remarks on behalf of the Scottish Government. I thank the committee for carrying out the inquiry and producing its report, and thank everyone who gave the committee the evidence that helped to shape the report.
I am sure that, during the debate, we will hear examples of ways in which the Gypsy Traveller community continues to be disenfranchised and discriminated against; indeed, we have already heard some examples. Those are rightly considered to be some of the most troubling aspects of life in Scotland today and are not part of the country that we aspire to be. It is right that we consider the challenges and barriers that the Gypsy Traveller community faces every day, not just in this afternoon’s debate but as part of the work that we undertake to do every day for all the communities that we represent, because the Gypsy Traveller community has made and continues to make a significant contribution to the life of our nation.
We believe in the importance of eliminating racism and racial discrimination against the Gypsy Traveller community. Make no mistake: we know that Gypsy Traveller groups are subject to widespread levels of prejudice, discrimination and abuse. They have a limited voice and influence in the public policies that affect them and they often have difficulty in accessing services that are appropriate for their needs. That results in much poorer education and health outcomes than there are in other communities.
In fact, it was the consideration of those multiple poorer outcomes that helped to inform the Scottish Government’s recently published public sector equality duty outcomes, one of which will specifically address the inequalities that are currently experienced by many members of the Gypsy Traveller community. In that, we have committed to working with Gypsy Travellers and other stakeholders to determine the best way to raise awareness and improve understanding, and in that way foster good relations between Gypsy Travellers and settled communities.
In addition, working with communities, we will also explore and build more sustainable means of engagement that take account of Gypsy Travellers’ culture and transient lifestyle. We will review the relevant existing data sources that we hold across a range of public domains and identify evidence gaps. That work will inform our evidence requirements and plans moving forward.
We intend to carry out this work through a cross-Government group in order to ensure that all policy interests are taken into account. The same group considered the recommendations from the “Gypsy/Travellers and Care” and the “Where Gypsy/Travellers Live” reports and is in the process of putting into action—I stress the word “action”—the commitments that we made. In taking forward this work, we know that we need to see real tangible improvements in the lives of a community who have for so long felt ignored.
The minister referred to action following on from the two reports and acknowledged that there have been deficiencies. What was the Government doing prior to receipt of those reports?
The Government has always been looking at the issues surrounding Gypsy Travellers, particularly where Gypsy Travellers live. The Scottish Housing Regulator now looks at the accommodation that will be provided for Gypsy Travellers. We will be looking at that. We have made improvements in care for Gypsy Travellers. We have set up a number of groups looking across portfolios, because, as the member well knows, there are complex issues surrounding the Gypsy Traveller community and we want to get it right.
As has rightly been identified, one of the first things that we have to do is raise awareness and ensure that the settled community and Gypsy Traveller community can live and work together in harmony. That is important. It is not something that has been put on the back seat and ignored; it is constantly being looked at and is constantly under discussion. We brought the cross-Government group together again and we have welcomed the reports and evidence of the committee, which is informing how we will take things forward.
We are talking about discrimination that, if it were targeted at any other ethnic minority group, would be deemed wholly unacceptable. So, we have started exploring how to deliver an awareness-raising campaign that will endeavour to change the perception and prejudices that are sadly still associated with this community. During the evidence session with the committee, I was asked whether I would support such a campaign and I said that I would, because I think that it would have merit. Following the committee’s report, officials held discussions with Amnesty International, which has also stated its support for such a campaign. For such a campaign to be successful, we have to include all stakeholders, including the Gypsy Traveller community. We look forward to engaging with them in producing and delivering a campaign.
Can the minister give us a timescale for when the campaign might start?
I am announcing this today. We are in discussions about it. We will certainly keep the member involved. It will certainly be one of the first things that the group that we have set up will look at. We are making certain commitments today and that is one of the things that the group will look at. I would hope that it would be done fairly quickly, but I will not put a timescale on it and then have someone come back and tell me that we have missed it. It is something that we are keen to do as quickly as possible.
We know that it is vital that we take this opportunity to tackle the entrenched attitudes that are still prevalent. It is about getting the campaign right to ensure that we can build good relationships and better understanding between settled communities and the Gypsy Traveller community.
Responsibility is, of course, a two-way street. Service providers and the settled community undoubtedly have to do more to understand and respond appropriately to Gypsy Traveller communities. However, Gypsy Traveller communities also have responsibilities and must ensure that living in accordance with their traditional practices does not impact adversely on others.
Does the minister acknowledge that if there are inadequate sites for Gypsy Travellers to live, they sometimes have no alternative but to go to unauthorised sites?
I will touch on that shortly, but that situation does not take away people’s responsibilities. I am suggesting not that living on an unauthorised site demonstrates a lack of responsibility, but that responsibilities attach to all communities and they should not impact on others. I will talk about unauthorised sites shortly.
We must look at how we can remove the barriers and we can do that only if there is a better understanding. We know that many of the issues that arise in local communities are very sensitive, but we need to balance the rights of the Gypsy Traveller population to follow their traditional way of life, and the rights of local communities to pursue theirs.
One area in which we need to balance those different rights is unauthorised sites. We are very keen that the group should examine the rights and responsibilities in relation to authorised and unauthorised sites. We will invite representatives from local authorities, COSLA, the Gypsy Traveller community, and other stakeholders to be in the group, to look at that issue in depth, and to try to resolve the problem. It is about rights and responsibilities.
The group will look into the quality of some of the local authority sites. I agree that some of the cases that Margaret McCulloch outlined are shocking and none of us wants to see that. I also recognise that residents of local authority sites pay rent and are entitled to get services for that rent, and we will look at that. No one in Scotland should have poor living conditions and, as part of its work, the group will look at including the option of issuing updated guidance to local authorities. We will also explore the development and implementation of a standard Gypsy Traveller site tenancy agreement with set minimum responsibilities and rights. We need to explore that fully with all interested stakeholders before we can make a decision on the best way forward.
Any agreement should be about the rights and responsibilities of all concerned. When Gypsy Travellers are on a site, the services that they can expect from the landlord should be clear to them, as should what they should do if those services are not being delivered. I want to see that set out clearly in any tenancy or leasing agreement.
We achieved previous success with the work of the north-east working party, which was chaired by the then Minister for Housing and Communities, Alex Neil. That brought together a wide range of stakeholders and produced a strategy with practical steps to improve and sustain community relations in the north-east. We will follow up on the implementation of that strategy to see how its actions have been put into practice and establish what lessons have been learnt that we can apply to other parts of Scotland. There are sites in Scotland that are well managed and appreciated by those who live on them.
The Presiding Officer is indicating that I should wind up my speech. We welcome the committee’s report. A full response was provided that was compiled from input from across all Government departments, and it sets out clearly our proposals for addressing the report’s recommendations. I look forward to progressing the work in light of those findings and recommendations as part of making Scotland the country that we want it to be.
14:53
Before I make my contribution, I will take a few moments to thank members of the Equal Opportunities Committee for their hard work on and dedication to the report that we are talking about today. I also thank my fellow committee members for the support that they gave me—and give special thanks to the clerks and staff for all their tremendous support—during my time as convener.
Scottish Labour welcomes the report and supports the findings and recommendations. However, throughout the report—and the report on “Gypsy/Travellers and Care”—there is a recurring theme of a lack of national leadership. In its briefing for this afternoon’s debate, the Equality and Human Rights Commission Scotland stated:
“relations between Gypsy/Travellers and the settled community is the single greatest community relations challenge the country faces.”
The EHRC added that
“These problems are not insurmountable, but require leadership and resources”.
One potential reason for that theme of a lack of leadership, which runs through the report, is the lack of political will, not just in central Government but in local government, and public apathy. The minister said in her opening speech that the issue
“is constantly being looked at”.
If that is the case, I wonder at the lack of progress that is being made.
Respectable racism is one challenge that the Gypsy Traveller community faces. If we were to replace the two words “Gypsy Traveller” with any other ethnic group we would not be having this debate, as action would have been taken long ago and leadership would have been exhibited in haystacks.
The following quotes were brought to my attention by MECOPP, and they show that we are some way from tackling the discriminatory attitudes seen throughout the country that are perpetuated by the media and local politicians.
One Aberdeen councillor is quoted as saying:
“Putting a gypsy travellers halting site next to a school is morally wrong.”
I recognise what Mary Fee is saying. However, I served on Aberdeen City Council from 2007 to 2012 when it was trying to deal with the issue. Will she acknowledge the role that many of her Labour colleagues played in bandying around rhetoric that was frankly unsuitable?
This is not a party-political issue; as Mark McDonald will know, it crosses all parties.
A Dundee councillor is reported to have
“called on Dundonians to play their part in deterring travelling people from visiting the city”,
and further called on the people of Dundee to refuse to give work to Gypsy Travellers so that
“we”
may
“see an end to these people coming to Dundee.”
Regarding the Dundee councillor quote, does Mary Fee suggest that local councillors, and we as parliamentarians, should be asking people to give work to people after a leaflet comes through their letterbox with only a mobile phone number on it? That was the issue: people were being warned to be careful not give any kind of work to people where the advert has only a mobile phone number.
I thank Christian Allard for his point. However, my point is that such attitudes exist throughout the country and unless we highlight them we will never get rid of them. It is not a party-political issue; it is an issue that affects everyone.
I am aware that people from all parties make such remarks, but how can we expect the public to change their attitudes when politicians get away with it? Unless we publicise such discrimination, we will never end it. There are great examples of positive quotes from local and civic leaders, but the level of coverage that they receive is often of a different grade.
Scottish Labour recognises that many Gypsy Travellers in Scotland continue to face discrimination. Although the population of that ethnic group is unknown, with estimates ranging from 2,000 to 20,000, the level of discrimination is greatly disproportionate.
This week we have heard a lot about the Government’s programme for Scotland, and we have repeatedly heard from the First Minister and his Cabinet about the need to create a fairer country and empower communities. However, it appears that the Gypsy Traveller community is often overlooked. Page 50 of the programme places great emphasis on the Government’s view of
“equality and social justice as central to its vision for a fairer Scotland”,
and all four bullet points in section 19 relate to Gypsy Travellers. However, nothing on the Government’s agenda aims to improve the lives, experiences and environment of that overlooked group.
During evidence sessions, as the report highlights, we heard that many Gypsy Travellers have to hide who they are, which means that such a rich cultural heritage is cloaked for fear of persecution. How can any Gypsy Traveller feel that that can be overcome when the Government will not take steps to tackle the discrimination that is often perpetuated by the lack of understanding of some in the media?
Having visited sites in different areas of the country, I have witnessed the shocking standards of living that Gypsy Travellers face: overflowing septic tanks, children bathing in freezing-cold amenity blocks, poorly lit paths, a lack of bus stops and outside toilets. Nobody should be expected to live in those conditions.
During those visits I met some strong Gypsy Traveller women who have overcome a lack of education and taught themselves to read. They are strong women who care for the elderly and the children in the community with little help from services that many others would require.
The report raises some grave concerns about how Gypsy Travellers live in Scotland, and we are concerned about the apparent lack of progress since the previous inquiry into Gypsy Travellers in 2004-05.
I would be grateful if you would draw to a close, please.
Co-operation from COSLA during the evidence sessions was poor and left a lot to be desired. However, the follow-up response from the COSLA chief executive created a bit more positivity and hope that we can find solutions to tackle the real issues.
Scottish Labour supports the inquiry report’s recommendations and hopes that the Government will take them forward to make a real difference to the lives of Gypsy Travellers.
15:00
I begin, as other speakers have done, by saying a few words about the revolving door that is the Equal Opportunities Committee. I arrived on the committee between the two reports that we are now discussing. The first report was very much the responsibility, as far as the Conservatives were concerned, of my colleague Annabel Goldie. However, I took over in time for the second report. I note that that report says that I became a member of the committee on 17 January, but that is perhaps a slight misrepresentation, as I think that I had been attending the committee for two months as a substitute before I became an official committee member.
The experience of preparing the report “Where Gypsy/Travellers Live” was something that I genuinely enjoyed. I have had a certain amount of awareness of the problems relating to the Gypsy Traveller community within the north-east—my own region—for some time. In the past, I have taken the opportunity to go on to unauthorised sites and speak to the Gypsy Travellers to find out their views. However, the opportunity to meet Gypsy Travellers in their own environment and here in the Parliament was one that I enjoyed. I discovered, for example, that one of the limited number of families within the Gypsy Traveller community bears my own name. On the morning of 4 February in Clinterty, when we had an informal discussion, I found myself sitting beside a young man. When I introduced myself to him, saying, “Hello, my name is Alex Johnstone,” he said, “So is mine.”
We also met a broad range of representatives that day. Those of us who got to meet Sammy Stewart will always remember that he was a good laugh and a man who missed his calling as a stand-up comedian. I suppose that one of the ironies, which we never quite got to the bottom of, was that it appeared to be only men who were willing to talk to us that day at Clinterty, whereas only three days later, when we had a round-table session in the Parliament, we met only women from the Traveller community.
As I said, although we never quite got to the bottom of that divide, we found that Travellers themselves are very articulate and very well able to put across their views. They are one of those groups who will always be able to express themselves fluently but who do not benefit as they should from that fluency.
We discovered, for example, that the problems that Gypsy Travellers face and the problems that are faced by the settled community relating to Gypsy Travellers differ significantly across Scotland. We heard that there seems to be a particularly smooth relationship in the Argyll area compared with that in other parts of Scotland and that in large parts of the south-west a significant number of Travellers are in permanent accommodation. We also heard that in the north-east, which is my home ground, there is quite a degree of seasonal movement. That is where the problem can arise in relation to unauthorised camps.
We also heard—at some length—that significant problems face the community relating to accommodation and the provision of healthcare and education. I should also pay tribute to the number of young people from the Gypsy Traveller community who were able to talk to us fluently and express their needs and desires, although they had only limited access to education.
I believe that there is a great deal in the report’s recommendations that is worthy of support. In fact, the Conservatives support the broad thrust of the report. However, there are one or two concerns that I believe we need to address.
Local authorities, especially those in the north-east, have been unable to solve the problem of unauthorised encampments, which has persisted for many years. Similarly, private landowners have been left to deal with the problem on their own while the police maintain their presumption against prosecution. For ordinary people who are faced with an unauthorised encampment in their community, there seems to be no support whatsoever, while Travellers themselves know all their rights, have the support of human rights groups and are only too aware of how far they can exploit an establishment that is afraid to act for fear of criticism.
The Scottish Government has a long record of failure to address the real concerns of the settled community regarding unauthorised encampments. In the face of that, it is extremely important that strong leadership is delivered. The evidence of the local authorities in the north-east is that, in spite of the fact that there is a determined effort to establish the campsites that are necessary to deal with the problem, there is inevitably political pressure that undermines that.
If local authorities are unfit to take the matter through to its conclusion, there is no alternative but strong leadership from the Scottish Government in order to force through the changes. Discussion groups will not deliver. During the inquiry, COSLA resisted the invitation to become a significant part of the process. For that reason, I look forward to hearing what the Government will do in response to the report, but I also look forward to the day when it will deliver that strong leadership and we eventually begin to progress the long-term solution to this unfortunate problem.
We move on to the open debate, with six-minute speeches.
15:06
Presiding Officer, I begin by apologising that I will have to leave at the conclusion of my speech to get to a public meeting in my constituency this evening. I notified you in advance to that effect.
I was interested to read the report by the Equal Opportunities Committee. I note that it took evidence at the Clinterty site, which is located in my constituency. It has 17 permanent plots and four short-term plots. One of the difficulties that the council has always faced is that those plots are invariably always being let at the time when encampments arrive in Aberdeen, so there is no suitable alternative site to which the council can direct the Travelling community.
I am more than familiar with the issue now, as an MSP, but I was also familiar with it in my time as a local councillor for Dyce, Bucksburn and Danestone. Over the summer of 2007, just after I was elected, there were a number of encampments in my council ward, which led to the heightened tensions that members have identified. As part of the coalition administration in Aberdeen, I did what I could to try to get the issue addressed. Indeed, rather than it being the convener of the north area committee who moved recommendations on establishing halting sites, I had to do it as a member of the committee because the convener was unwilling to put his head above the parapet and take those tough decisions.
During our time in that administration, we found that the lack of leadership pervaded the council, both in terms of our coalition colleagues, who were unwilling to take a stance in favour of halting sites and to pursue them, and in the often reprehensible rhetoric, which I will return to, of opposition councillors, who sought to make political capital from the issue and to put us in a difficult position.
We therefore took the view that one of the difficulties that we faced as a council was that clashes were inevitable between the need to establish a halting site and the kickback that we would get from a settled community if we attempted to establish a site next to it. We agreed that one way in which to deal with that would be to put into the council’s local development plan a requirement to establish a halting site in certain sizes of new development. Again, we found ourselves being attacked on that by political opportunists, but we pressed ahead with it nonetheless.
Let us fast-forward to 2013. At the beginning of the year, the council administration announced plans to develop halting sites. However, the way in which the plans were unveiled and the complete failure to consult on the sites have further badly damaged community relations in Aberdeen.
If a council is going to establish halting sites, it must engage with the settled community. We understand that that is a difficult sell for politicians, but it is not good enough to do nothing to consult communities and bring them along with the plans.
In Aberdeen, the council is attempting to pass the buck on the issue. Although the establishment of halting sites is the council’s responsibility, at the full council meeting in August the council moved that it will not progress a halting site until the Scottish Government grants a byelaw to the city that, as Councillor Willie Young said, would
“make illegal camping a criminal and not just a civil offence.”
That does not help to move the issue forward in the way that the Equal Opportunities Committee wants it to move forward. Indeed, in letters to me, the Solicitor General for Scotland and Police Scotland suggested that a byelaw is entirely unnecessary, because the existence of halting sites will mean that a council is free to take appropriate steps if an unauthorised encampment exists in its area and people are reluctant to move to the halting sites that have been created.
I want to get back to talking about the rhetoric. I understand that emotions often run high on the matter. We need only look at the reporting and letters pages in the papers and at the letters that all elected members who have encampments in their constituencies or council wards receive from the settled community to see that. That is why it is vital that politicians, whether at national or local level, are careful in the language that we use when we deal with the issue. We have a responsibility not to heighten tensions or inflame opinion.
The current housing convener in Aberdeen City Council, Neil Cooney, said recently:
“Aberdeen City Council recognises Gypsy/Travellers as a marginalised, vulnerable group who historically have experienced discrimination and disadvantage”.
I think that we all agree with that statement, but the difficulty that I have is that that is the same Neil Cooney who, when he was in opposition in the council in 2007, hit the headlines when he accused Gypsy Travellers of “environmental terrorism”. Such rhetoric has no place in the debate. Indeed, at the time, Alfie Kefford, the chairman of the Gypsy Council, said that Councillor Cooney’s remarks were “highly offensive” and
“We are extremely angry at what this man has said and want him sacked.”
Instead of being sacked, Councillor Cooney has now been appointed as convener of housing and environment and is responsible for Aberdeen City Council’s leadership on the Gypsy Traveller situation.
If the local approach is to put individuals who use such rhetoric in positions of leadership on the issue, it is little wonder that there has been little movement. I very much hope that all members will use their influence on councillors and local politicians to ensure that the discussions and debates that need to happen do so in a respectful manner, without the kind of rhetoric that I described.
15:13
Like other members, I want to say how much I will miss Mary Fee as convener of the Equal Opportunities Committee—I am not sure whether she feels the same way. The committee certainly benefited from her leadership. I welcome Margaret McCulloch to the post and hope that she can follow in Mary Fee’s footsteps. She certainly did so this morning, especially given her early morning start.
As I was writing my speech for this debate on Gypsy Travellers, I was trying to think of something positive with which to open. I failed to do that on this occasion—but before Scottish National Party members shout at me, let me say that my remarks are directed not solely at the current Government but at Governments that have gone before them, at every local authority in Scotland and at COSLA.
Throughout the evidence sessions to the Equal Opportunities Committee, I heard consistently from Gypsy Travellers about the systemic failures to which they have been subjected for far too long by people who were in a position to help. The failure of leadership is key, as members pointed out. No one seems to want to take responsibility even for attempting to alleviate some of the problems that the Gypsy Traveller community faces on a daily basis.
Our report aimed to be hard hitting, because all members of the committee thought that the problems that we had heard about, and which we had seen for ourselves on site visits, must be addressed now.
In our evidence sessions, we were acutely aware that ours was not the first nor the second report that the Equal Opportunities Committee had undertaken on these matters, but very little has changed in all of that time. The lack of suitable sites for the Gypsy Traveller community across Scotland became self-evident as the committee travelled across the country, making numerous site visits. However, that was not the only problem with sites.
On my site visit, John Finnie and I were invited into one woman’s home, which she shares with her husband and very young children. The caravan window had been smashed but had not been replaced, and all the heat from the woman’s small electric fire was escaping without bringing much warmth to her family. When we asked whether someone was coming to repair the window, she informed us that she rented the caravan from the housing association, which believed that it was her responsibility to replace the window, something that she could not afford to do.
Although this woman paid her rent and council tax, she could not get a replacement window; if the same thing had happened in a bricks-and-mortar house, we would all be rightly outraged and asking the pertinent questions. In this instance, people simply shrugged their shoulders. It is simply not good enough for such situations to arise. However, we know that this matter is not a one-off, given that other members reported back to the committee similar if not worse situations.
This is why the committee believed it important to stress the need for higher living standards on sites. Moreover, we believe it essential that Gypsy Travellers have the same rights and responsibilities as those living in fixed accommodation. For that to be more than a recommendation, we need the Scottish Government and local authorities—via COSLA if necessary—to put in place an action plan to tackle this sort of issue. We also need the housing associations responsible for some of the sites across the country to take their responsibilities in the tenancy agreement seriously and not see the agreement simply as something to be signed and agreed to only by the Gypsy Travellers themselves.
I listened to the minister’s opening speech and I acknowledge that she understands our recommendation and that she is working towards a solution. However, we need action. I realise that she does not want to rush action and get it wrong, but it would be useful to have a timeframe for when such action is likely to take place.
I recently visited the Gypsy Traveller site at Larkhall in South Lanarkshire to get a better understanding of the site provision in my own region. The residents told me that they felt it to be a good site and that the site manager was effective, but they wanted the site to be expanded to allow family members in other parts of Scotland to live there or visit. Given my experience of previous sites, I was delighted to hear that the people actually wanted to stay on the site.
I know that Larkhall is not a one-off, but it is an exception. That situation cannot continue, and I urge the Scottish Government to work with its partners to collate information on how to make a site work not only for the Gypsy Traveller community but for the wider community. After all, the example I have just highlighted shows that it can be done.
There is a fundamental issue with our society’s view of the Gypsy Traveller community. Too often, an all too prevalent attitude is to castigate this ethnic group as a problem community rather than see it as an asset to the wider community. The Scottish Human Rights Commission supports that analysis, describing discrimination against Gypsy Travellers as
“the last bastion of respectable racism”.
Tabloid journalism regularly demonises the Traveller culture and television programmes propagate the type of negative cultural stereotypes that have not been seen against any other minority community since the 1980s.
As we have heard, MECOPP provided a briefing to committee members, highlighting the fact that elected representatives recently abused their positions in the media to attack the Gypsy Traveller community. Mary Fee has already read out certain quotes, but the chamber must acknowledge their importance. I know that members in this chamber will be appalled by such statements, but the truth is that the councillors in question are not the only ones with those appalling thoughts. After all, according to a Scottish social attitude survey in 2010, 44 per cent of people thought that Gypsy Travellers would be unsuitable as primary school teachers.
If we are to tackle such discrimination, we need a national public awareness campaign aimed at tackling discrimination and racism against the Gypsy Traveller community. I know that the Scottish Government has already been in discussions about how best to carry that out. Although I acknowledge the minister’s comments on the matter, I urge her to come forward with a timetable for when such a campaign is likely to begin. She said that she was announcing the campaign to Parliament today, but the announcement had already been made in the Government’s response to the committee report. More information would certainly be helpful.
You must conclude.
As Mary Fee stated earlier, if the levels of discrimination faced by the Gypsy Traveller community were happening towards any other “protected characteristic” as defined in the Equality Act 2010, there would be public outrage. It is simply not good enough for the treatment experienced by this group to have been allowed to continue for so long. I urge the Government to do everything in its powers to address this scandal now before it is too late.
15:20
I joined the committee in October last year, which was part way through the evidence-taking sessions, so I was only involved in the report, “Where Gypsy/Travellers Live”. However, it became clear to me early on that this was a subject in which very slow progress was being made.
The report starts by saying:
“We are extremely frustrated”.
I share that frustration and fully support the tone of the report.
I should say also at this stage that I think that Mary Fee has been an excellent and fair convener of the committee. I was disappointed to hear that she was leaving, but I welcome Margaret McCulloch to the post.
We have to accept that this is not an easy topic to deal with or even to discuss, and it is certainly not easy to find a solution that everyone will accept. However, the starting point is that we are dealing with a seriously disadvantaged minority group whose living conditions, with some exceptions, are frequently not acceptable and in relation to whom health and education provision is patchy to say the least.
Over the years, we have changed our attitude and speech in relation to a number of minority groups. We are not as far on as we want to be as a society, but it is much less common nowadays to hear someone say that they do not want to live next to Jewish people, black people or gay people. However, it is not unusual to still hear people openly say that they do not want to live next to Gypsy Travellers. We not only hear that from individual citizens; we read it in the media and hear it from some politicians. That is not acceptable.
As Mary Fee said, the EHRC’s briefing for today’s debate says:
“relations between Gypsy/Travellers and the settled community is the single greatest community relations challenge the country faces”.
In terms of the numbers involved, it might not be the biggest challenge, but in terms of how poor the relationship is, I have largely to agree with the EHRC. We have taken other minority groups in our society seriously, but it seems to me that we have not taken Gypsy Travellers seriously.
It was clear from our witnesses that there have been particular issues in the north-east of Scotland, where the more vibrant economy has attracted this often mobile section of our population to jobs in the likes of Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire.
That was brought home to me when I was campaigning in the Aberdeen Donside by-election. The subject came up a number of times on the doorsteps, and it was clear that it is a sensitive issue. I am not entirely clear why this debate has taken so long to happen, given that the report was published in March, but it has been suggested that it was delayed because it was too sensitive to discuss during the by-election. If that is the case, it is regrettable, but it underlines the sensitivity of the subject.
So, whose responsibility is it to improve things? To some extent, it is the responsibility of all of us. I do not believe that we can say that it is only local councils who have to act. I totally support the independence of local government and believe that councils should be allowed to deal with issues in their remit in the way that they choose to do so. The concordat has been a big improvement on what went before and I fully support it. However, local councillors are clearly in a difficult position. Often, a majority of the electorate is openly hostile to any new site in the locality and it takes a lot of guts to support a new site when there is such clear local opposition.
That is why we worded paragraph 49 in the way that we did. It says that
“evidence strongly suggests a need for leadership from the Scottish Government in supporting the development of sites.”
Members should note the word “supporting”. It continues:
“We see this as being essential in supporting local authorities and elected representatives, both in bringing sites to fruition and setting an example against discrimination.”
That is the way in which I want us to move forward. I do not want people to blame each other or say that only one person has to act on the issue. I want central Government to support local government, because this is a serious problem that will be solved only if we are all involved. It is not fair to leave local authorities to take everything forward on their own. We need national leadership from Government and Parliament in relation to achieving more sites and the wider aim of changing the tone of the debate.
As has been mentioned, we were disappointed at COSLA's initial response. However, I must say that l am happier with Rory Mair’s more recent response to the committee’s letter of 27 June, in which he promised to give full consideration to the matters that were raised and consider reports to each of the executive groups in COSLA. Similarly, I am pleased that Shona Robison has an overarching responsibility for the equality portfolio, and that both she and Margaret Burgess are involved in this subject.
I am happy to see that the Government’s response to the report says that it accepts that there is a problem. That is a good starting point. The question is: where are we going and how fast are we going? A number of groups and individuals are sceptical of more studies and more reports. At the very least, it would be helpful to have clear timescales or at least target timescales for how quickly new sites, in particular, can be provided.
I think that we can all accept that Gypsy Travellers face a serious amount of discrimination. I also accept that there is a fair amount of good will in trying to improve things. However, I ask that, if one thing comes out of today’s debate, it is that there is more urgency about all of this.
15:25
I join the rest of the chamber in welcoming the report, which gives a valuable insight into the real lives of the Travelling community in Scotland as well as making several important recommendations.
The traditional culture of the Travelling community has been present throughout the UK for centuries, but it has only recently been given the status of an ethnic group with its rights and responsibilities covered by the Race Relations Act 1976. It is our responsibility to ensure that the lifestyle choices that, as a minority group, those people make are respected and that their human rights and living standards are matters of concern to us all.
The accounts of impoverished conditions that are highlighted in the report paint a shocking picture of neglect. In one example, babies are found to be bathing in freezing water. In another, the absence of any lighting makes an area unsafe and impossible to navigate after dark, and there are overflowing septic tanks and a lack of any infrastructure to enable children to play. Decent living conditions are the basic human right of every person, regardless of their background, but at present there is a real shortage of approved sites for the current population.
As the report highlights, there is a lack of information available on the current number of Gypsy Travellers, with the most recent estimate taken in 2009. Local authorities and public agencies must seek to include the community in their service planning processes. As Amnesty International points out, the absence of figures on population size should not negate that planning requirement.
The report’s recommendations rightly commend the work of Planning Aid for Scotland in helping Gypsy Travellers to engage with the process. It has been maintained at £237,000 per annum, and I hope that the Government will continue to provide the same level of support to Planning Aid for Scotland for that work.
The problems that the Gypsy Traveller community faces go far beyond poor housing conditions, but many of the issues that they face throughout their lives have their roots in those conditions. The report cites the north-east of Scotland as facing particular problems, and I agree that any work to develop the necessary new sites should have a special focus on that area.
National policy, however, must reflect the urgent need for a greater number of safe sites throughout Scotland. At present, there is no obligation on local authorities to provide sites; therefore, I believe that a statutory duty such as exists in England and Wales should be seriously considered.
The report highlights an absence of evidence that local authorities have taken adequate steps to address need, and COSLA must fulfil its role in supporting communities to do that. I also support the recommendation about the development and implementation of a standard Gypsy Traveller site tenancy agreement.
In their working lives, Gypsy Travellers face discrimination constantly and are often turned away from job opportunities as a result of their home addresses being recognised as Traveller sites. Much of the discrimination is based on negative preconceptions of the characteristics of travelling life that are based to a great extent on representations in mainstream and social media commentary. We can encourage a change in attitudes only when we tackle those negative stereotypes and emphasise that antisocial behaviour at a small number of sites does not represent the population as a whole. In view of that, the EHRC’s illustrative guide for media outlets is profoundly welcome.
Interaction with the community is vital if we are to make the right kind of progress. The committee’s report outlines some of the work that has been carried out thus far in consultation, and I was heartened to read that a great deal of work has been done with the Minority Ethnic Carers of People Project—MECOPP—which works closely with carers in difficult living situations and knows the challenges that they face.
In its written submission to the inquiry into Gypsy Traveller accommodation, the group quoted a statement that was made in a previous submission 10 years ago:
“many of the difficulties Gypsy/Travellers encounter, and society’s acceptance of prejudice towards this ethnic group, are effectively legitimised by State policies which are at best out-dated and paternalistic, at worst restrictive and discriminatory”.
MECOPP’s submission went on to highlight that that statement still holds true, notwithstanding the efforts that have been made.
MECOPP also pointed out that previous inquiries have failed to engage properly with the community. So few Travellers were aware of the committee’s inquiry that the group made the laudable decision that it would gather responses itself, and I commend it for doing so. What came through in its snapshot of life in the Gypsy Traveller community is a general feeling that the Government has thus far failed to disseminate relevant information effectively and, as a result, has failed to engage and to receive feedback.
Many in the community felt that their way of life is not understood and their basic needs are not met. Many desire to be able to continue the tradition of travelling, but legal spaces for camping and parking are increasingly being closed down. When they travel, they face harassment from the settled community. Therefore, for the security of their families, they are often forced to remain in sites that are poorly managed and have very low living standards. Life on the edge of poverty, with little security, has led to life expectancy for Gypsy Travellers—men and women—being 10 years lower than the national average.
All of that is completely unacceptable. The common values that join the settled and Travelling communities together are far more important than the cultural differences that divide them. It is important that, in developing policy, we do not see people in one group as “other”. Instead, we should recognise their value as members of Scottish society who have a distinct story to tell.
15:31
First, I feel that I need to clarify my position. The Equal Opportunities Committee’s report “Where Gypsy/Travellers Live” was published in March 2013, so I can take no credit for it—I came to Parliament in May. However, when I joined the committee, I was very much aware of the good work of its members, particularly when they came to the north-east of Scotland to meet representatives of the Gypsy Traveller community at the Clinterty site.
The region that I have the privilege and honour to represent has a great tradition of welcoming Travellers, and for good reasons. In the past, many people in Scotland moved with the seasons to find work. At the end of the 19th century, thousands of men and women would come to work in the herring industry around the fishing ports during the catching season. The farming calendar would create seasonal work for labourers travelling from farm to farm in the north-east.
There is a myth that the reason why Gypsy Travellers are looking for work in the north-east today is because of the prosperity created by a vibrant energy sector. It is true that we are the powerhouse of the UK, but the north-east has much more to harvest than energy. From fishing in the North Sea to farming, we have kept our great tradition of producing wonderful food and drink.
Every year, I attend the Lourin fair at Old Rayne in Aberdeenshire. The fair, which is now 500 years old, was previously a gathering for traders, who brought crafts, produce and livestock to the village, as well as for seasonal farm labourers looking for work. In the old days, many people moved about and they were always welcome—their arrival was expected and celebrated. The picture was very much the same across Europe. I remember looking forward to the caravans taking over the main square of my own village in France every year. It was cause for celebration, as the Travellers brought us our funfair for the week.
What has changed over the years for our attitude to Gypsy Travellers to become what it is today? What has changed for the report of the Equal Opportunities Committee to call for a Government-led campaign with a remit of establishing a zero-tolerance approach to discrimination?
I agree with the findings of the report that, after 12 years of debating the issue, the appalling situation of many Gypsy Travellers is little changed. However, I am encouraged that the committee found some commendable initiatives in the north-east. I thank the Aberdeenshire councillors who wrote to update me on the progress made. One of those is Councillor Allan Hendry, who is pictured on page 18 of the summary report booklet. At a local level, people are engaging with the issue, but the outcomes are still very disappointing 12 years on.
The Scottish Government has already answered most of the points that we are debating today. I thank Shona Robison, who is the minister in charge of the equalities portfolio, and the Minister for Housing and Welfare, Margaret Burgess, for answering the most recent correspondence from the committee and for understanding the challenge before us.
Like others in today’s debate, I was shocked when I first read the report, and I share the committee’s frustration at the lack of action from COSLA. Page 18 of the report says:
“When asked to respond to our call for evidence, which included questions on how planning for Gypsy/Traveller sites is taken into account, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities ... stated, in its entirety, that ‘COSLA does not provide services or have the relations of the sort you are seeking information about’.”
On page 20, the report says:
“We were disturbed by COSLA’s response to our call for evidence, which gives the impression that it does not see its role as being to support local authorities during the planning process. We ask that COSLA clarify its position, and that local authorities, as far as COSLA’s role allows, use COSLA as a forum for support and partnership.”
Such an attitude has stopped us from moving on as a society and accepting Gypsy Travellers’ rights. COSLA is pivotal to the implementation and promotion of the strategy needed at national and local level. There has been a dereliction of responsibility from COSLA. Why does COSLA think that it can ignore the report? As we have heard, the Scottish Government wrote to the committee to say that it is ready to work with local government, including COLSA, and directly with individual local authorities as appropriate, in order to effect change and measure success collaboratively.
Gypsy Travellers do not travel daily, all year round. Families require safe and secure places from which to do their travelling. As Gypsy Travellers grow older and are less able to travel regularly, they require safe and secure stopping places. Gypsy Travellers also sometimes stop travelling to care for sick or elderly relatives or to continue a child’s education in a supported school environment. That is the reality that our local authorities are struggling to cope with and, as we have heard, some are struggling more than others. The committee’s report must be the start of finding solutions to local problems.
I am really impressed with the time and the amount of work that the Equal Opportunities Committee has dedicated its report. I hope that members enjoyed their trip to Aberdeen. I am sure that the committee will consider going back to see the improvement made to the places and conditions in which Gypsy Travellers live in the north-east.
I expect that the Scottish Government-led public awareness campaign will start to change attitudes towards the Gypsy Traveller communities. However, that campaign can tackle discrimination only if we all participate in it, at national and local level. As members of the Scottish Parliament, we have a responsibility to bring back respect for Gypsy Travellers and to celebrate the diversity of our nation—a diversity that we in this Parliament are very proud of.
15:37
I am not a member of the Equal Opportunities Committee, but I read its report closely due to my constituency interest. I commend members of the committee for the report. Like my colleague, Alex Johnstone, I am pleased to support the recommendations set out in it.
The Travelling community in Scotland plays a large and important role in the culture and life of our country. I agree that much more needs to be done to prevent the stigma and discrimination suffered by those in the Gypsy Traveller community.
As the report says, accommodation and living space are, without doubt, the root cause of many of the problems that Gypsy Travellers face. The desperate conditions in which many Travellers find themselves must be addressed by the Scottish Government. An increase in appropriate sites is required as a matter of urgency, and it is Holyrood’s role to encourage and lead local authorities in that endeavour, as the report says.
I hope that the minister will forgive me for taking time to lobby her on some of the issues affecting residents and Travellers in my region. The emergence of unauthorised Gypsy Traveller sites is a pressing matter for communities and local authorities in both Fife and Perth and Kinross.
In recent years, an unauthorised site near the Broxden business park in Perth has been used by Gypsy Travellers, creating serious issues in the neighbouring Oakbank residential area. Indeed, only this week, a group of Gypsy Travellers left that unauthorised site, according to a report in The Courier from yesterday, “strewn with litter”. That has caused a great deal of concern in the local community. There have also been serious issues on the South Inch in Perth and at Glenrothes, Dalgety Bay and elsewhere in Fife.
Does the member acknowledge that Gypsy Travellers traditionally had stopping sites throughout Scotland but, with the emergence of business parks, a lot of those sites have been taken from them? Where are they to go?
I am just about to come on to address that point, if Mr Robertson will bear with me.
Members present who represent Fife and attend the regular meetings that we have with the local chamber of commerce will be familiar with the many complaints from businesses and local residents about Travellers pitching up on privately owned land and refusing to move. In some instances, when Travellers move on, those unauthorised sites—we say unauthorised, but they are actually illegal—are left in a filthy state, covered in rubbish, dog waste and worse. In a perverse legal twist, the innocent business owner or landowner is then left with the task and cost of cleaning up the mess and, if they refuse to do so, can be served with an enforcement notice by the authorities and have to bear the cost of that.
That behaviour is not only morally and socially unacceptable, it is also illegal. The Trespass (Scotland) Act 1865, which is still extant, makes it a criminal offence to camp on land without the owner’s permission. Why are there no prosecutions when there is such a flagrant breach of the law? It is because national guidance from the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland includes a general presumption against prosecution.
Despite the fact that the law is on the side of the innocent victims of such behaviour, they will not usually have the assistance of the authorities. That cannot be acceptable. We cannot have a situation in which the police refuse to arrest those who are in breach of the law, whoever they may be. The general presumption not to take legal action against Gypsy Travellers for the crime of trespass creates many tensions within communities.
To return to Dennis Robertson’s point, I entirely accept—it comes through the report loud and clear—that the lack of Traveller-specific sites exacerbates the issue. However, two wrongs do not make a right and the rule of law should be enforced regardless of non-harassment policies.
Private citizens and businesses—some of them struggling in the current climate—should not have to suffer because of or pay the costs of the failings of local authorities. It is not their fault. When there have been clear public order abuses—including urinating in public, dogs running wild, littering, fly tipping and other antisocial crimes—the police must use their powers to act.
Some Travellers—not a majority—seem to believe that they have carte blanche to do whatever they want without fear of prosecution from the police. That must change in order to create a more harmonious relationship between Travellers and the communities in which they live.
I call for some common sense on the issue. I was taken with what the minister said in her opening remarks about the need for balance in the debate. We need urgently to settle the issue by making land available for Travellers to live on but, in the meantime, we cannot have Travellers setting up camp wherever they wish, in areas that were never designed for human habitation, and then leaving them in a terrible state.
Residents whose lives are negatively impacted by Travellers must have the backing of the police and lawmakers. Similarly, Travellers who suffer from discrimination and hate crime abuse must have the backing of law enforcement officials.
Mutual respect, understanding and common sense must be the cornerstones of any future Travellers strategy. The Scottish Government has an important role to play in ensuring that Gypsy Travellers are given access to clean, habitable sites and the public services that they require but, in exchange, Travellers must also recognise that they have responsibilities as part of society.
15:43
I am grateful to Christian Allard for reminding me that, in March, I turned on my radio and heard Mary Fee, who was then convener of the committee, talking about the inquiry and the report. She talked about it very well, if I may say. However, what struck me was that nothing had changed since I was on the Equal Opportunities Committee in the first session of the Parliament when the original report came out back in 2001.
That got me to thinking back to 2001. At that time, I was extremely shocked at what we learned—like, I suspect, members who came to the matter new on the Equal Opportunities Committee in this session. I thought that I knew a bit about what we called the Gypsy Traveller community through reading, a love of the culture, song and storytelling and the fact that, for some time, I lived and worked in Argyll, where there are a lot of Travellers. However, I was totally shocked at what I learned during that first inquiry.
I learned about the life expectancy of members of the community, which Malcolm Chisholm talked about. I was extremely shocked by the discrimination that people suffered when they tried to access GP services or to get into hospital, and I was horrified at the level of bullying of Gypsy Traveller children that was prevalent in schools, particularly secondary schools, which was such that the drop-out rate of Gypsy Traveller children from education was extremely high.
Looking back, I am struck by a couple of things. Ours is a very privileged job, because we meet people whom we would not otherwise meet, and there are things that stick in my memory. One of them is being on a site—a pretty bad site—in Argyll, where I met a lady who invited me into her trailer. She had been part of what is called the settled community—she had been given houses by the local authority and had given them up. When I asked her to explain to me why she had done that, she said, “It’s very simple: I don’t like living in a house, because you have to stand up to see out the windows.” I was struck by a recognition that I would never understand that. Part of the problem with what local authorities, Government and we as individuals who have got used to all the trappings of being settled try to do is that we try to understand, but we will never understand, so why do we not just accept that there are people who require to live differently from how those of us in the main stream of society have chosen to live, make an accommodation and get on with it?
A United Nations rapporteur is looking at housing generally across the UK, and I know that she is meeting representatives of the Gypsy Traveller community again today. I hope that we can reach an understanding when it comes to what she reports.
The other thing that I remember strongly was going into a cafe in Argyll with a representative of the Travelling community. On realising that we were finding it extremely difficult to get served and wondering why, I asked him, “Is this cafe always like this?” He said, “No—it’s because you’re with me.” I was shocked that such an open form of discrimination was happening in a decade in which the Parliament had been re-established. That impression was reinforced when his wife came and stood outside the door and motioned to him to come out. I said, “Tell her to come in for her lunch,” but he said, “Oh no, she won’t come in—she’s too frightened to come in here.”
It is absolutely awful that we are allowing people to live like that in this day and age, especially when—as Siobhan mentioned—on some of the sites in question, we are talking about rent-paying tenants who do not have tenancy agreements or any real rights. They have occupancy agreements, which amount to nothing.
I am conscious of the time, so I want to move on to discuss negative stereotyping and discrimination, which I think we all have a responsibility to address. I know that the National Union of Journalists has recently produced guidelines for its members. I was struck by the fact that one of its main guidelines is:
“Resist the temptation to sensationalise issues involving travellers”.
Everything that I have seen on television lately involving Travellers has definitely sensationalised the story. Some of the headlines in newspapers are absolutely disgusting.
I go back to what I said at the beginning—I was part of the Equal Opportunities Committee’s inquiry in 2001, yet here we are in 2013 and, sadly, nothing has changed. At around that time, I remember lodging an amendment to the Housing (Scotland) Bill on the issue, which was voted down. I am not convinced that the same would not happen again. As Mark McDonald said, this is an issue on which we are all frightened to put our head above the parapet. I think that we need a champion, who I hope will be Shona Robison in her equalities leadership role. We need to be much more vocal on the issue and to recognise that there are times when it is necessary to do things that are extremely unpopular, but which we must do because they are right. I would like to see that happen on this subject.
I remind members to use each other’s full names.
15:49
As we know, the term “Gypsy Traveller” covers a broad range of groups that are descended from Scottish, Roma, Irish and other roots. Like others, I am proud to live in a diverse nation. As Scots, we should be proud of our unique Gypsy Traveller heritage.
I recently had a conversation about the issue with someone who told me:
“there’s a thriving gypsy population in my own local area which has been there for as long as I can remember and long before that. The gypsies here are an accepted part of the local community; they work and live here, and are a part of the fabric of the area.”
The Gypsy Traveller population has a long history in the south region and is even celebrated—the Yetholm common riding’s principals are not standard bearers, braw lads or lasses, gala queens or cornets but the bara gadgie and the bara manashee. Anybody who knows a little Romany will know that that means the good man and the good woman.
If people travel to Yetholm, they will also find the Gypsy palace. It is a wee single-storey house that dates back to the 1600s and in which King Charles II was crowned in 1898. He was not the King Charles whom we might usually think of but the last crowned king of the Gypsies—Charles Faa Blythe, the son of Queen Esther. More than 10,000 people descended on Yetholm for that coronation, just over a century ago. Gypsies, Romanies and Travellers are not a new phenomenon—they have been a part of our culture for many generations.
I echo much of what has been said about the day-to-day challenges that Gypsy Travellers encounter. It is particularly concerning that, as a group, they continue to face discrimination—whether that is from individuals or institutions—although they have been part of our culture for so long.
We in Scotland can be proud of being a tolerant nation that always leads the way in stamping out discrimination and protecting our minority communities, which is why the findings of the committee’s report make it a genuinely distressing read. The Scottish Human Rights Commission’s observation that discrimination against Gypsy Travellers is
“the last bastion of respectable racism”—[Official Report, Equal Opportunities Committee, 6 December 2012; c 777.]
is a shameful pill to swallow in a democratic society that should have no room for such prejudice to fester.
The report says:
“We were appalled at some of the standards we saw on sites, and disgusted that rent-paying tenants were faced with such bleak living conditions.”
We would not accept such living conditions for tenants in fixed housing, so why is it okay to ignore Gypsy Travellers’ plight? That is unacceptable in a fair and tolerant society. If we are to improve the lives of our Gypsy Traveller population, it is clear that we must tackle two key aspects: we must change the attitudes that feed the discrimination; and we need a firm national approach to fixed and temporary homes, with proper access to other services.
The current arrangements clearly do not work, and we know from the evidence that that creates and feeds into the social discontent of settled communities, which often results in conflict and the sensationalist media attention that the report highlights. As the report says, it is entirely reasonable that Gypsy Travellers should enjoy the same housing rights and responsibilities and the same access to services as tenants in the fixed housing sector have. I look forward to hearing from the minister on that point.
There has perhaps been a political reluctance to deal with the issue head on in the past. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has underlined the need for political leadership and I share its view, as I think others do. Partnership working must take place across all agencies, including COSLA, from which I hope that the minister will encourage active engagement. We must not shy away from tackling the issue on the basis that being seen to stand up for Gypsy Travellers might be unpopular.
I apologise for being late, Presiding Officer—I had other business outside the chamber. However, I am glad that I came in at this point. How much more difficulty is there for Gypsies from Scotland because of the large number of Roma people who are coming from the east and who do not seem to be popular in some areas?
Jim Hume is approaching his last minute.
Perhaps that is a question for the minister. I am sure that she will take it up.
Scottish Gypsy Travellers deserve all the basic rights in life that we all here enjoy without question. They deserve a decent standard of living and proper access to services, and their culture and unique way of life deserve to be recognised and protected. However, the report concludes:
“Discrimination is still one of the biggest barriers to site development”
and to proper
“access to healthcare, education, and employment for Gypsy/Travellers”.
Many Travellers rely on the voluntary sector for help with key services.
The committee heard from Lizzie Johnstone, who said:
“I was forced to go into a house so that I could get proper medication and health services for my younger son”
She said that one site that she had lived on
“was just not suitable for people with disabilities”.—[Official Report, Equal Opportunities Committee, 7 February 2013; c 1004, 1012.]
The committee’s report is upsetting, but at least it affords an opportunity to achieve fair and decent living standards for our Gypsy Traveller population. Missing that opportunity would represent an abject failing on our part. I sincerely hope that the minister will take forward the committee’s recommendations.
15:55
I pay tribute to Mary Fee, who was convener of the Equal Opportunities Committee in my time on it. She led the committee very fairly and had determination and grit perhaps to ensure that the Gypsy Travelling community had a fair voice in coming to the Parliament.
Perhaps the Gypsy Travelling community has not had a fair hearing. Over the years—perhaps over the centuries—Gypsy Travellers have not been understood. As an individual who came to the Parliament and met the Gypsy Travelling community for the first time when we had an awareness session that was organised by MECOPP, I found myself with perhaps some ignorance about the community’s culture. It became evident that some of the Gypsy Travelling people who came to give evidence in Parliament were reluctant. They said, “What’s the point? We did this before. We came before and nothing’s happened.” MECOPP persuaded and perhaps lent on them slightly to come and give evidence, and they thought that perhaps something else could happen.
Linda Fabiani asked what has changed since 2001. Is it not disappointing to Parliament that, 12 years on, we are debating a situation that should have been dealt with back in 2001? The changes that were required to be made then should have happened then. We cannot afford to miss the opportunity for change this time.
I listened with interest to the minister’s comments, to hear something that was perhaps different, which we could grasp and say, “Yes, we’ve got it right this time. Yes, we’re going out there to do what we should have done back in 2001. Yes, we’re going to empower the Gypsy Travelling community. Yes, we’re going to empower the people who need direction and leadership not just from the Government and the Parliament, but from COSLA and our local authorities.” However, I was disappointed, because I did not hear the bugle call or the cavalry charge.
The Gypsy Travelling community is not asking a lot; it is asking for the basics. It is asking for the basic right to go into a health centre and be cared for; the basic right to housing that does not leak; and perhaps the basic right to have indoor facilities. It is asking for basic rights for which the legislation already exists but is never enforced.
Murdo Fraser said that we need mutual respect. I agree with him, but let us get it right. A very small percentage of the Gypsy Travelling community go to unauthorised sites and leave them in a mess. The majority of the Gypsy Travelling community are upstanding, law-abiding citizens who just want the basic right to live as Gypsy Travellers in a community that has no prejudice towards them.
Margo MacDonald asked whether there was a difference between the Romany people and the other Gypsy Traveller communities. Yes there is. When we went to Clinterty in Aberdeen, we were told, “You know what the problem is? It’s the Irish Travellers who are coming over here and causing the problems. We’re getting the bad name because of—”. It happens in every community. I do not know whether problems are being caused by the Irish community. I do not know whether problems are being caused by those coming from eastern Europe, but regardless of that, there should be no prejudice towards our Gypsy Travelling community. They wish to live their lives as law-abiding members of a community.
When we took evidence, we heard that the majority of Gypsy Travellers do not wish to be part of the settled community, living in the heart of it. They are quite happy to have a site on the periphery, providing that they have access to a bus stop, healthcare, a shop and schools for their children. Is that too much to ask? I do not think so.
This Government needs to put its head above the parapet and say, “We cannot let 2013 go by like we let 2001 dissipate.”
16:01
I congratulate Mary Fee, the committee members and the clerks on the report that we have before us.
In the 14 years during which I have been here, there have been quite a few achievements of this Parliament in which I am honoured to have played a part. Among the most important of them for me was helping to bring forward the first ever report of the Equal Opportunities Committee in 2001, after the issue of discrimination against Gypsy Travellers was brought to my attention, as the race reporter at that time, in a letter from an individual Traveller. Having taken on board the issues that were highlighted in that letter, I convinced the committee, of which you were a member, Presiding Officer, as was Linda Fabiani, to hear evidence from organisations that represent Gypsy Travellers and from individual Gypsy Travellers. We were so concerned by what we heard that we decided to appoint an adviser and to conduct a full inquiry in order to ascertain the level to which public sector policies discriminated against Gypsy Travellers.
That committee published its report in June 2001. It contained 37 recommendations—a similar number to the report that we have before us today. The 2001 report covered a range of issues relating to the standards and location of accommodation, on-site facilities, the management and cost of local authority and private sites and the lack of facilities for roadside encampment.
So, what has changed? Virtually nothing has changed, according to the new report. On education, worrying evidence highlighted key areas of difficulty in accessing services for Gypsy Traveller children and in the management—or lack thereof—of interrupted learning. So, what has changed? Clearly, not much. On health and community care, institutional discrimination in health service provision was identified as an issue. So, what has changed? Little, if anything. On police and criminal justice, key issues were raised about the lack of awareness of Gypsy Traveller lifestyles and culture. So, what has changed? Not very much—next to nothing.
When we debated the report in 2001, the committee took the unanimous view that the then Scottish Executive’s response was a disappointment that fell into two categories: the problem was someone else’s responsibility, or the issue was already covered by a Scottish Executive policy. Sadly, I have to ask again: what has changed? We concluded that if all those issues were already covered, it was obvious that the policies were not working, because Gypsy Travellers were still facing discrimination in every area of public service delivery.
How disappointing it is that here we are 12 years on and the Equal Opportunities Committee in the fourth session of Parliament has also completed a report on Gypsy Travellers after hearing virtually all the same evidence, and has arrived at more or less the same conclusions.
Yet again, the key findings of an Equal Opportunities Committee report point to Gypsy Travellers’ widespread experience of the systematic failure among local authorities and organisations to ensure that they have access to the levels of service and legal rights that are available to other inhabitants of Scotland. I could not agree more with the EHRC that absence of leadership lies at the heart of the problems that are faced by Gypsy Travellers and the settled community. That means that instead of focusing on solutions, we get short-term action that is more about fighting fires than about sorting out long-standing problems.
No one can dispute the fact that Gypsy Travellers have the right to travel or that local residents have the right to be protected from unacceptable behaviour from anyone. With all rights come responsibilities, and a balance has to be struck, but it will require more than warm words to achieve that. We need real understanding and commitment and, in my experience, those remain all too sadly lacking.
In responding to the debate in 2001, the minister who was then responsible for the matter said that it had been painful to hear the criticism that had been levelled by the committee at the Administration, but that
“it is to the credit of the committee and the Parliament”
that we had a debate that
“puts the Executive under pressure to account for itself”.—[Official Report, 5 December 2001; c 4514.]
Some things have clearly not changed when it comes to equal opportunities. I hope that the Scottish Government is equally discomfited by this latest report.
More regrettably, the Gypsy Traveller community is still facing a situation in which far too few local authorities understand its issues and make the necessary provisions. Just as in 2001, the Scottish Government has pleaded in its defence that it is doing what it can to address all the points that the committee has raised. Unfortunately, the evidence is just not there to support that assertion. As was the case 12 years ago, Government policies could be identified and resources highlighted that pointed towards solutions for the issues that were being raised. Much of what we have today points to the fact that the buck is being passed and that the relevant policies are little more than dead letters that have never been delivered.
Let us hope that this latest report takes the issue further forward than the last one did, so that in a decade, those who take part in any reporting on the condition of Gypsy Travellers in Scotland do not have to suffer from the déjà vu that we have had here today.
In conclusion, I will recount an anecdote that other members have brought up. There is a tale of the pilgrims arriving in what we now know as America. When they asked the natives, “What did you call this country before we came here?” they said, “Ours”. That is part of the problem and we must bear that in mind when we are talking about the Gypsy Traveller community in Scotland.
16:08
I am grateful to Linda Fabiani for a comment that I was not expecting: her reference to the lady who said that in a house, people have to stand up to look out of the windows. That took me by surprise as much as it surprised anyone else, and what followed that comment was right. We do not have to understand; we just have to solve the problems. It might be that a lot of what the Government will try to do will involve trying to get the settled community—the vast majority of us—to understand Travellers when there is some inability to understand. Travellers are just different and we have to respect that difference, even if we do not understand it. It might be an important lesson for us to see that we do not necessarily have to understand everything to work through it.
That does, however, bring me to the other point that colleagues have made all the way through the debate. We have instinctive prejudices in our attitudes as a society, and they are in all of us. We have our way of doing things and if someone else does it another way, we instinctively say, “Hang on. That’s not the way I’d do it. I’m not sure that I want you next door.”
The crucial point that we all seem to understand is that it all comes down to accommodation. If Travellers do not have decent accommodation, we cannot solve their education and healthcare problems. It is just not going to happen. I suggest, therefore, that accommodation has turned out to be the centre of the issue.
I have a site in my constituency in north Angus. I checked up on it this morning, and it seems to be very well run. It is more or less permanently full, and is quite close to a town, and I am delighted to say that it does not appear to give any particular problems. The children are integrated into the local school and are dealt with accordingly.
Plainly, as a society, we can deal with that. However, we need to address the particular situation—which will often be the norm—of people who want to be able to travel but nonetheless need somewhere where they can stay for most of the time and fit in broadly with the society around them, even if they keep themselves as a separate group, as most of us do anyway.
The problem that we face in getting more of those sites, and particularly in getting transit sites—or halting sites, as I think they have been described today—is that, as councillors, we do not want to make that happen. I am not the only ex-councillor in the chamber right now, and there are hundreds of councillors throughout the country.
If I may state the blindingly obvious again, a local authority councillor does not really want to be championing a site of any kind that will be seen as a bad neighbour in their area. That is not the case only with people—it might concern an incinerator, for example; I make the comparison only in planning terms. If councillors know that their constituents are naturally prejudiced against what they are proposing, it is very difficult for them to suggest that it will be a good idea in their community. I do not much enjoy stating the obvious, but I must say to the minister, who is in front of me right now, that she has an incredibly difficult job in that regard. We know that local councillors are the people whose job it is to solve the problem of accommodation, but they do not really want to do so because it will very rarely be seen as being in their interests.
Solving the problem will require skills that are well beyond those that are needed for running the Commonwealth games. Running the Commonwealth games will be seen as an absolute walk in the park—
Nigel Don does not know the half of it.
I do not think that it matters what the half of it is. The point is that, when we are dealing with natural human prejudices, it is incredibly difficult to get councillors to do what they need to do.
The Government must work with councils to make them put sites in place—not just with stick-and-carrot stuff—because without those sites we are going nowhere. Once that problem is solved, there will be a way forward.
I will pick up briefly on a couple of Murdo Fraser’s points. I recognise entirely the plight of the private landowner from my experience in Stonehaven, although I do not think the person involved in that case would want us to rehearse it on the record. However, although Gypsy Travellers might drop litter, I have only to walk half a mile from my home in Brechin—as I do frequently—to find the verges along the roads in and out of the centre strewn with litter that is thrown out of car windows by people leaving my city. Those are not Travellers, but people who happen to drive cars, who have litter and who throw it out of the window. We need to be extremely careful to acknowledge that although there are occasions on which we can blame littering on people who have been on an illegal site, littering is something that we as a society, generally speaking, seem to be able to do. We need to be careful not to point the finger at others when a large number of us seem to be responsible for that type of behaviour.
16:14
I am grateful to all the organisations that have provided briefings for today’s debate, which indicates the widespread interest in the subject.
A great number of traditional stopping-off places in the Highlands and elsewhere were blocked off in the 1980s in order to deal with a phenomenon of the time: new age travellers. Many of those new age travellers are now back working in the City of London, but the stopping-off places remain blocked off, and the vested interests are keen for that to remain the case.
There is a place for talk and for strategies, but I am interested in practical solutions. When a site is blocked off, it is done by placing a handful of large boulders. If the Scottish Government is genuinely interested in maintaining the “traditional way of life” of the Gypsy Travellers, as it says it is in its response, it will play its part in making available some of those sites. I accept that not all the sites are in public ownership, but it seems to me that the transport minister could get in touch with Transport Scotland and the local authority minister could get in touch with councils. To me, that would be a wee bit more proactive than the examining that we have been promised. It would also have the benefit of showing leadership to other landowners.
Bulldozed tracks cover the hills of the Highlands and farmers have the status called “permitted development”. Those are both planning issues that are facilitated as a result of central direction. If that can be the case, why not also do it for Gypsy Traveller sites, both settled and transit sites? If that involved compulsory purchase on the part of the Scottish Government, I would be very happy with that.
The local authority sites have rightly been criticised. There are three permanent ones in the Highland Council area: one is built on a rubbish tip, one is in a sand quarry and the other is in a stone quarry. If a people’s accommodation is in such places, it sends a very clear signal about the priority that is given to them.
An awful lot of good work is going on with the Gypsy Traveller community—for example, with MECOPP, as has been mentioned. I also mention Karen MacMaster in that regard. She is a development officer on interrupted learning—which Mr McMahon mentioned—with Highland Council education service, from which between 64 and 97 Gypsy Traveller children a week receive education. I mention that because any needs assessment would have to recognise that the Gypsy Traveller community is not a homogeneous group of people; their patterns of work and travel vary, which needs to be taken into account.
I know of a traditional stopping-off site on the outskirts of Inverness that is fenced off by the local authority. There is no mention in the local plan of new or additional Gypsy Traveller provision. The site is certainly coveted by developers.
We have talked about the difficulty, because they vary in size, of assessing the needs of Gypsy Traveller communities in order to deliver services to them. Has anyone approached Highland Council and asked how it deals with providing steady education to a population of children that varies from 64 to 97? Nigel Don referred to the tremendous difficulties for local authorities in that regard.
A bullet-point briefing from Highland Council indicates what its education service does:
“Support families in accessing education
Provide guidance and teaching support to schools
Support a multi-agency approach to working”
as per getting it right for every child, and
“Develop resources and deliver training”.
That is the sort of thing that can be done with education. There are a number of very articulate young Gypsy Travellers.
Halting sites were mentioned by Mark McDonald, which I thought was considerably more interesting than his reliving of the politics of Aberdeen City Council. The sites issue is the sort of thing that needs to be discussed.
The committee report that went to the Government was quite intentionally very forceful in many respects, which was what was needed. We know that public authorities have a general duty to eliminate discrimination. I commend the words of Malcolm Chisholm in relation to that. If we are going to advance equality of opportunity for these people as regards accommodation, I would like to see a situation in this chamber at First Minister’s question time, for instance, whereby in addition to reeling off commendable statistics about house building, mention was made of provision for Gypsy Travellers. The action plan is certainly very welcome. However, there is a need for elected representatives of all parties and no party to be very mindful of their words.
Mention has been made of the UN rapporteur who is in Scotland and who met young Gypsy Travellers. I hope that the young women from Article 12 Scotland will have made a significant impression on the rapporteur. I do not know what impression the accommodation will have made, because I have to say that a lot of it is extremely embarrassing. So what future is there for those young Gypsy Traveller women? What prospects have they? Where are they going to settle? Where will be their base? Does the Scottish Government want them in houses, too? Quite bizarrely, it is still suggested by officials—as I know from my dealings with constituents who are Gypsy Travellers—that everything would be sorted if they were housed. It is not all down to the housing minister, but I certainly welcome the issue around the tenancy agreement. However, the message must go to all the minister’s colleagues that action is needed—by action I mean new sites, both permanent and transit sites—and that it is needed now.
We move to the closing speeches. I call Alex Johnstone. You have up to six minutes, Mr Johnstone.
16:20
It has been an interesting debate. After all the shouting and screaming that we heard in the past few days about the Government’s programme, it has been nice to get down to a quiet debate on a serious subject on which this Parliament can actually deliver, in conjunction with the Scottish Government.
Being able to speak twice in the debate gives me the privilege of being able to say in my second attempt all the things that I forgot to say in my first. One thing that I forgot to do was pay tribute to Mary Fee, who is the retiring convener of the Equal Opportunities Committee. I have great respect for Mary Fee, not least for the way in which she managed to put up with my unsophisticated right-wing attitudes on a number of things during the time that we shared on the committee.
It was difficult to convene the committee through what was a difficult process, in that there were seriously competing views. I think that the committee treated one or two witnesses quite badly, so it was important to have a strong convener to ensure that we did not make that mistake too often. When people such as Christopher Ahern, the chairman of North Muirton community council, and James Brownhill, the vice-chairman of Nigg community council, came before the committee, they were treated quite robustly, although all they were doing was expressing the minority view that exists around Scotland and the view that is put directly opposite the one that is expressed by many of those who speak out in favour of the traditional Traveller community.
It has to be said that I agree with a number of things that have been said, and perhaps I should have agreed with them earlier. John Mason, for one, and both members of the McMahon family, for another two, pointed out that when we talk about Government failing to give leadership, it is not just this Government that is a problem. We have been through a 12-year process and successive Governments have failed to deliver. Earlier Governments and, of course, this Government in an earlier form took the view that the subject should be dealt with by local authorities, but the evidence now increasingly points to the fact that local authorities are unable to achieve the objective through the local democratic process. That is why strong leadership is so important.
Does Alex Johnstone mean that local authorities are unwilling, rather than unable, to deal with the issue?
I do not mean that they are unwilling. They are keen to achieve the objective. I am saying that they are unable to achieve the objective through the local democratic process. The reason why is simple: they go all the way down the road of producing the halting sites that we all want them to produce, but then the democratic process stops it because local councillors are unable to face up to the responsibility of delivering in the face of local opposition. That is why strong leadership is important.
John Mason described the need to deal with the issue with more urgency, although I would perhaps not put it quite as strongly as John Finnie did in his speech a few moments ago, when he suggested proceeding with compulsory purchase, because that might enflame the situation.
We have to remember that we are dealing with a distinctive group that has been subjected to discrimination but which, nonetheless, does not want to be forcibly integrated into the settled community. Gypsy Travellers enjoy their privacy and we have to respect their differences and their independence. Above all, the Gypsy Traveller community does not like outsiders interfering in Travellers’ lives, so we need to ensure that what we supply is what they require without that interference. There is, in avoiding the accusation of discrimination, a need for us to recognise that there is a difference, and one that we should respect.
It is also important that we take steps to alleviate the concerns that exist within the settled community. I believe that I and my colleague Murdo Fraser are the only two members who talked about the presumption against prosecution. It came out in evidence that the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland’s presumption against prosecution relates exclusively to unauthorised stops and does not apply to fly tipping, offences under the road traffic acts and other offences. There is concern that there is lack of effort on the part of the police to integrate the Traveller community into normal enforcement of the law.
Alex Johnstone mentioned his “unsophisticated right-wing attitudes”. It seems to me that he shares Murdo Fraser’s view that camping without permission should always be prosecuted. He will be aware that wild camping is a very popular recreational—
Not with vehicles—
If members are selectively reinterpreting the law, I think that they are exceeding the bounds of this Parliament, but it would be interesting—
Read the Trespass (Scotland) Act 1865—
Alex Johnstone has 15 seconds left.
There will be arguments about the issues, and perhaps we have found the boundaries within which they will take place.
I am not directly critical of the position that ACPOS takes. I am trying to emphasise that the presumption against prosecution applies exclusively to unauthorised stops and not to any other offence.
It is important that we take matters forward in a timely and constructive way. I genuinely believe that the time has come for the Scottish Government, with the support of all parties—
The time has come for you to close.
The time has come to show leadership and to deliver on behalf of the Gypsy Traveller community.
16:26
I welcome the opportunity to close the debate for Labour on the Equal Opportunities Committee’s report on where Gypsy Travellers live. I congratulate the former convener, Mary Fee, and all members of the committee, on the comprehensive and inclusive approach that they took in arriving at their recommendations.
As other members have done, I welcome Margaret McCulloch to her new role. She clearly has big feet—I mean big shoes to fill. [Interruption.] I know. It has been a long afternoon.
As members said, this has been the third committee inquiry on the same subject and the same set of issues since the start of the Parliament. I struggle to think of another policy issue that has been the subject of three reports. It is clear that there is still much need for substantial improvement, as was made clear in virtually every speech that we heard this afternoon.
In the main, the debate has been helpful and consensual. There is much agreement across the Parliament about what needs to be done. However, we all recognise that we need to move beyond that.
I am not having a pop at the current Government. There is a problem for government in general, because we must surely ask ourselves this: if we all agree on what needs to be done, and we highlight our concerns and recommend potential solutions, why does nothing happen? That is a fundamental matter for members and for the Government, because there is little point in making policy decisions if they are not carried through. John Finnie was right to ask what is going on.
Margaret McCulloch and Mary Fee vividly described the challenges that people face when they have no running water, overflowing septic tanks, children bathing in ice-cold water, no toilets—the list goes on. We should be angry about the conditions in which people are living.
Members of all parties talked about the persistent problems of ensuring that children are appropriately educated and all members of the community have access to healthcare. Such access is patchy, to say the least, as John Mason said.
There are 20 recommendations in the report, each of which presents a myriad of challenges. I will focus on just a few. If the Scottish Government can prioritise and deliver on the recommendation on accommodation, there is the potential to transform lives. Minimum standards for accommodation and housing services, which are monitored by the Government, are essential.
I acknowledge the difficulty that is caused by Gypsy Travellers pulling on to roadside sites and the tension with people in the settled community. There are regular problems with seasonal unauthorised encampments in many areas of Scotland. However, the existence of sufficient well-serviced sites might help to make a difference.
Many members this afternoon have highlighted the difficulties faced by local government in not only identifying but delivering actual sites. However, we cannot stand back and leave local authorities to do this alone. The EHRC suggested that we adopt a regional approach that would be sensitive to the community’s traditional travelling patterns, and the Scottish Government has a clear role in brokering that.
The EHRC also mentioned resourcing. I recall that, under the previous Government, specific funding was available for local authorities to establish suitably serviced sites. However, that money has now been rolled up into local authorities’ general budget allocation and I have been told that not a single site has been established since. Again, the Scottish Government can play a clear role in that matter.
I was very taken by the unusually thoughtful contribution from the unsophisticated right-wing Alex Johnstone—as he will now be known—who called for leadership on this issue from the Scottish Government and said that, instead of having any more discussion groups, there should be practical action. I think that John Mason also expressed frustration and wanted the Government to get on with this. However, we will also agree that we all have a part to play and that we should stand ready to lend our support.
In a powerful speech, Christian Allard focused on challenging racism and discrimination against Gypsy Travellers and urged the Government to move quickly, and those points were echoed by Siobhan McMahon and Linda Fabiani. I also noted Mr Allard’s refreshing honesty about when he became a member of the committee; indeed, other politicians in this chamber would have claimed parentage of the report.
The committee deserves our thanks for considering the position of Gypsy Travellers, and I hope that it comes back to this report in six months, 12 months or even two years from now to measure progress against each of the recommendations. Maybe—just maybe—we might then see change.
Michael McMahon’s speech and analysis were striking. As the minister who responded to the debate all those years ago in 2001—I was younger then, Presiding Officer—I have to say that he was right. The Government was criticised—and rightly so—by the Parliament. At that time the received wisdom was that local authorities were best placed to deliver, but we need to learn the lessons from that experience. Responsibility is owned by too many, which means that people do not feel the need to deliver on it and, as we have heard, local authorities have experienced challenges in dealing with the issue.
We need the Scottish Government to assume responsibility with one focus and one ministerial lead. I cannot think of anyone better than Shona Robison to see progress on this issue. If she takes up that challenge, even I will be happy to support her in taking forward this agenda.
Appropriately, I now call Shona Robison to wind up the debate on behalf of the Government. You may have up to eight minutes, minister.
16:32
I have been left almost speechless by that offer of support, which does not come very often. Indeed, I will come back to it in a minute.
This has been a welcome debate with good speeches from across the chamber, some of which I will touch on in these closing remarks. We have heard about the many challenges and barriers that the Gypsy Traveller community faces every day and, as has been pointed out, I, as minister with responsibility for equality, have the overarching ministerial responsibility for this area of work. I always relish a challenge, but this issue gives me the opportunity to be the glue—if you like—in the Government to ensure that responsibilities that lie elsewhere are being met and actioned.
Of course, the Scottish Government recognises that the Gypsy Traveller community is among the most disenfranchised and discriminated against. We have seen as much in attitudinal surveys that, although showing huge progress in many other areas, have also highlighted attitudes towards the Gypsy Traveller community that have had their time.
I welcome the opportunity to take this work forward through not just a cross-Government approach but—I hope—a cross-party approach. A concrete result of today’s debate would be for me to take up members’ offer of cross-party support and leadership; after all, we need the leadership not just of the Government but of parliamentarians. As we move forward with the national awareness campaign, we will have an opportunity to put in place local ambassadors for change to challenge certain attitudes and I will be coming back to members across the parties who have expressed a willingness to help to discuss how we might put that into practical effect.
I want to turn to some of the specific points that were raised in the debate. I might not get to everybody’s points, but I will try my best.
First, of course, I welcome Margaret McCulloch, the new convener of the committee. It cannot be easy to speak on behalf of the committee after only one day in the post, but she did a very good job. Clearly, this is an issue that the committee should come back to—it is not one that should be dealt with just in a one-off report. We can look at ways of working together to ensure that progress is monitored.
When Margaret Burgess responded to the issue of the awareness-raising campaign, she mentioned discussions with Amnesty International with regard to how to take the issue forward. There is a need for a clear action plan, with some timeframes for when matters will be taken forward. I am happy to come back to the committee with an action plan that contains some of that. I think that we can certainly come up with a timeframe for the awareness-raising campaign without too much difficulty.
I pay tribute to Mary Fee for the work that she has done as convener. Had Margaret Burgess been closing the debate, she would have done so. However, as she is not, I will do so on behalf of us both. I congratulate Mary Fee on her new position.
One of the themes that have been evident in the debate is the balance of rights and responsibilities. It is a difficult issue but an important one. I join with others in noting that politicians always have to watch their language. However, we also need to dig a bit deeper into what the issue is actually about. In the situation in Dundee that was mentioned, the issue was actually poor business practice, but it became an issue of ethnicity. The issue should not have been the ethnic background of the person who was carrying out the work when it was really to do with poor business practice, which included not providing an invoice or a quote and the ramifications of what happens when disputes about what was agreed take place on people’s doorsteps. We need to look at what the issues are. However, the overall issue is to do with rights and responsibilities, and how to balance them.
Alex Johnstone attempted to lay out some of those challenges. Issues such as new sites and unauthorised camps will be difficult for local authorities to resolve, and they have been identified as early priorities with regard to how we can build relationships locally. I am not sure that the answer is that the Scottish Government should come in with a pair of tackety boots and say where a site is going to go, as that will please no one and solve nothing—to be fair, I do not think that Alex Johnstone was suggesting that.
We need to try to replicate some of the good practices that exist. We have heard this afternoon about areas in which sites are working well. If they can work well in some areas, they can work well in all areas. We need to learn from that good practice and try to replicate it.
Mark McDonald made a good contribution. He got beyond the rhetoric that has been a problem for all parties. Again, we have to provide the leadership that enables people to move beyond what might be seen as easy political hits in the local context.
Siobhan McMahon asked specifically about the timeframe for the awareness-raising campaign, and I can reassure her in that regard. That campaign will be a good start. However, I was struck by Nigel Don’s suggestion that an awareness-raising campaign should not be about trying to explain what Gypsy Travellers are about. It is not about that—it is about respecting difference without having to understand everything about the Gypsy Traveller community. When we think about how to pursue the awareness-raising campaign, such ideas will need to be taken on board.
Murdo Fraser came back to some big issues around unauthorised sites. The rubbish that is left and the cost of the clean-up generate negative local media headlines. However, some of the biggest critics of that bad practice are members of the Gypsy Traveller community, who know that it generates bad headlines. They are angry when it happens because it does nothing to promote good relations.
Dennis Robertson called for a bugle. I am not sure that I can be a bugle, but I give a commitment that I will work closely with the committee and spokespeople from other parties in a genuine attempt to move the issue forward.
16:41
I pay tribute to Mary Fee for her determination and grit—that may be code for something; I do not know. She has been a strong convener and has served the Equal Opportunities Committee well. On her first day as convener, Margaret McCulloch not only opened the debate in the chamber but presided masterfully over stage 1 of the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Bill, which was not an easy first task.
The inquiry was perhaps unlike a lot of inquiries because the process that was gone through was extensive. Committee members visited sites in Edinburgh, Dalkeith, Perth, Pitlochry, Oban and Lochgilphead, and a formal committee meeting was held in Clinterty, near Aberdeen. We really wanted to reach out and deal with the barriers, to overcome the difficulties and to deliver something that manifestly had not been delivered in the past.
I quote from the report the kind of barriers and stigma that we heard about from Gypsy Traveller witnesses. One said:
“My wee sister ... has lied about her address when filling out applications for jobs because, at other times, employers who have found out her address have told her that she is not suitable.”
Another said:
“If I purchase something from a shop and try to return it because it is faulty, when the person behind the counter asks for the postcode, it comes up on the computer as “Gypsy Traveller person’s site”. … We cannot use the site address to hire a DVD.”
Those are the kind of everyday obstacles that are faced. There is also evidence, which Siobhan McMahon cited, that 47 per cent of the public think that Gypsy Travellers would be unsuitable as primary teachers—a figure that has barely changed since 2006. That shows the extent of the problem.
This is not the first time that we have debated the issue. If one core message has come out of the debate and the report, it is about the frustration that has been cited not only by Siobhan McMahon and John Mason but eloquently by Linda Fabiani, whose experience of the previous committee along with Michael McMahon’s shows that the more that things have changed, the more they have, unfortunately, stayed the same. As Dennis Robertson pointed out, many Gypsy Travellers who come into contact with the parliamentary process are starting to ask, “What’s the point?” We must be incredibly careful, as hopes that are raised and dashed repeatedly do not rise as high again.
Members have touched on what has changed since 2001. There are one or two examples of progress. For instance, in 2001 one of the main calls was for the clear establishment of the ethnic status of Gypsy Travellers and we now have that. Unfortunately, although that may strengthen our hand in theory we are yet to see much impact coming through. Nevertheless, that is progress that we can see.
However, most of the other issues—in particular, access to services was an issue that went right through the 2001 report—broadly remain. As other members have referred to, those include the subjects of the committee’s recommendations on health, education and social work and on the relationships with local authority departments. Nevertheless, we have what the committee considered to be a positive example of progress in the police’s relations with Gypsy Travellers.
Our report recommends that the Scottish Government explore how successful pilots and projects can be replicated. One such project, which the committee came into contact with but has not been talked about much, was the north-east dialogue day, which brought people together. When the committee visited Clinterty, we attempted to duplicate that, because it is important to have that link. The old cliché about “Nothing about us without us” very much applies in a community like this, which in many cases is so distanced from the statutory authorities simply because of disillusionment.
The main ways forward broadly fall into three categories: site quantity, site quality and leadership. Site quantity is a major issue, given Gypsy Travellers’ requirement to stop at informal sites. John Finnie reeled off the traditional stopping places across the Highlands that have been blocked off. We heard differences of opinion on the alternative, which would involve transit sites for short-stay formal encampments. Some Gypsy Travellers would support transit sites, whereas others would not want to use them—that shows that we need their involvement. In suggesting temporary sites as a solution, we must be careful not to see the issue simply through the lens of those in the settled community who feel that they need to get rid of a problem. In that regard, I would be cautious both about defining Gypsy Travellers as opposed to ordinary people and about language referring to “innocent victims”. At the time of our report, there were 28 all-year sites operational throughout Scotland, but a study in one region of Scotland has suggested that 35 additional sites are needed in that area alone to deal with the demand.
Another issue that has come up is the quality of sites. As Malcolm Chisholm said, decent housing is a basic human right, and we need to remember that. In our visits, the committee saw the standards that are endured on a day-to-day basis. However, there are good sites, so let us single them out. Perth is always cited as a top-quality place by experts and observers, although we heard some from the Gypsy Traveller community suggest that Perth is too close to becoming a settled community—again, the sensitivities of the people we try to help need to be considered. Providing a standard tenancy would be a start. Post-2001, Amnesty established a model tenancy agreement, but when it last surveyed local authorities, only three of them had introduced it.
Our other recommendations are mainly about leadership, which has been the dominant theme in today’s debate. Leadership has been a difficult balance for the committee. John Mason was right to point to the carefully chosen language in paragraph 49 of the committee’s report, which covers a range of perspectives. Some people believe that there is a strong role for central Government, whereas others believe that there is a role for government more broadly, in which local government would be important.
The stories from, as it were, the coalface of local government that Nigel Don and Mark McDonald gave perhaps emphasise the importance of bringing the local community with us. A councillor who cannot overcome the barrier or mental block that many in the settled community might have will have difficulties in supporting the introduction of a new transit or permanent site. Unfortunately, that difficulty will only be exacerbated if someone comes in on a white charger and makes the situation worse.
Our point about supporting the development of sites is that everyone—local government and national Government—must face up to their responsibility. There is clearly a role for national Government. It is fair to say that, at local decision-making level, we would not tolerate the kind of derogation of responsibility that we have seen. Given the transient or mobile nature of the Gypsy Traveller community, there is a need for a degree of standardisation on access to services. For example, Scotland has one national health service, for which local authorities are not the decision makers. In that regard, the example that has been given by the police is very welcome.
The committee—as I was—was disturbed by COSLA’s response, which Christian Allard and others mentioned. It is important that COSLA is brought with us on the issue. We would all struggle to live a life according to our values and traditions if we faced the same obstacles as the Gypsy Travellers.
The committee has received the Scottish Government’s response. Action can only come from the steps that have been set out in the report. However, inaction might be possible, as was the case 12 or 13 years ago when similar promises were given but not acted on. Consequently, the committee will be watching and scrutinising what the Government does, how ministerial mainstreaming is working, the development of the campaign with Amnesty, the potential updates to site provision, and the exploration of a standard Gypsy Traveller tenancy agreement.
Although I am sure that we would all have welcomed much more concrete and immediate commitments, we will be watching to make sure that those turn into concrete actions this time around. If this Parliament is to mean anything, the Government, the agencies and all the relevant authorities must take action when a committee, with cross-party support, sounds an alarm.