Gypsy Travellers and Public Sector Policies
The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-2439, in the name of Kate MacLean, on behalf of the Equal Opportunities Committee, on the committee's inquiry into Gypsy Travellers and public sector policies. I invite all members who want to take part in the debate to press their request buttons now so that I can work out a batting order. I have pleasure in inviting Kate MacLean to open the debate.
I welcome the opportunity to bring this debate to the chamber this afternoon. I begin by thanking Delia Lomax, adviser to the Equal Opportunities Committee for the inquiry. I also thank members of the committee, past and present. We have had quite a few changes in membership, so a lot of people have been involved in the inquiry. I think that some former members of the committee will be speaking in this afternoon's debate, which is good. I thank members of the committee clerking team, who put a tremendous amount of work into the report. I also thank all the individuals who gave written and oral evidence to the committee.
In particular, I thank the young Gypsy Travellers who came to give evidence to a special meeting of the committee, and the Gypsy Traveller families who welcomed us into their homes and spoke to us frankly about the discrimination and hardship that they face on a daily basis. They did so in spite of the fact that they had no reason to believe that the inquiry would be any more noteworthy than the numerous studies and inquiries that have been conducted in the past but which have made no significant difference to their lives.
I would like to say a little about the background to the inquiry, which demonstrates the accessibility of the Parliament and, in particular, of the committee structure. The issue of discrimination against Gypsy Travellers was first brought to the attention of Michael McMahon, the reporter on race issues, by a letter from an individual Traveller early in 2000. The full committee initially heard evidence from organisations that represent Gypsy Travellers and from individual Gypsy Travellers. We were so concerned at what we heard that we decided to appoint an adviser and conduct a full inquiry to ascertain the level at which public sector policies discriminated against Gypsy Travellers.
The inquiry itself took nine months. We received 75 written submissions from a wide range of organisations and individuals, including local authorities, health boards, voluntary organisations and Gypsy Travellers themselves. We heard oral evidence from 39 witnesses from 17 different organisations. As well as hearing evidence in Edinburgh, committee members visited sites throughout Scotland to hear evidence from site residents.
In addition, in what was generally regarded as an innovative way of completing the consultation process, we held a civic participation event in the chamber. It involved those who had given evidence to the committee, as well as MSPs and civil servants from various departments. That enabled all those who had given evidence to comment on the Scottish Executive's response and inform the debate today. The outcome of the event was an overwhelming endorsement of the committee's report. There were also recommendations to improve communication and establish multi-agency approaches to service development and provision.
Following that, the committee published its report in June 2001. The report contains 37 recommendations, which can be broken down into a general recommendation about status—which I will return to—and four broad areas of service delivery. I will outline those areas, but other members of the committee will cover them in more detail.
The first area relates to accommodation. The 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. One issue related to the definition of "home" in housing legislation, which denies Gypsy Travellers the right to tenancy succession and accruals of discount, and the opportunity to have mixed tenure through stock transfer in the same way that local authority tenants in the settled community have.
On education, worrying evidence highlighted key areas of difficulty in accessing services for Gypsy Traveller children and in the management—or lack of management—of interrupted learning. Poor provision of pre-school and special education, transport difficulties and lack of flexibility in cultural awareness were discussed. Last but not least, evidence highlighted the intolerable levels of bullying and harassment that Gypsy Traveller children experienced at school. That was starkly highlighted by a recent Save the Children report, which indicated that almost 80 per cent of Gypsy Traveller children do not receive much formal secondary education. The most worrying evidence that the committee heard was given by young Gypsy Travellers themselves. All stated that, in the light of their own experiences at school, if they had children, they would not send them to school.
On health and community care, institutional discrimination was identified as an issue in health service provision. There were examples of poor staff attitudes, GP practices refusing to register Gypsy Travellers and a general refusal of treatment throughout the medical service. There were examples of good practice, but they were few and far between. From the evidence that the committee took on health issues, it should not have surprised us that the life expectancy of Gypsy Travellers is low. However, we were shocked to hear that life expectancy is only 55 years old, the same as that in this country in the 1930s.
On police and criminal justice, key issues were raised about frequent site visits for checks on property and vehicles. Those were much more frequent than in a settled community. There was a lack of awareness of Gypsy Travellers' lifestyles and culture and there were complaints of intimidation and threatening attitudes during evictions from roadside encampments. Over-policing of Traveller communities and a lack of liaison with other statutory agencies were also identified as issues. As I said, other committee members will cover those areas in more detail.
I will make some brief comments on the Executive's response to recommendation 2 of the report, which the committee found to be disappointing in general. Recommendation 2 states:
"All legislation and policies should be framed on the understanding that Gypsy Travellers have distinct ethnic characteristics and should therefore be regarded as an ethnic group, until such time as a court decision is made on recognition as a racial group under the Race Relations Act 1976."
The Scottish Executive's response was:
"The Scottish Executive is committed to equality of opportunity for all. Working within the broad definition of equal opportunities in the Scotland Act 1998 and as part of its mainstreaming equality approach, the Scottish Executive will look to build Travellers as a group in its own work."
That answer probably typifies the Executive's responses, which seem to fall into two categories: the problem is somebody else's responsibility, such as the local authorities' or the health boards', or the issue is already covered by or will be covered by a Scottish Executive policy. If it is covered, it is obvious that the policy is not working, because Gypsy Travellers are facing discrimination in every area of public service delivery.
It is bizarre that Irish Gypsy Travellers have the protection of being recognised as a distinct ethnic group for the purposes of the race relations legislation while travelling in Scotland, but that Scottish Gypsy Travellers do not have the same protection. I urge the Scottish Executive to afford Scottish Gypsy Travellers the same protection and dignity of being treated as an ethnic group in their country.
Last Friday, I attended the "Equal Futures" conference in Glasgow, during which secondary school children asked questions of MSPs—Linda Fabiani, Robin Harper and Jamie McGrigor also attended. Facing schoolchildren can sometimes be daunting because it is more unpredictable than speaking to conferences involving adults. There were lots of good questions, but one question that received warm applause from the children was asked by a young Gypsy Traveller who wanted to know why the Scottish Executive would not agree to the recommendation to recognise the ethnic status of Gypsy Travellers in Scotland. It seems strange that a roomful of school kids can recognise the merit of that when the Scottish Executive does not. I could not answer the question because I do not know why the Scottish Executive will not agree to the recommendation or why the Executive's response is not more positive. I hope that, in responding to the debate, the minister will give a commitment to review the Executive's position on the issues that have been raised.
I have 20 minutes, but as many members want to speak, I am happy to cut my remarks short. The Equal Opportunities Committee invested a great deal of time and commitment in the inquiry. More important, the Gypsy Traveller community in Scotland invested a great deal of hope in the inquiry. On behalf of the committee, I urge the Scottish Executive to take a leading role in tackling the widespread discrimination that is experienced by Gypsy Travellers. The committee is determined to proceed with the issue and I hope that that can be done in partnership with the Executive. We are determined that the report will not be allowed to gather dust on a shelf. I hope that that determination will be seen not as a threat to the Scottish Executive, but as a promise to the Gypsy Traveller community in Scotland.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the 1st Report 2001 of the Equal Opportunities Committee on the Inquiry into Gypsy Travellers and Public Sector Policies (SP Paper 356).
I am pleased to be able to speak in the debate.
In the report of the Equal Opportunities Committee, several observations and recommendations are made as a result of evidence that was taken. Although evidence was taken between 23 May 2000 and 19 June 2001, it appears to me that some aspects of the report are built on sand. For example, as the Scottish Parliament information centre research note admits, there appear to be no accurate figures on the number of Travellers in Scotland—population estimates range from 3,000 to 23,000—or on their broad geographic distribution. It is surprising that numbers are not better known, as a considerable proportion of Travellers are settled.
Similarly, although we have a snapshot of the appallingly low life expectancy of Travellers in Argyll, volume 2 of the report admits a lack of accurate health statistics for Travellers in the United Kingdom as a whole and in Scotland alone. Without detailed research, how can we act appropriately to reverse apparently very high levels of mortality? Research that suggests that Gypsy Travellers in Argyll, for example, can expect to live only two thirds as long as non-Travellers—which Kate MacLean touched on—is cause for alarm.
In addition, accidents, suicides and chronic health problems are generally more prevalent among Gypsy Travellers than they are among non-Travellers. Those conditions are worsened by a lack of access to health education, not to mention health care facilities where Travellers might experience discrimination—in the form of negative attitudes and refusal of treatment—by GPs and their staff.
Accessibility to community care—a service that, in theory, is provided by local authorities—is also lacking in some instances. In practice, many Gypsy Travellers experience extended delays in the assessment and implementation of their requests as a result of yet another example of discrimination.
It is clear that there exists an abundance of discrimination and a deficit of cultural awareness and knowledge about Gypsy Travellers and other travelling peoples. That is further reflected in how some members of the police force treat their communities. The behaviour of some of the police towards Gypsy Travellers is characterised by frequent site visits for checks on vehicles and property; an obvious lack of awareness of Gypsy Traveller lifestyles; an ignorance of the rights that those people hold; and intimidating and threatening attitudes during evictions.
Recommendation 34 states:
"Racial diversity strategies and training materials for the police and other relevant bodies in the criminal justice system should include reference to Gypsy Travellers as a separate ethnic group."
The thrust of that recommendation is synonymous with that of most of the other recommendations in the report, which refer to travelling people as a distinct ethnic group and assign terminology to refer to all Traveller groups as Gypsy Travellers, although Travellers may fall into distinct cultural groups, such as new age travellers, Gypsy Travellers and show and fairground travellers.
It might be easier for us to lump all Travellers together under one label, but doing so diminishes the identity and culture of each group. To classify all Travellers as an ethnic group when it appears that not all wish to be so labelled looks merely expedient and ignores specific needs and community desires. For example, in Elizabeth Jordan's report, "Traveller Pupils and Scottish Schools", show and fairground travellers reject the term "ethnic" and describe themselves as a business community. Just because those who discriminate against Travellers consider them all to be the same, it does not mean that the Parliament should.
On mobility, we have a snapshot from Save the Children's 1996 report, "The Right to Roam: Travellers in Scotland 1995/96", but no detailed information to enable us to deal comprehensively with the requirements of differing Traveller groups and their children. Such research is urgently needed and I urge the Scottish Executive to undertake it.
Education is a key issue that deserves attention. I have said that a lack of cultural awareness contributes heavily to the exclusion of Gypsy Traveller children, but other factors also contribute to that exclusion. We have information on Traveller education that makes it clear that 80 per cent of children in those communities fail to attend secondary school and that 59 per cent fail to attend primary schools. No information is provided on how many Travellers participate in further or higher education. Although low participation is undoubtedly exacerbated by bullying and discrimination, does anyone seriously doubt that the most significant factor is frequent travel from area to area and the inevitable disruption to education that that causes?
A fortnight ago, a report in The Herald made it clear that moving school is a traumatic event for any child, who will lose six to nine months of educational attainment on average as a result. I remember moving school when I was eight and how distressed I was to leave my old home and friends. How much more difficult must it be if that occurs regularly in a child's life? Therefore, we must question the practicality of eliminating educational exclusion from semi-nomadic communities and whether such lifestyles are appropriate in serving the educational needs of Traveller children in the 21st century.
My concern is that the rights of individual children to an equal opportunity to reach their full potential would be inevitably compromised if—
Will the member give way?
Yes.
The member seems to argue against travelling and Gypsy Travellers having the right to lead the lifestyle that their culture dictates. The debate should be about how the same services and outcomes can be given to Gypsy Travellers, despite their lifestyle, not about arguing against travelling per se.
What is important is giving all children an equal opportunity in life. Society is not always to blame. The lifestyle choice of Traveller parents has an influence on their children's education. Pursuing such a lifestyle may be the parents' choice, but it may not necessarily be the choice of their children.
The point of the report was that travelling is not a lifestyle choice; it relates to the ethnicity of a group of people in Scotland. Their ethnicity cannot be divorced from society. It makes them what they are. The tenor of Kenny Gibson's argument is that Gypsy Travellers choose the lifestyle and therefore choose their problems. They do not make that choice.
Perhaps the member should listen to the rest of my speech. However, I certainly think that children do not have a choice of lifestyle.
Even if all the recommendations of the Equal Opportunities Committee report are implemented, and even with good will and full co-operation from all public service agencies, a modern education and the social and cultural enrichment that it provides may remain out of reach for many Traveller children, as will choices for them in later life.
I quote from Elizabeth Jordan's report:
"You spend all night reorganising your groups and teaching plans so that they won't be isolated [in the class], and then they don't come back! It gets a bit frustrating, but it's just their culture. We're used to it here."
Those are the words of a teacher in a school with regular comings and goings of Gypsy Travellers. They sum up the reality for schools that try to accommodate Traveller children. Although society must reach out to this disadvantaged group, it is important that Travellers work with schools and respect their circumstances and need for communication and co-operation. Flexibility is stressed in the Equal Opportunities Committee report and is a two-way street.
The Equal Opportunities Committee report makes six recommendations on education, ranging from assistance in purchasing school uniforms to providing
"community rooms or portacabins on sites to facilitate educational provision".
Although the former recommendation will undoubtedly assist social inclusion, the latter appears to do the opposite by discouraging attendance at mainstream schools. As with so many aspects of the report, the themes of inclusion and autonomy seem to run counter to each other.
The committee appeared to acknowledge that by stressing
"the importance of a place to stay as a basis of service provision, that having no address (or an address that was identified as Gypsy Traveller site accommodation) may lead to subsequent refusal or difficulties in accessing service provision and a general disenfranchisement from the democratic process".
In that respect, recommendation 21, which appears to encourage adult learning and the dissemination of information, is welcome.
With a full census of the numbers of Gypsy Travellers, new age travellers and show and fairground travellers, important recommendations on matters such as consultation and participation in local authority decision making and public service provision can be made, not least the provision of resources for community development and capacity building. However, the Scottish Executive would have to issue clear guidance on the provision of funding to, and by, local authorities.
If Travellers move across local authority boundaries, the local authority of origin might be reluctant to continue to provide resources. Furthermore, in such cases, health boards might feel that responsibility would no longer be theirs. Distinct budgets might also impact more directly and unfairly on individual councils. As a result, it might be more effective to allocate moneys directly on behalf of Traveller communities through local authorities and health boards. Public service provision could then follow mobile Travellers in a more joined-up way. To achieve that, the Scottish Executive would have to provide resources directly and ring-fence them for no other group.
Ring-fencing of funding by local authorities, as suggested by recommendation 24, would be too inflexible. It would lead to budget overspend and underspend as Travellers moved from area to area and populations fluctuated. A centrally directed budget for all Traveller public services would allow more focused, long-term and seamless provision for this disadvantaged group. It would also make it easier for mobile and nomadic Travellers to liaise with and consult public service agencies in a more co-ordinated way rather than having to do so with all eight police boards, 15 health boards and 29 mainland local authorities. That would allow the development of long-term relationships and partnerships.
A particular concern is the condition of so many of the sites that are available to Gypsy and other Travellers. A lack of basic amenities in this day and age is unacceptable and discourages a more settled and socially inclusive lifestyle. As a result, recommendations on enhancing site facilities are to be commended. We particularly welcome the provision of play facilities and barrier-free and adapted amenity chalets. However, we should explore the possibility of community ownership, tenant management co-operatives and registered social landlords.
Although there are many laudable recommendations in the Equal Opportunities Committee report, there is no suggested timetable for action. Surely if real progress is to be made, SMART—specific, measurable, attainable, realistic and timed—goals must be set. However, we appeared to have been presented with more of a wish list than a set of achievable objectives. There is also an absence of information on whether the Traveller communities across Scotland agree with some or all of the report's recommendations. As a result, it would be useful if the minister could advise us which recommendations the Executive partly or fully accepts and of the timetable for consultation, participation and delivery.
It gives me great pleasure to speak in this debate. Although I am no longer a member of the Equal Opportunities Committee, I thoroughly enjoyed taking an active role in the report on Travellers in Scotland. I am grateful to the many people I met who invited me into their homes and gave me an all-too-brief insight into their way of life.
I was moved by many of the stories that I heard, especially those about the bullying of children and the feeling of isolation experienced by many in the travelling community. Such isolation is a paradox. Many Scottish Travellers can claim origins in a tradition and culture that can be traced back to the nomadic hunter-gatherers of ancient Scotland. That tradition and culture led to strong bonds that built up a deep pride in home and country—traditional values that most Scots respect and that form the great strength of our nation. Although sadly those values are being eroded by the speed and pressure of modern life, they are still strong among travelling communities. That should be recognised and respected.
The Travellers would have a great deal more to offer Scotland if there were more interaction between them and the static community. However, that interaction is not happening and is not likely to happen unless the situation changes dramatically. As I visited sites throughout Scotland, I got the impression that Travellers feel that they get little out of society and so do not experience a tremendous desire to put a great deal into it. Any group in society that feels discriminated against turns inwards and tends to become defensive and distrustful.
Scottish Travellers should be recognised as a group that is culturally different, not racially different. However, the real tragedy is the fact that a so-called inclusive Scotland, dominated by a socialist regime that champions social inclusion, is anti-social in its approach to Travellers. The Equal Opportunities Committee's report was a good idea and I congratulate Kate MacLean, the other members of the committee and particularly the clerks of the committee on the thoroughness of their work. The Scottish Gypsy Traveller Association thinks that the report is excellent. However, the Executive's response has been disappointing. It seems to say that all is well and that there are no major problems and it passes the buck to local councils. In other words, it appears to be burying the report.
No action appears to have been taken to remedy some of the acute problems that I identified when I contributed to the report. For example, when I visited a site at Dumbarton, I found negotiating the access extremely difficult, even though I was in a Land Rover. The pot-holes were so deep that any normal cars, vans or lorries would soon have been badly damaged. I mentioned that fact to the then minister, Jackie Baillie, when she appeared before the Equal Opportunities Committee on 5 June. The site is in her constituency and I hoped that she might visit it and experience the approach road. I do not know whether she went there, but no repairs have yet been undertaken.
The same problem exists at the Dunholligan site near Lochgilphead, where the access, which is shared with the Forestry Commission, is if anything worse than that at Dumbarton—there is no tarmac there at all. The rents that Travellers are paying to the council for their site are often as high as the rent that is charged for a five-apartment council house, so they should at least have a reasonable approach road and proper drainage. I also heard general complaints about the cost of the electricity that was supplied and the fact that only council electricity cards could be used. In some cases, electricity bills were given with little, if any, detail of specific charges.
At the site in Spean Bridge, a barrier was installed for which only the site manager had a key. If he was not available, emergency fire or ambulance services would have had difficulty in gaining access. Moreover, people's cars and vans were trapped in the site except when the site manager was present. I am told that the site dwellers have now been given keys, so the report has achieved something concrete.
The position of some of the Traveller sites leaves a great deal to be desired, especially the one at Kentallon, which is situated in a large quarry that seldom, if ever, sees the sun and is subject to dangerous rock falls. Although the original idea behind the sites was to integrate Travellers gradually into the local communities, that has not often worked, as, in many instances, Travellers find council houses difficult to obtain. Many would like to buy their sites from farmers but are prevented from doing so by draconian planning laws.
I leave the question of health and education facilities for Travellers to my colleagues. I say only that it is alarming that a section of Scottish society appears to feel so neglected in the 21st century.
The contribution that Travellers make to the economy is still useful. Tattie and berry picking has become largely mechanised, but from Campbeltown to Ullapool and all over the Scottish islands, Travellers still gather whelks and winkles, which are sold to shellfish exporters. One exporter told me that he relies on the Travellers for 70 per cent of the collection of those shellfish. I believe that that is the case in many areas. For example, in the area of Lochaber alone, around Loch Eil, there might be 20 Traveller families undertaking such work on a monthly basis. They spend money locally and the profits that are generated by the exporters mean that local garages benefit from servicing vehicles and from other business.
Those types of shellfish can be gathered only by hand and their value to the Scottish economy runs into millions of pounds. Were it not for the Travellers, not enough volume would be gathered to make the activity commercially viable and the industry would suffer. Sometimes a conflict can arise between local crofters and the Travellers over where and when the shellfish should be gathered. That situation would be improved by more interaction and discussion between the interested parties. I call on the Minister for Environment and Rural Development to consider that when the Executive examines the management of our coastal waters.
Kenny Gibson is right: Travellers choose to live as they do and no one should try to interfere with that choice. They have the same rights and responsibilities as other groups in society, but they have become isolated and deserve better recognition.
I call on MSPs of all parties to visit their local Traveller sites and listen at grass-roots level to Travellers' concerns. I also ask the Travellers to invite their MSPs and welcome them as they welcomed me, to promote a more trusting and understanding partnership between the Parliament and Travellers. Any consultation should be undertaken with Travellers and not only with groups representing them, whose members may not be Travellers themselves.
I endorse what members have said and I congratulate Jamie McGrigor on managing yet again to bring shellfish into a debate in the Scottish Parliament. I say that with good humour, as Jamie McGrigor was a thoughtful member of the committee.
It has been a pleasure to be on the Equal Opportunities Committee. I have not been able to give it as much time as I would have liked, owing to my responsibilities to the Holyrood project, but I am proud of what we have done. It has been a pleasure to serve on the committee.
As Kate MacLean stressed, the fact that the committee deliberated on the issue and the report is before us today is a tribute to the Scottish Parliament and highlights one of the things that we do best. Would such a report have been produced by Westminster? You must be joking. However, we have done it and for that I pay tribute to my colleagues and the clerks.
Reference has been made to specific recommendations in the report. By way of two illustrations, I want to show the bad and the good. It would be unfair of me to mention names or locations, but some years ago in the Highlands there was an unfortunate case that demonstrates all that was and is worst in our society.
A mother had a number of children who suffered from a degenerative disease. In the years before local government reorganisation, there was a joint attempt by the district and regional councils' housing and social work departments to take that family out of their deeply unsuitable accommodation in a remote rural area and to buy and improve a decent house for them that would allow easy access to social services, doctors and hospitals. Both councils acted together and the project proceeded. The lady was thrilled to bits that she was going to get a house. At that point, I am afraid, we looked into the heart of darkness. There was a campaign to prevent the family from getting the house. The lady's husband had a truly shocking criminal record—he was and is a violent man. However, he was in prison at the time. The fiery cross was raised to prevent the family from getting their house and, unfortunately, enough politicians were picked off by the campaign that the vote, which took place in the run-up to Christmas, went the wrong way. That is the one time in my life when I have looked right over the precipice into the evil that lives in us all.
I use that illustration as an example of the worst sort of thing that can happen. That family is still in their house in the wrong location and one of the children has died. I think that there is some hope that the family will be provided with a suitable house in the near future, but that will be years after the event. It is deeply shocking that, in a country that prides itself on having seen off the evils of Nazi Germany, something like that could happen.
On a lighter note, although the lairds often get a bad press these days, one laird—the Duke of Westminster, believe it or not—has long had a strong reputation for looking after the travelling people. Travelling people always said that, if they went to his door, they would get a haunch of venison, a dram in their hand and whatever else they needed. There is a famous story, which I think is not apocryphal but true. One day before the war, the Queen's gynaecologist was a guest of the duke when it was reported to the big hoose that one of the Traveller ladies was giving birth to a child in a tent. Although the Queen's gynaecologist was dressed for dinner in black tie, the duke took it upon himself to order his guest—Sir Somebody-or-other—to go out in the rain and deliver that baby, however much he protested that he did not want to. That act has never been forgotten and is an example of something good. The record is patchy—there is both bad and good.
The issue that we are debating is to do with the recognition of Gypsy Traveller culture. Within the past few years, a splendid book was published that quotes Alec John Williamson, a native of the village of Edderton, which I live close to. It was called "The Summer Walkers". I deem the book to be significant in pointing up a unique way of life and culture, which is in danger of being lost unless we recognise it for what it is. I remember writing to Alec John Williamson and congratulating him on the book. I hope that it will be considered the foundation of a celebration of a way of life.
Our guest for time for reflection mentioned that we must "love our neighbour"—I think that I quoted that correctly. Some love more than others do. I believe that the solution is simple. It is not really about the Executive or about councils. It is about every one of us reaching out to Gypsy Travellers.
John Farquhar Munro and I were talking beforehand about the fact that, in the past, a close community existed in the Highlands. Travelling people were known and had friendships across boundaries. The situation may be the same today or it may not be; I am not sure. It is easy to look back at the health records of the past and talk about life expectancy, for example, but I am not sure that social communication with Gypsy Travellers is all that it was in the past. I apologise for my slightly conservative view on that. There is room for improvement.
I am proud to be associated with the committee's thorough report. I wish that more of my fingerprints were on it. I commend it to the Parliament. The fact that the report was undertaken and is being debated today means, I believe, that we are advancing, but there is much still to do.
I join Kate MacLean in thanking the clerks, Delia Lomax, everyone who gave evidence to the committee and Michael McMahon, who originally raised the issue in his role as race reporter.
During the inquiry, the committee took a great deal of evidence on the many issues that impact on Gypsy Travellers in Scotland across many services. One of the most important and fundamental facts to be established was the current status of Gypsy Travellers as an ethnic group. In response to a question of mine, the then Minister for Social Justice, Jackie Baillie, confirmed that a change in law was not necessary to establish that status but that a test case would be required to determine the issue. Nadia Foy, a young Gypsy Traveller who gave evidence to the committee, highlighted the importance of that when she said:
"To start any kind of change, we need to be classed as an ethnic minority group. We need to have rights and stature." —[Official Report, Equal Opportunities Committee, 1 May 2001; c 1202.]
Recommendation 2 of the committee's report says:
"All legislation and policies should be framed on the understanding that Gypsy Travellers have distinct ethnic characteristics and should therefore be regarded as an ethnic group, until such time as a court decision is made on recognition as a racial group under the Race Relations Act 1976."
That is, to my mind, the most important recommendation in the report—the rest of the report flows from that premise. I agree with the remarks that Kate MacLean made on that issue at the beginning of the debate.
The inquiry proved that Gypsy Travellers are subject to endemic institutional racism. We heard many appalling and heart-rending examples of that, which, to be frank, I could not have begun to imagine existed. Again, the words of another of the young people who gave evidence, Sharon McPhee, sum up the situation. She said:
"We are not animals; we are people."—[Official Report, Equal Opportunities Committee, 1 May 2001; c 1189.]
Members of the Equal Opportunities Committee agreed that we would each consider different aspects of the report today. I could happily have addressed any of the issues on which we took evidence. However, I will focus on education for Gypsy Traveller children. The current arrangements are clearly failing. Only 20 per cent of those children receive secondary school education, according to the recent report by Save the Children, to which Kate MacLean referred. That figure is totally unacceptable. It contravenes a number of international frameworks, including the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The Equal Opportunities Committee's report makes a number of recommendations to tackle the problem. It addresses a number of issues, including pre-school education, transport, the relevance of the curriculum and alternative provision to school-based education. It also addresses adult education and lifelong learning.
We need to ensure that, as far as possible, Gypsy Traveller children are offered an education that is compatible with their culture and ethnicity. That does not have to be any one kind of education, to refer back to Kenny Gibson's remarks. Different choices and different ways of delivering can be provided in different circumstances. What is for sure is that the authorities must remove barriers to ensure that a learning environment is provided that addresses the needs of those children and allows them to reach their full potential.
If we look at the evidence, we can see that bullying is rife. From the evidence, we know that, when a child who has been physically attacked fights back in self-defence, the authority figure often blames them for the troublemaking rather than addressing and stopping the bullying. We have also heard of incidents in which the teaching that is given to Gypsy Traveller children consists of getting them to sit quietly at the back of the class with a comic or segregating them into a different room.
I make no apology for quoting Sharon McPhee, one of the young people from whom we heard, as it is important that we hear the young people's words. She said:
"The children are treated like idiots. I would like that to change. I would like to see bullying of Traveller children at school stop. I would like a better response from teachers. They should be trained to deal with Traveller children; they are not."—[Official Report, Equal Opportunities Committee, 1 May 2001; c 1186.]
Children are the ones who do the bullying. The reports that I have read usually talk about guidance for teachers, parents, boards and schools. I wonder whether Elaine Smith agrees that the education curriculum for all children should contain an explanation of the culture and ethnic uniqueness of the Gypsy Traveller.
I thank Winnie Ewing for her intervention; I agree with what she said. Members will see from the evidence that we took that some of the young people have been going around schools and talking about their experiences. Perhaps we need a bit more of that in our schools. I see the Minister for Education and Young People nodding, which is a good sign.
There is an argument that a degree of self-exclusion exists among Gypsy Traveller families. Kenny Gibson touched on that to some extent. It is a complex issue and I do not have time to explore it fully, but it seems perfectly understandable for a parent to be reluctant to send their children to school if they or their other children were bullied and traumatised at school. If my child had had experiences such as those in the examples that the committee heard, I would not wish to send him into such an environment. Given that he is not a Gypsy Traveller, he will not face that kind of discrimination.
I return to Sharon McPhee's words, which sum up the issue. She said:
"People treat us perfectly and everything is great until they find out that we are Travellers, when their attitude changes completely, and we become rubbish."—[Official Report, Equal Opportunities Committee, 1 May 2001;
c 1190.]
The Equal Opportunities Committee set out at length straightforward proposals to tackle the problems that I have mentioned, so it was disappointing to read the Executive's response on many of the issues, particularly education. The Save the Children submission said that much of the Executive's response can be summarised as either, "It is a matter for local authorities, to be addressed at local level", or, "The issue raised is/will be covered by this or that policy." Nearly all the submissions to the committee on nearly all the issues of service provision—including education—spoke about the need for national co-ordination to iron out the discrepancies between local authorities and to ensure consistency of good standards wherever Gypsy Travellers are staying. The Executive seems to have ignored those proposals. I contend that that paternalistic attitude could be viewed as an example of institutional racism.
To provide an education that fits the needs and aspirations of the children of Gypsy Travellers, we need input and action from the people and representatives of the Gypsy Traveller community and from the settled community and we need interaction between the two communities. It will not be acceptable to either grouping to agree with the Executive's view that everything is covered by existing or planned provision or is up to local authorities or other bodies.
The Executive can address some issues. This morning, I discovered an example of people on a Gypsy Traveller site who have asked for a mobile library to visit them. Most authorities have not considered providing that service. Inverness Library, however, thought that it was a way forward and is making great strides with it. Local authorities can make different provisions, but are they doing so? I do not think so. They need guidance on such issues.
I say to the Executive that a better deal is needed, to use its own terms. The Equal Opportunities Committee's report can form the basis for that. I urge an Executive rethink and I look forward to the minister's response.
I finish with the words of Nadia Foy:
"We are looking for respect and for the same rights as anybody else."—[Official Report, Equal Opportunities Committee, 1 May 2001; c 1185.]
Is that too much to ask for in a multicultural and supposedly tolerant Scotland that is striving to achieve social justice? I think not.
As a member of the original Equal Opportunities Committee, I can recall when the inquiry was first proposed. I commend the committee's current members for producing such a comprehensive report of its inquiry into Gypsy Travellers and public sector policies. Although parts of it make depressing reading, outlining the shocking barriers that the Gypsy Traveller community faces when it tries to access services that the settled population takes for granted, the report contains many constructive recommendations for positive action.
I intend to focus on the experiences of children and young people from the Traveller community, particularly on their difficulties in accessing education services that will meet their needs. The media attention surrounding last week's publication of Save the Children's new report, "Denied a Future?", brought home to us all the shameful reality of what amounts to a mass denial of education to Gypsy Traveller children. Few of us could have failed to be moved by the description given by a young woman in a television interview of how she had been driven out of school by relentless racist bullying.
School-based education, geared as it is towards the settled community, can be problematic for Gypsy Travellers. Bullying is often a major factor in young people's opting out of the system, particularly at secondary level. More flexibility must be introduced to the school system and more needs to be done to develop non-school-based education services, perhaps by harnessing the expertise of informal community educators, by using facilities on site, by using family-focused provision or by emulating successful projects such as the skool bus, a mobile educational facility set up by the Travellers School Charity.
Such alternatives seem to provoke two different reactions. On the one hand, travelling parents and children are enormously enthusiastic to embrace informal, culturally sensitive education that is available on their terms. On the other hand, there is sometimes a distinct lack of enthusiasm, support and resources among those working in the education system, who would rather include Gypsy Travellers in the current model.
I am aware that some Gypsy Travellers and members of other minorities find objectionable the inference that there is a norm to which minorities should all aspire and conform. We should take care not to impose the values of the settled majority on those for whom nomadism is an equally valid—and preferred—way of life. In a similar vein, the use of the term "interrupted schooling" as opposed to "interrupted learning" suggests that any kind of learning other than school-based learning, such as family-based or community-based learning, is valueless.
On the positive side, there are now many alternatives to conventional qualifications. For example, Aberdeen College offers a range of distance-learning courses, which are open to all. Lessons can be learned from other initiatives, such as notschool.net, a pilot home-based learning project in Glasgow that has successfully used education services to reconnect a group of disengaged young people. Travelling students can now be easily connected via computers to schools or colleges. Mobile provision such as that offered by the skool bus is another option. We just need a bit more vision.
Although Gypsy Traveller families have traditionally opted out of the system, that does not mean that they wish to deny their children a good education. Additional support must be made available to schools and parents in order to improve continuity of school education for travelling children. Greater flexibility, for example through supported home-based programmes and flexi-schooling, must also be considered.
If we are meaningfully to tackle the deep-rooted discrimination that continues to blight the lives of the Gypsy Traveller community, a major shift in emphasis is needed towards consultation and active participation by members of that community in identifying and meeting its needs.
The time for excuses has run out. I call on the Executive to accept the recommendations of the Equal Opportunities Committee and, in particular, to take the lead in developing strategies that will address the diverse needs of the Gypsy Traveller community.
Scottish Gypsy Travellers are an indigenous part of Scottish culture and their stories and songs have been passed down through many generations. However, they feel that they are an excluded group, which is indeed the case.
I chaired one of the workshops at the Gypsy Travellers participation event that was held at the Parliament. People thought that the work that was being done in the Parliament was important and that the Equal Opportunities Committee had taken a great deal of evidence. They were hopeful that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive would listen to what the committee was saying.
There has been a great debate about the issue of ethnicity. Many Gypsy Travellers feel that, unless they are regarded as an ethnic minority, they will never be treated properly. It is important for the minister to comment on that issue.
Younger members of the community spoke about the discrimination that they face. Members from all parties have referred to that evidence. My colleague Elaine Smith quoted a number of the comments that the young people made. The young people expressed the frustration that they felt about the education that they had been offered. Many young people in Gypsy Traveller communities have opted out of education. However, they ask for no more than the bairns in settled communities ask for.
As part of the Equal Opportunities Committee's inquiry, my colleague Kate MacLean visited Duddingston. While she was speaking to the adults inside, the bairns outside were drawing up a list of things that they wanted in their community. They asked for the same things that my bairns and other members' bairns would ask for: somewhere to play and be safe, where there are books and videos and where they can gather with other young people in the evening, such as a youth centre. Those are basic things that all young people want. They want to play, they want a decent standard of living and a decent education, and they want to be safe. My bairns and every bairn in every community would say that they wanted the same things; Gypsy Traveller young people have a right to expect those things.
There is real consensus about the need to change our approach. It is not good enough for us to say that we support lifelong learning and that we are going to come in to educate Gypsy Traveller young people. We need to talk to folk, to listen to them and to involve the Gypsy Traveller community in educational planning. There is no point in delivering a lifelong learning programme that is totally irrelevant to young men and women in the Gypsy Traveller community. If that happens, they will just opt out. We need something that people agree with and that will take them forward.
We need a strategy. We need the Executive to talk to local authorities. We need a joined-up approach. We need teachers and educators to sit down with the Gypsy Traveller community to examine what is needed. We need to reach a consensus and to monitor the implementation of what has been agreed. We need people to examine how the policy is working and, if it is not, we need someone with clout to say, "Get this right."
Folk have waited far too long. The bairns who drew the pictures that I showed members have reasonable expectations. Their expectations are not high. They are not asking for too much. They are asking for a decent standard of living and for their culture and that of their families to be recognised.
I do not know the detail of the Equal Opportunities Committee's report as well as many people in the chamber know it. My colleague Brian Monteith, who is much better informed on the subject than I am, had intended to take this slot in the debate, but unfortunately he has had to call off. I have had time to scan the report, as I have many of the reports that the Equal Opportunities Committee has produced, and I recognise many of the issues that it raises from my experience as a councillor in Cunninghame district in the 1980s, as MP for Ayr and, latterly, as an MSP. The situation of Gypsy Travellers affects all of us in our constituencies.
We have not always had the best of contacts with the Gypsy Traveller community. On occasion, Travellers cause upset in communities, particularly when they move into urban areas. Some also fail to conform to the standards of cleanliness that are expected of people who live in the immediate surroundings.
Will the member give way?
There is widespread criticism of Gypsy Travellers because of that issue and it is raised in every member's constituency.
Has Phil Gallie any evidence to suggest that a higher proportion of people in the Gypsy Traveller community do not have high standards of cleanliness than in the settled community? I suggest that he does not.
Yes; unfortunately I have evidence from sites in North Ayrshire, from my days as a councillor in Cunninghame District Council. Cathy Jamieson will no doubt recognise the more recent example of the site at Heathfield in Ayr, where Travellers move in and cause people considerable difficulties.
We live in a democracy and we cannot always impose the standards of MSPs or of people in the community on others. This is a democracy and people must have a choice about how they want to live their lives.
When I looked at a definition of Travellers earlier, an amusing thought crossed my mind. According to Kendrick and Clark, the early origins of the Scottish Traveller community go back to
"a tradition and culture which can be traced back to the nomadic hunter gatherers of ancient Scotland."
Therefore, travelling and Travellers have been with us for many years. I pick out one element of that definition: the fact that Travellers were nomadic hunters. On a serious note, how will Lord Watson's bill, which deals with hunting with dogs and which the Parliament is going to pass, affect Travellers who, for years, have used their dogs to hunt and provide food?
If that is the case, it is surprising that not one Gypsy Traveller who gave evidence raised that issue as a concern. Is not that odd?
I cannot say whether that is odd or not, as I was not a member of the committee. If I had been, there is no doubt that I would have asked that question—it is a question that remains to be asked. I leave the thought in members' minds that, while some MSPs suggest that we should recognise Travellers' habits and traditions, we might be imposing a standard on Travellers.
I seek an explanation for Phil Gallie's comments. Does he accept that, historically, we were all at one time hunters?
Yes, I entirely accept Tommy Sheridan's point. As I understand the situation, Travellers still hunt today for their own purposes and as part of their way of life. I stand to be corrected—perhaps other members will do so—but I believe that hunting is an aspect of the travelling lifestyle that the chamber has not taken into account.
Health and education are important matters. Standards must be maintained for all our citizens. I recognise that a problem exists and I have been told that the committee was somewhat disappointed with the Executive's response to the report. To my mind, many of the issues that are considered in the committee's report should be dealt with at local level. For example, recommendation 8 deals with Traveller liaison officers. Every local authority should appoint such an officer, to ensure that people get a fair crack of the whip. I go further: as we all think that local health services are important, perhaps there should be Traveller liaison officers in the health service, too. They could form a bridge and ensure that people who move into an area are not deprived of key medical services, which we all take for granted. I acknowledge that that would have to be done within the current limitations of the health service.
Jamie Stone's comments were moving when he talked about Travellers' housing problems. The issue of housing seems to be slightly diminished in the report, although one or two of the recommendations deal with it. Perhaps the onus should pass to Communities Scotland, which has responsibility for ethnic groups. The minister should consider that area.
I do not knock the report—indeed, I commend it—but I am not sure that Jamie Stone was correct when he said that Westminster has never dealt with Travellers. I think that a select committee way back in the 1970s produced a report, in response to which the Government eventually produced legislation to ensure that every local authority in Scotland provided a site. Perhaps one of the disappointing factors is that local authority provision of facilities on such sites has not come up to scratch. For example, no leisure facilities are provided for children. As Cathy Peattie mentioned, the sites do not meet the standards that should be expected, especially given the high cost of staying on them, which Jamie McGrigor pointed out.
At a time when our rural communities are suffering so much stress, perhaps there is room for local authorities to be a little more lax in granting planning consents. Perhaps local authorities could relax what they are prepared to accept when Travellers want to set up on designated land with the consent of the landowners. Such a relaxation might well be helpful to and welcomed by the Travellers.
I have another arrangement, so I shall not be present when the minister winds up. I know that that cuts across tradition, so I apologise in advance.
As a Johnny-come-lately to the Equal Opportunities Committee, I pay tribute to the committee members for putting in the hard graft.
I welcome the committee's report on Gypsy Travellers, whose way of life is under threat due to society's negative views of their culture. Other members will highlight the problems that the Traveller community faces because of local authorities' responses to requests for accommodation and education. I will highlight how, when Gypsy Travellers access health services, they face problems that are due largely to the stigma that is attached to their way of life.
Official figures suggest that there are between 10,000 and 15,000 Travellers in Scotland, yet there is a dearth of research into their health status. Anecdotal evidence and a few small-scale studies suggest that travelling people have higher morbidity rates and higher mortality rates than do the settled population. Dr Iain McNicol, who is a general practitioner in Argyll, told the committee that a small survey that he carried out in his area showed that the average life expectancy of the Gypsy Travellers with whom he had contact was 55 years. I think that Kate MacLean mentioned that, too. When we consider that the last time the average life expectancy in Scotland was 55 was in 1932, it becomes clear how badly served Gypsy Travellers are by the health service.
Those who gave evidence to the committee commented that one of their main problems was the inability to obtain basic medical services because of attitudes in GP surgeries. The reason given for refusing treatment was that, because Gypsy Travellers are not settled in one area for a long period, GPs would be affected financially and so are unable to accept such patients. The Executive's evidence shows that that is untrue: patients can be accepted on a temporary basis without affecting GPs' income.
The big problem regarding Gypsy Travellers' access to health services is the stigma that is attached to their way of life. The Executive must tackle that, as it must any other discrimination, as a matter of urgency. When the committee took evidence, the experiences of homeless people and people with mental health problems who used the health service were used to show what could be done to break down the barriers for Gypsy Travellers.
The Parliament must lead by example in an effort to change the stereotypes that too often appear in the media. Such stereotypes are prevalent in all walks of life about anyone who is different. That means challenging our newspaper editors and television producers to show what life is like from all perspectives. The lifestyle and culture of Gypsy Travellers go back centuries. In the diverse society in which we live, that tradition and lifestyle should not be lost because of ignorance. If Gypsy Travellers' problems are to be solved, those of us in the wider community must learn to understand their way of life. That can be done only with the help of Gypsy Travellers.
As legislators, we must ensure that Gypsy Travellers have access to all services and we must ensure that all barriers are broken down. Communication between those who access services and those who provide services must improve dramatically. Service providers must take on board the specific needs of this section of society, but the Executive must put in place the resources required to provide quality services for all users in Scotland.
In written evidence to the Equal Opportunities Committee, Jackie Baillie stated:
"Travelling People are entitled to the same range of primary care services as any other patient - including health advice, consultations, examinations and immunisations against a range of diseases."
It is good to know that the recommendations that the committee made on health have been accepted by the Executive. As the then health minister wrote in 1998, it is time for the
"NHS to live by the spirit and not just the letter of existing legislation."
If the recommendations of the Equal Opportunities Committee are fully implemented, the access to medical care that many of us take for granted will no longer be unobtainable by the Gypsy Traveller community.
I am not a member of the Equal Opportunities Committee but I have read the report quite thoroughly. It is first class and a lot of effort has obviously gone into it. It covers a wide range of issues, but I want to focus on only one specific issue, to do with recommendation 11 on page 12 of the report.
My experience as the constituency MSP for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine makes me feel some doubt about recommendation 11. In paragraph 48 of the accommodation section, under the heading "Unauthorised camping", the report says:
"Particular issues identified by Gypsy Travellers and others included:
- the blocking off of traditional stopping places and the lack of short-term or transit sites when travelling;
- lack of services such as toilet facilities, water, skips and rubbish collection …
- lack of consistency in enforcement by local authorities and the police".
I do not want to get into a debate about what is guidance and what are guidelines, which would be reminiscent of another debate, but the committee's recommendation 11 states:
"National good practice guidance for local authorities and police forces on the management of unauthorised camping should be developed".
In my experience, in Kincardineshire, south of Stonehaven on the coastal tourist route, there have been regular problems with Travellers camped in lay-bys and places that are quite inappropriate. I have raised the issue with the Executive on a number of occasions over many months and I note its response to recommendation 11. The response is consistent with the information that the Executive has given to me.
In its final report, published in November 2000, the advisory committee on Scotland's travelling people set out guidelines for dealing with unauthorised encampments. The guidelines are there and should be in place. I know that they are in place in several local authorities, one of them being Aberdeen City Council. I do not often give plaudits to Aberdeen City Council, but I will do so on this occasion: it has a first-class site at Clinterty. The only difficulty is that it is not used. Aberdeenshire Council does not have authorised sites. That is something that I have pressed Aberdeenshire Council to sort out. Until the council has authorised sites, it is quite wrong to try to move Travellers from the unauthorised sites south of Stonehaven and at Garlogie in my constituency.
Does the member agree that the Executive response is disappointing, in that the Executive has wound up its scheme of giving grants to local authorities to provide such sites? Does he agree that it would be wise for the Executive to reconsider reinstating the grant arrangements?
I am not going to give the councils any excuse for getting off the hook. It is something that councils must do. I would like the Executive to restore the grants, because I know how hard-pressed the authorities are—particularly Aberdeenshire Council—but I am not going to let Aberdeenshire Council off the hook. I have pressed the council on the matter and it knows that it has to provide the sites. The council is short of money and grants would be useful.
I query recommendation 11 of the committee report because I believe that guidelines are already in place and that the issue for us should be to ensure that the guidelines are put into practice. Until we get properly authorised sites with all the necessary facilities, there will be problems relating to unauthorised sites.
The point that the committee was trying to make is that there should be long-term sites and places where Gypsy Travellers can pull off the road and have access to facilities. Some facilities should be available to prevent the kind of problems that members have raised. The member might not be aware that Fife Council has a co-operation policy in place. It is early in the process, so I am not sure how it will work, but the council is providing basic facilities, such as water, toilets and skips, in designated areas where people can pull off the road for a short time. The lifestyle of Gypsy Travellers means that it is necessary to have both long-term sites and places where people can stop in the short term, which have facilities so that people do not leave a mess. If Mike Rumbles did not have a toilet or a bin collection service, he would leave a mess outside his house, too.
I understand that point, but I have another reasonable point. Perhaps I can give an example, of which the committee may not be aware. Recently, in the centre of Stonehaven—the largest town in my constituency—Travellers forced the locks on a site and moved in next to other people who were paying to be there. They caused difficulties. The problem is that there are no authorised sites that the Travellers can use in the south of Aberdeenshire. There are real problems and it is wrong to gloss over them.
We did not.
Well, I had the impression that the report glossed over the problems as though they did not exist. I will take an intervention from Michael McMahon if he will clarify that.
The purpose of providing sites was to address those problems. We were not covering up those problems or pretending that they do not exist; we were trying to find a way of dealing with them. If the member reads the report in that light he will see it as a positive measure in addressing the points that he makes.
I accept that. It is an excellent report, with one reservation. The committee has done an excellent job.
As colleagues have mentioned, the members of the Equal Opportunities Committee—none more so than me—were somewhat dejected by many of the points in the Executive's response to the inquiry. However, having heard the speeches made by Phil Gallie and Kenny Gibson, I have to say that any comments that the Scottish Executive made were far superior to those made in their speeches. Indeed, I question whether Kenny Gibson has read the report. I defy him to name any representative body of the Gypsy Traveller community that did not support or endorse our report.
First of all, I would like to thank the minister, who at least applauded my speech—perhaps she does not agree with Michael McMahon.
In any debate there will be a difference of opinion. I was trying to say that, although social justice is important, social responsibility is important too, and society in general is not always to blame for the specific problems suffered by specific groups. Often, such problems are due to the way of life that those groups choose. I was trying to say that for certain individual children, the model that most people in society adopt is probably the best. If my children were bullied at school, it would not be an excuse for them to opt out of the educational system—they might have to go to another school or deal with the issue in school. That is the point that I was trying to make.
All Kenny Gibson has done is to reinforce the fact that he completely missed the point of the committee's report. He said that being a Gypsy Traveller was a lifestyle choice. It is no more a lifestyle choice for someone to be a Gypsy Traveller than it is for a black person to be black. They are an ethnic minority. Kenny Gibson should not use the term new age traveller in connection with Gypsy Travellers.
It is detailed in the SPICe report.
That is not the report I am talking about. It does not at any point refer to new age travellers; that was not part of the inquiry. Kenny Gibson has repeatedly compared the Gypsy Traveller community with the new age traveller community. They are not in any way comparable.
In the light of what can only be described as the Executive's apathetic approach to the widely welcomed recommendations suggested in the report and in an attempt to address the needs and specific considerations of Gypsy Travellers, the committee was left with no option but to say that it wished
"to express its disappointment in the tone and extent of the Executive's response to its report. The Gypsy Traveller community and others shared this disappointment."
I welcome members of the Gypsy Traveller community and their representative bodies, who are in the public gallery.
The committee went on:
"Whilst accepting that not all of the recommendations contained in the report are the direct responsibility of the Scottish Executive, the Committee does feel that the Executive has an important role in spearheading anti-discriminatory practice."
That commitment is not evident enough in the Executive's response.
I am sure that colleagues in the chamber will agree that everyone should be able to live in a decent and secure home and that provision of safe and affordable accommodation, free from discrimination and the fear of racial harassment, is central to the creation of any sustainable strategy in that regard.
It is vital that the Scottish Executive does more to promote racial equality and eliminate institutional racism throughout its activities. That should undoubtedly include the Gypsy Traveller community. Social barriers, many of which will be perpetuated by the Executive's disregard for our popularly supported recommendations, often make that difficult to accomplish.
The key findings of the report highlighted Gypsy Travellers' widespread experience of systematic failure among local authorities and organisations such as the police and health boards in ensuring that they have access to the same level of services and legal rights as are available to other inhabitants of Scotland. The all-too-frequent response of the Executive is to pass the buck; it indicated that many of the problematic issues should be addressed at local level and are a matter for local authorities. That is simply not good enough. Local authorities need guidance which, on the evidence of the Scottish Executive's response, will not be forthcoming.
The problem with the report is that it still allows local authorities to decide whether to provide such services. I do not have a problem with local authorities deciding how to provide services; the difficulty is what they have been left with. Is it a choice as to whether they will provide those services? Does Mr McMahon agree that that is where the weakness in the Executive's response lies?
I agree that there are difficulties for local authorities in determining what they should do. That point came through loud and clear in all the evidence that we took. Everyone at local authority level knew that they wanted to do more but needed guidance on what they should do. Such guidance is missing from the Scottish Executive's commitments.
The committee concedes that many of the policies mentioned by the Executive in its response are commendable. However, for many in the Gypsy Traveller community, such policies often fail to materialise in the Executive's practical aims or policy objectives. Evidence taken by the committee showed that having no address, or one identified as a Gypsy Traveller site, may lead to subsequent refusal or difficulties in accessing services and a general disfranchisement from the democratic process. That is an essential finding of the inquiry.
It is urged that, for the purposes of future amendments to housing legislation, the definition of home should be reconsidered, to include Gypsy Traveller sites. That is why the committee called for a review of alternative management and ownership arrangements for local authorities and the development of model tenancy agreements for Gypsy Traveller sites managed by local authorities and registered social landlords. Although some guidance is available, there should be a review and significant monitoring of the key role of site managers in providing support and information services for site residents, making accountability an essential component of the job.
Our report showed that private sites should be subject to the regulations and standards applicable to local authority sites and that local planning authorities should be required to identify the need for Gypsy Traveller site provision and land for sites in statutory plans, using the community planning framework.
Consultation and co-operation are the key. Improvement programmes should be developed in consultation with Gypsy Travellers and representative organisations on such issues as location, design, facilities and services. At the Cairntow site, which Jamie McGrigor and I visited, we saw a group of accommodation facilities forced into the back of a quarry with 18-inch icicles running down the inside of the quarry. That was considered acceptable accommodation for a local authority to identify as a site.
Does Michael McMahon agree that much more training must be done on site management? Does he also agree that we should not necessarily assume that the best site managers are those with a housing background and that people from many different backgrounds could be better placed to be site managers?
They would certainly be better than some people who have a military background, who have brought that experience to their managing of sites.
Equal opportunities is described as the prevention, elimination and regulation of discrimination. On the Scottish Executive's equality strategy, which endeavours to address equal opportunities issues, the committee was under the impression that equality lay at the heart of strategic development for the potential fulfilment of all. Unfortunately, that commitment is not entirely evident in the Executive's response. The committee requests that the Government take a leading role, as it has done on other racial equality issues, in providing appropriate guidance, support and information to Gypsy Travellers and other relevant organisations, as well as actively promoting initiatives that are designed to combat discrimination towards that group.
We must embrace the diversity of the different cultural communities of Scotland, and their needs must be recognised and dealt with accordingly. We hope that the Parliament recognises the fundamental human rights issues highlighted in our report and that it will support our recommendations, urging the Executive to act on the findings that have been raised in today's debate.
I call Brian Adam, to be followed by Tommy Sheridan.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
I now welcome Mr Tosh to the chair. This is his debut. [Applause.]
As a youngster growing up in rural Banffshire, I was aware that travelling people were very much part of the rural landscape. I was always amazed at the construction of their makeshift tents and the smoke curling out of the hole at the top. I do not know whether any other members from the north-east enjoyed as much as I did the descriptions of travelling people that Hamish Watt used to give in his regular columns—which are much missed—in The Press and Journal. My recollection is that, on the whole, travelling people were always tolerated, helping with odd jobs on farms and in households. People knew that they would soon move on to another location.
It seems that today we are less tolerant as a society of others who prefer not to live in little square boxes on housing estates. If Scotland is to be the racially tolerant, open and welcoming society that we all want, I hope that we can start by ensuring that our indigenous travelling people are treated with the dignity, respect and tolerance that we would expect for ourselves. Unfortunately, we have all read about and seen on television the increasing discrimination experienced by Romany people in some eastern European countries. That is not the kind of example that we want to follow.
The Equal Opportunities Committee is to be congratulated on the work that it has done and on the report that it has produced. However, I take issue with the title of the report. I know that, in the north-east, the travelling people themselves prefer to be referred to as "travelling people" or "Travellers", and that is how they are referred to. The word "Gypsy" is rarely used and is often regarded as offensive. Even "Romany" is more commonly used and more acceptable than "Gypsy".
As well as debating the rights of the travelling people, we must also take account of their responsibilities. My colleague Mr Gibson has received a certain amount of opprobrium for his attempts to address that issue, as to some extent has Mr Rumbles. Along with rights come responsibilities, but first of all we need to ensure that the rights are set out, and the report goes a long way towards doing that.
I also have considerable reservations about designating Travellers as an ethnic minority. Travellers are Scottish and a traditional part of Scotland. Our society is not homogenous. There is a range of people with different backgrounds and approaches.
Does Brian Adam accept that, unless the Gypsy Traveller community is identified as a distinct ethnic minority, it will not be given access to protection under the Race Relations Act 1976?
I was going to talk about that, had Mr McMahon given me the chance to continue.
It is a sad reflection on society that the only way in which we appear to be able to protect groups is to label them as ethnic minorities, to ensure that they have access to services and facilities to which everybody should have access. However, if that is the only way that we can do so, so be it.
The Executive should be thoroughly ashamed of the response to the report. The tone and curt replies shove all the responsibilities on to local government. The Executive fails to recognise that the Scottish Government also has a role to play. It is trying to avoid its responsibilities for the prejudices in society that the report tries to highlight. By all means, we should allow local authorities and health authorities to develop the delivery of services to which everybody should have access. In essence, the Executive's response to the report is that it would like authorities to do things, but will not make them do things. It will not make them provide services. There should be a framework to allow local decision making on how to deliver services, and not decision making on whether to deliver services.
The Executive must ensure that best practice and provision of sites and services is replicated throughout Scotland. Mr Rumbles highlighted the fact that, in Aberdeenshire, there is not the required number of sites. That is true in a number of areas. He rightly praised Aberdeen City Council for the provision of a sufficient number of sites in the city of Aberdeen. However, there was considerable debate in the city about the provision of those sites. The only way in which that provision appeared to be acceptable was to provide one site, although the view of the travelling community was that there ought to be more than one site and that there should be a site to the north of the city—which exists—and another to the south of the city. That did not happen because of the not-in-my-back-yard syndrome that exists in society.
We ought to encourage local authorities to appoint liaison officers for Travellers. There ought to be a duty for that to happen. Sites ought to be provided and there should be site managers and liaison officers. Perhaps more thought should go into where sites are located, particularly with respect to accessibility. Although the site at Clinterty in Aberdeen is good, as Mr Rumbles pointed out, it is not well used. By their very nature, Travellers tend to have some means of transportation, but they do not necessarily have a range of transport. They may have only one vehicle. If there is no access to public transport from a site, that might not be the best site, especially if we are trying to encourage Travellers to make use of local health and education services or other amenities.
The Executive can ensure that when, for example, it requires training to be undertaken in the national health service, the police and education services on racial discrimination, the place of Travellers in our society can be highlighted. If the Executive is as committed to social inclusion as its rhetoric and spin would have us believe, its response to the Equal Opportunities Committee report must be radically different.
Social inclusion must provide for Travellers who have contributed so richly to Scottish cultural life. After all, who has not been moved by Jeannie Robertson's songs? She has left a rich heritage for our society, not just in respect of material with which we are familiar—Cathy Peattie is nodding her head—but through a number of her descendants who have contributed significantly. I am thinking of Stanley Robertson, who was a friend. I know that some of the family decided that travelling is no longer for them and have become part and parcel of the settled community.
The issue is not only about being moved by wonderful music, but about ensuring that all aspects of the life, ways and culture of Travellers are respected. They are part of the community of Scotland.
I call Rhona Brankin, to be followed by Alex Johnstone. If they manage speeches of five minutes, I will call Tommy Sheridan.
I am sorry to interrupt when you are in the chair for the first time, Presiding Officer, but George Reid clearly said that I was next in the debate. Is there a reason why that has been changed?
Mr Reid did not leave a note to that effect, Mr Sheridan. No discourtesy is intended and I will try to share the remaining time equally. If you wish to be called before Mr Johnstone, I am sure that he will not mind. However, I have asked Ms Brankin to speak.
As Michael McMahon did, I welcome the representatives from the Gypsy Traveller communities who are with us today. Some of the people who were involved in the research that underpins the report are also here and they, too, are welcome.
As someone who has been privileged to work for many years with Gypsy Traveller families, I was appalled by some of Phil Gallie's remarks. They serve to highlight the need to combat and challenge the stereotyping that underpins prejudice in society today.
I want to talk about some of the barriers that face young Gypsy Travellers, specifically bullying and name-calling in schools. Bullying and name-calling go on in all schools and recognising that is a first step towards dealing with them. However, recent research shows that they are one of the main barriers to the successful performance and inclusion of young Gypsy Travellers in schools.
Indeed, Save the Children and the University of Edinburgh have produced research reports that highlight the problem. I back up what the University of Edinburgh wrote, just this week, about the fundamental need to listen to what young Gypsy Travellers tell schoolteachers. It is simply not good enough to say that we have multicultural, anti-racist and inclusion policies in schools. A classic response of schools has been to say, "We have got the policies. There is no problem here."
Policies alone are not enough. We need to bring about a fundamental change in the attitudes of pupils, staff and parents. Of course our schools have a responsibility to deal effectively and swiftly with specific instances of name-calling and bullying. In addition to that, they must address some of the wider peer group issues in schools. Schools could do more by recognising the importance of social relationships in the curriculum and in formal and informal relationships between teachers and pupils and among pupils.
Tackling attitudes requires a change in the culture of schools. The role of staff development is absolutely essential to that. More is required than sending support teachers on in-service courses—we must effect a fundamental change in attitudes in the culture of the whole school. That means that staff development opportunities must be afforded for all teachers. We must examine teacher training to ensure that education in anti-racism, multiculturalism and social inclusion is included.
Furthermore, I seek an assurance from the minister that, when schools and local authorities are inspected, she will ensure not only that they all have policies in that area, but that those policies are regularly evaluated to check that they are making a difference. A fundamental way of evaluating those policies is to talk to the young people who are involved. We should ask them what their experiences of schools are. As some other speakers did, I will wind up by quoting a young Gypsy Traveller girl. When asked how she would like schools to change, she replied simply that she would like the boys and girls not to call her names and the teachers to believe her.
It gives me great pleasure to call Tommy Sheridan, to be followed by Alex Johnstone.
I commend the Equal Opportunities Committee's report. The committee has admirably retained its independence and its ability to criticise the Scottish Executive in a way that it felt necessary. It is vital for the Parliament's success that committees retain that robust independence and that when they do not agree with the Scottish Executive—regardless of whether they are members of a party in the Executive—they remain willing to make valid criticisms. The Parliament is all the better for that.
The report is a genuine attempt to reach out to an excluded, often ignored, much misunderstood and certainly discriminated against community in our midst. The Gypsy Traveller community seeks one goal above all: to be given the status of an ethnic group. I make no apology for concentrating on that part of the report, because that is the thread that runs through the report. If the Gypsy Traveller community had ethnic minority status, many of the recommendations would be unnecessary. Because it does not have that status, the recommendations are necessary, to try to include that excluded group.
Given that point of view, I was disappointed by the SNP's earlier comments. In such an important discussion, it is wrong to speak about a lifestyle opportunity and choice. If the Gypsy Traveller community had ethnic minority status, that would answer the ridiculous assertion that such people have taken a lifestyle opportunity, because no one chooses to be a member of an ethnic minority. Gypsy Travellers are an ethnic minority and deserve the status of an ethnic minority.
The report deserves to be taken seriously. I am worried that the Scottish Executive's list of responses passes the buck. Several times, the Executive passes the buck to local authorities in a politically dishonest way, without providing the extra resources that local authorities require to employ new officers and new site managers and to develop new sites. The idea that local authorities should become responsible for more work, despite the fact that their budgets are already hard-pressed and the Executive offers no new resources, is not good enough.
I agree that local authorities are not adequately resourced, but that should not prevent them from putting policies into practice now. Does Tommy Sheridan agree?
Absolutely. I agree that local authorities should put the issues into practice, to include an excluded part of the community. My point is that because the Scottish Executive recognises that exclusion in its recommendations, it should surely recognise the resource implication of implementing those changes. That is lacking in the Scottish Executive's response.
I said in my speech that the money that is required should come directly from the Scottish Executive, and I gave reasons for that. The committee's recommendation 24 says:
"Consideration should be given by local authorities to ring-fencing or top-slicing resources for specific initiatives and interventions".
The report itself—not just the Executive—makes that point.
The problem with recommendation 24 is that, even if we decide to divide an already inadequate cake differently, the cake is still inadequate. Until the Executive recognises the resource implication and supplies the extra resources that are required for these necessary changes, we will not be able to include this group properly.
I draw the chamber's attention to recommendations 2, 22 and 37 in the committee report. Recommendation 2 is quite clear. It says:
"All legislation and policies should be framed on the understanding that Gypsy Travellers have distinct ethnic characteristics and should therefore be regarded as an ethnic group".
The Executive has responded:
"The Scottish Executive is committed to equality of opportunity for all. Working within the broad definition of equal opportunities in the Scotland Act 1998 and as part of its mainstreaming equality approach, the Scottish Executive will look to build Travellers as a group in its own work."
I am sure that the minister will accept that that response is inadequate, and I hope that she will have the honesty to admit as much in her summing-up.
The framing of the Executive's response to recommendation 22 is very unfortunate. The recommendation relates to the issue of education and the need to recognise Gypsy Traveller communities as an ethnic minority in HM Inspectorate of Education reports. The Executive has responded:
"Quality indicators for self-evaluation by schools and for school inspections are currently being revised … There will be specific references to Traveller children in the footnotes to the quality indicators on ‘Meeting pupils' needs' and ‘Pastoral care'."
It is not good enough to recognise Traveller children in a footnote. They demand and deserve to be given ethnic minority status.
It is proper that the report's recommendations end with recommendation 37, which states the report's main thread of the need to recognise
"Gypsy Travellers as a distinct ethnic group".
To this recommendation, the Executive has responded that it
"intends to publish detailed legislative proposals on best value in local government in the autumn. These proposals are likely to introduce a duty of best value on local government that will include an obligation to have regard to equal opportunities."
Unless those people are given ethnic minority status, that will not be good enough. Once that status is given, equal opportunities will mean something to them. I appeal to the minister to spend time explaining to the chamber whether she will give ethnic minority status to the Gypsy Traveller community, and if not, why not.
Members on all sides of the chamber should welcome this report, which is not so much the end of a process—as so many committee reports in the Parliament are—but its beginning. However, today's debate has thrown up a point that I want to raise again and that I hope that the minister will address when she winds up.
We have heard speeches of great passion, particularly from Cathy Peattie, Kate MacLean and Rhona Brankin, who have gone to great lengths to express why the report should be taken to our hearts. However, Kenny Gibson gave the most important speech this afternoon. Although I did not agree with much of what he said, he raised the question that I want to address again. Should we see the travelling people as an ethnic minority or should we see them as people who have made a lifestyle choice?
A three-cornered argument has developed in the debate. Brian Adam's experiences are similar to mine, in that he had contact with travelling people in rural parts of the north-east when he was young. I have seen how children from the travelling communities who arrived in a rural primary school were bullied and isolated and how teachers chose to deal with the problem. For that reason, the report is something of a surprise. When I was at school 30 years ago, I was told not to use the word "Gypsy". However, coming back to the subject through reading the report, I have been taught to do something differently from the way I was taught before. As Brian Adam said, we were encouraged to refer to the community as the travelling people at that time. That is how they are still in my mind.
Kenny Gibson said that we need a broader view of Gypsy Travellers as people who have made a lifestyle choice rather than as an ethnic minority. Michael McMahon then expressed the opposite view. He made the point, when Kenny Gibson intervened, that Gypsy Travellers are an ethnic minority and that the report deals with them as such and does not include the many other parts of the travelling community that exist in Scotland and have traditionally descended from migrant labourers and other groups. If that is the case, and if we are to consider only the Gypsy Travellers to whom this report refers and exclude other groups such as new age travellers and migrant labourers—who can come into the argument when it concerns the use made of facilities—surely Michael McMahon's argument is divisive and non-inclusive. Many people who use the facilities that are available for the travelling community are not in the group that the report appears to describe.
Does Alex Johnstone accept the fact that we are discussing Gypsy Travellers, who appear in records as far back as the 16th century? We are not talking about people who can dip in and out of a lifestyle if they choose to do so. We are talking about people whose culture and ethnicity is Gypsy Traveller, not people who make a lifestyle choice. That is the difference between what Kenny Gibson was saying and what Michael McMahon was saying.
We have highlighted an issue—it is highlighted in the report—and Kenny Gibson has raised a valid concern. Those who use the facilities that we have discussed and those who have chosen to live the travelling life are as important as anyone else who lives in that way. For that reason, we must be concerned about securing genuine social inclusion for all those who wish to travel.
Will Alex Johnstone give way?
I am just closing.
There is a point to be answered, which was raised by Kenny Gibson at the start of the debate. He has been criticised for it, and I would like to hear the minister address it.
Presiding Officer, I welcome you to the chair for the first time.
You do not get any more time for it.
This has been an interesting debate. It has thrown up a number of issues, based on the solid foundations of a good report by the Equal Opportunities Committee, which has made some highly relevant and sometimes controversial recommendations. I was struck by the commitment of the committee members—which Tommy Sheridan touched on—to their report and by their palpable sense of disappointment, which I share, at the Scottish Executive's response. The problems that they identified of interrupted education, bullying suffered by children, health issues, housing and rent issues—which Jamie McGrigor and Jamie Stone mentioned—do not exist in a sealed compartment that is unique to Gypsy Travellers. Although we need to acknowledge the special perspective of Gypsy Travellers, we should not play down the objective of mainstreaming that we emphasise in other situations. The thorny issue of ethnicity has been the subject underlying quite a lot of the speeches that we have heard.
I acknowledge the fact that the recognition of Gypsy Travellers as a distinct ethnic minority group can be a useful driver for change; however, I am uncertain and not altogether persuaded that that is the central issue or that it helps particularly in discussing the important issues of high rents, inadequate housing conditions and the like. Equally, I do not think that Kenny Gibson's emphasis on lifestyle choices is especially important, although I was struck by Alex Johnstone's question of whether we are making a distinction between Gypsy Travellers with an ethnic identity, on the one hand, and other people who have a not terribly dissimilar lifestyle, on the other hand. Does the fact that some people have a certain ethnic identity give them rights that are denied to other people? That is a valid point that must be dealt with.
I was struck by the apparent obsession of several of the earlier Conservative speakers with primitive nomadic hunter-gatherers. I assume that that came from their briefing but it seemed that it had slightly skewed the approach that the speakers took.
The committee's report is important because of the catalogue of stark inequality, inadequate social provision and lack of opportunity that it details. Kenny Gibson mentioned that 80 per cent of children from the Traveller community fail to go regularly to secondary school and that 59 per cent fail to go to primary school. Those are pretty stark figures.
In an interesting and helpful speech, Irene McGugan was right to call for a sensible and flexible approach by education authorities and the need for strategies to address the diverse needs of Gypsy Travellers. The recommendations in the committee's report—particularly 15, 16, 17 and 21—deal with that issue and talk about innovative projects, the support of home learning, which we have talked about before in this chamber, and so on. The key point is that we must be able to work with the grain of Traveller communities. That cannot be left to local authorities to do, if for no other reason than the obvious one that Travellers travel across local authority boundaries.
The Scottish Executive response in this area is disappointing. It is not tailored to addressing the particular needs of Travellers, it does not recognise the dimension of their cultural identity and it does not deal with the need for effective duties on councils, the resource implications that were mentioned in recommendation 24 or the need for a national strategy on funding provision.
What goes for education certainly goes for health and for the often atrocious housing conditions that Gypsy Traveller families have to live in. Mike Rumbles talked from the perspective of planning and site provision. That echoed what Michael McMahon said about the systematic failures of local authorities to make provision in that area.
We are dealing with individuals and communities. Those individuals are also citizens of Scotland: they belong to our society and have a contribution to make and a part to play. They are no less valuable than anyone else. However, they are excluded, they do not have equal opportunities and they are not a full part of our society. That has to be remedied. To do so requires a proper strategy from central Government and the Scottish Executive; it also requires local authorities and individual citizens to play a full part.
I commend the report but highlight the fact that there are several difficult issues that remain to be dealt with.
As a recently appointed member of the Equal Opportunities Committee, I have been involved only in the later stages of debate and deliberation on the report. The report has caused controversy and disagreement. The Equal Opportunities Committee has taken evidence from several groups such as Save the Children and representatives of the Gypsy Travellers in an attempt to understand the issues that face the travelling community in Scotland.
Abuse in any form is unacceptable. We are not debating the right of Gypsy Travellers to be treated in the same manner as any other member of society. During the inquiry, a number of issues were raised and evidence was given of the bullying of Gypsy Traveller children. For example, Save the Children told the committee that 88 per cent of young Gypsy Traveller children said that they had been bullied because of who they were. The Executive has informed the committee that that issue is not its responsibility but that dealing with Gypsy Travellers is the responsibility of local authorities, education boards, police boards and so on. Although I believe that that approach might be right and proper, we can take issue with the fact that the Executive has not responded and has failed to state that the maltreatment of Gypsy Travellers is completely unacceptable. The shunning of the report is an embarrassment. I feel for the Labour MSPs who serve on the Equal Opportunities Committee.
On the policing of criminal justice aspects of the report, the committee recommends that schemes should
"be developed to promote the confidence of Gypsy Travellers in the police"
no matter what form their contact takes. For example, the schemes could relate to their experiences as victims of crime, as victims of racial harassment or as suspected offenders. The committee has also recommended that
"Policing practices and arrangements should continue to be reviewed and specific monitoring of relations between Police and Gypsy Travellers"
should be established.
The Executive's response is based on key principles, including the principle that Travellers are entitled to the same protection as any other member of society to enable them to live free from the crimes of harassment and intimidation. No one could disagree with that point. Police services share the responsibility for the safety of Travellers with other statutory agencies and the rest of the community. Success in that regard will be dependent on effective partnerships. Travellers would be treated in the same manner as any other offender and anybody else who challenges the rule of law.
The committee has expressed its disappointment with the tone and extent of the Executive's response to the report. That disappointment is shared by those in the Gypsy Traveller community. Gypsy Travellers have the right to be treated in the same manner as anyone else.
I became involved in the latter stages of the inquiry. My first involvement was at the Gypsy Traveller civic participation event in the chamber. I chaired the group on police and criminal justice. It was a privilege for me to work with the Gypsy Traveller children who informed that group. They were able to tell us about the lack of awareness, the intimidation and the overpolicing that they face. I am indebted to Mark Kennedy for encouraging the youngsters to tell us of their experience of watching their parents—who are adults—being abused by adults. It was shameful.
Many have commented about the identification of Gypsy Travellers as a separate ethnic group. That is the key. That objective can never be achieved unless and until case law is established. No one wants to take on that responsibility. It is somebody else's job. The term that came to my mind was buck passing. That has been mentioned a number of times by other speakers.
I close—I would not want to incur the Presiding Officer's wrath—by echoing the suggestion that my colleague Jamie McGrigor made that Gypsy Travellers should invite MSPs to visit them so that more people will see for themselves how discriminated against Gypsy Travellers are.
In defence of Kenny Gibson, he said that children had no choice.
I will talk briefly about ethnicity. I understand the logic behind the argument on ethnicity. Of course, there are Romanies in the United Kingdom. A list that I have from Save the Children includes:
"Irish Travellers, Romany Chals, Border Gypsies, Welsh Kale Romanies and New Travellers."
From the surnames of Gypsy Traveller families in the west of Scotland that I know, it seems to me that they are of the same ethnic background as I am—a Celtic ethnic background. However, I know the point of the exercise. It is absolutely right that anti-racist and anti-discriminatory criteria should be used to safeguard Travellers and their way of life. Their major difference from us is that their culture differs from ours. It is not identical to ours.
Not surprisingly, I think that education is the key—I think that education is the key to practically everything. Education would enable Travellers to engage with settled society and would enable it to improve its understanding of Travellers.
The Economist carried an article last week on European Roma or Gypsy Travellers, of whom there are 6 million. In Montenegro, three of the 20,000 Gypsy children of secondary age go to school. A major problem exists, which is reflected to a lesser degree in Scotland. In the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia, programmes have been put in place to help Romany-speaking pre-schoolers to learn the main language of those countries. That is not quite so necessary here, but pre-school provision on site would prepare Travellers' children for the structural norms that come with primary school.
European nations have been recruiting teaching assistants who are Gypsies to enable Gypsy Travellers' children to see people of their culture in the school leadership context. New curricula that show the Gypsies' own culture have been introduced. That obviously increases the self-esteem and self-respect of Gypsy Traveller children and educates those who do not share that culture.
We can learn from all that and take on board the recommendations of the Equal Opportunities Committee. It must be understood that what is required is a balance of the needs of travelling society and stationary, or settled society, as I have learned to call it today, and a recognition that each has a case—insisting on the extremes of each will not improve the situation.
There has to be a degree of compromise and a coming together. I quote the following from Betsy Whyte's "The Yellow on the Broom", which some members might have read.
"After school the head master gave me books which explained how all the sums we were getting were done. And one that explained grammar. ‘Study these at home', he said. The head master was the best thing that ever happened to me."
I would say that. It continues:
"He taught me how much one can learn from books and I became very interested in them. I really did improve at school much to the delight of the headmaster who really took an interest in me and gave me confidence and encouragement."
That headmaster had rescued the child from a teacher who was punishing them for being a travelling child.
"He implored my parents to stay in the town until after the qualifying examinations for secondary school. I did not let him down, being one of the three in my class who won bursaries."
That school was tolerant and recognised potential. The parent adapted a little to allow the child to conform to some of the school's norms and the child succeeded educationally.
I wonder whether the member agrees with the point that I made earlier that mobile library provision to Gypsy Traveller sites is important and should be explored by far more local authorities than are currently exploring it.
Without being overtly political, I say that there has been some difficulty with funding libraries of any description in the past year or two. We have a mobile library in my village. If there are any travelling people around there, I am sure that they can access it or that it would even stop off at their site. I have no difficulty with that at all in principle.
The illustration that I gave took place more than 60 years ago and one has to wonder why we have not made any progress since then. We must seize the opportunity now with openness, mutual respect, flexibility and tolerance. We can improve and enrich all our lives—travelling and settled lives. I hope that when the minister addresses this matter she will perhaps have a timetable for action.
I now call Margaret Curran to close for the Executive.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. I, too, welcome you to your esteemed high office. I notice that you are inhabiting it with your usual charm, so far. [Members: "It won't work."] My colleagues advise me that that flattery will not work.
It might get you extra time. Do continue.
The debate has indeed been interesting, wide ranging and stimulating. I recognise the many constructive points that have been made. I agree with Tommy Sheridan—surprisingly—that the independence of the Equal Opportunities Committee has been clearly demonstrated today. Painful though it has been for me, it is to the credit of the committee and the Parliament that we have had this independent debate. It certainly puts the Executive under pressure to account for itself, but I take readily to doing that. It is difficult sometimes, but I will certainly try to report as much as I can today on the detail of what has been asked in the report and in the chamber. I do not want to be distracted, tempted though I am, by Phil Gallie or even Kenny Gibson, because it might get me slightly off the point.
I ask members to bear with me as I go through a number of points. I will try to respond however I can to members' interventions. I am also happy to engage with members later on the matter.
The debate has touched on issues of basic human rights, service delivery, and leadership and influence. Those are fundamental issues and it is right that Parliament addresses them.
It is appropriate for me to start by extending my thanks to the Equal Opportunities Committee and all those who have been involved in the inquiry into Gypsy Travellers and public sector policies.
Many people have been able to contribute to the debate in some form or other, but we must recognise that the Gypsy Traveller community is an even wider constituency than it has been possible to represent so far. The nature of the community may make it harder to discern what it is saying to us, but we need to make the effort. I will say more about that later.
The committee's inquiry and report are timely. Significant evidence of the abuse and intimidation that Gypsy Travellers have had to face has recently come to light. We may be hearing about that now, but we all know that the issues have been around for a considerable time. We must use all the resources available to build a Scotland where any community may live according to its culture and its custom, and we must recognise that that culture contributes to the wealth and strength of our country. We will not collude with people with attitudes or behaviours that stigmatise and persecute individuals, families and communities. It is the work of the Scottish Executive to turn some of those aspirations into practical realities and we will make every effort to take that work forward.
The Equal Opportunities Committee report contains 37 recommendations. The agenda that has been set is rightly challenging. On behalf of the Executive, I warmly welcome the fact that that agenda has been set and I assure members that we recognise the need to develop ways of dealing with the issues raised.
Tommy Sheridan asked me to be honest about this. I recognise that we need to make progress that goes further than that indicated in the Equal Opportunities Committee's report. I want to have a straightforward dialogue with the committee and the Parliament about that.
I will go through some of the Executive's responses to the committee's report in detail. Some members will recognise progress and some will continue to feel frustration, but I reiterate my desire to continue having a dialogue with the committee and others about this very significant area of work.
I would have to be a fool not to recognise the disappointment in the Executive that has been expressed today, but it is important to recognise that our response was a snapshot of where we are now in relation to Gypsies/Travellers issues. It is by no means the end of the process.
I would like to explain further the Executive's position, to describe some of the ways in which we are aiming to make substantial and real changes to the lives of Gypsies/Travellers in the future, and to make it clear that we are opposed to discrimination and racism in all its forms. I also hope to address some of the key issues that have been raised in the debate.
First, I wish to re-state clearly the Executive's commitment to equal opportunities for all. We must recognise that we are tackling some deep-rooted and complex problems, which are not the product of legislation or wilful prejudice; they are the product of centuries of embedded cultural and social attitudes and practices. There are no easy-fix solutions.
Prejudice and discrimination are not just about the headlines, but about how we deal with one another over everyday issues and about how we deliver—or perhaps do not deliver—core services. It is here where most scope for early progress lies.
One of the central issues raised in the inquiry and by members today is terminology and ethnicity. It is vital that we recognise two things: first, that individuals and groups should have the opportunity to assert their own identity and to define how they want to be described; secondly, that there appears to be no clear consensus among the Gypsy and Traveller communities on the terminology that they would prefer to be used.
We recognise that the issue of terminology is important and on-going. As Alex Johnstone indicated, it has developed over time. We want to be as inclusive as possible in our use of language. For that reason, the Executive will, in general, adopt the term Gypsies/Travellers. However, we continue to support dialogue with Gypsies/Travellers themselves on terminology and will be open to views from them on the most appropriate language to use in any particular case.
The debate on terminology should be but one part of a wider discussion around the key issues that affect the lives of Gypsies/Travellers in Scotland. Those issues are access to services, effective service delivery and a sense of social justice and of a brighter future for all the children of Scotland.
The matter of ethnic status has been raised by many committee members and others. It is for the courts to determine whether a group is an ethnic group for the purposes of existing race relations legislation. As equal opportunities is a reserved issue, it would be for the Westminster Parliament, not us, to change that legislation. However, that does not stop the Executive treating Gypsies/Travellers in Scotland as a distinct group with specific needs and we are committed to doing that.
We recognise that there is not a consensus among Gypsies/Travellers around the subject of ethnicity, and that not all Gypsies/Travellers are from the same ethnic background. We are committed to continuing dialogue with Gypsies/Travellers and to working to meet their needs.
In its equality strategy, which was published in 2000, the Executive made a commitment to consultation and dialogue with equality groups. Gypsies/Travellers were explicitly included in that commitment. Since the Equal Opportunities Committee's report was published, Scottish Executive officials have, at my request, met informally representatives of a number of Gypsy Traveller organisations and visited sites used by Gypsies/Travellers. We aim to develop those links further. Jamie McGrigor made a good point about the need for MSPs to visit sites; I undertake to do that to ensure that this agenda is advanced.
It is important to recognise that improvements to services need to take place primarily at a local level. I make a commitment to thinking through what would be achieved by a national strategy and I accept that the Executive should take on responsibility for fostering a strategic approach to this issue.
To improve our understanding of the needs and aspirations of Gypsies/Travellers and with our strategic and leadership responsibilities in mind, we propose to hold a seminar, hosted by Communities Scotland, at which the issues over which local authorities have control will be examined and discussed. The seminar will be aimed at encouraging links between central Government, local government, Gypsy Traveller communities and other bodies, for the benefit of Gypsies/Travellers, and will seek to promote equal opportunities. I do not make this announcement in the spirit of buck passing, to which Lyndsay McIntosh referred. Our aim is to get the key stakeholders around the table, which we hope will lead to action. The seminar will take place early next year and will have the central objective of driving up standards of local provision in line with national aims and standards.
Amenity units and Gypsy Traveller requirements will also be considered in a thematic study that will be conducted by Communities Scotland and to which I will refer shortly. We hope to explore those issues with local authorities and Gypsies/Travellers at the seminar that Communities Scotland will host. We want to continue to support and encourage dialogue with service users and providers at all levels.
I do not want to pre-empt the outcome of the seminar, but in the light of the concerns and issues that members have raised this afternoon I thought that it was important to let members know how we intend to take forward work in this area.
Earlier I made a specific point about unauthorised camping. The guidelines that the Executive produced in November 2000 stated that by February this year local authorities should have sufficient authorised encampments to prevent unauthorised camping from taking place. Clearly, that has not happened. What is being done to ensure that it does happen?
I am attempting to get hold of the information that will enable me to respond in detail to Mike Rumbles's point and I will address the issues that he raises. This is exactly the kind of discussion that we want to have. I will also respond to some of the points that Brian Adam made.
To be honest, the Executive has to strike a delicate balance in this area. If this were a debate about local government, Mr Rumbles would be telling us not to encroach on the rights and responsibilities of local government. We must adopt a joined-up approach. We take our central responsibilities seriously and intend to act in this area. However, we hope to do so in partnership with local authorities, instead of taking an authoritarian approach. The specific points that Mike Rumbles made about Aberdeenshire have been noted and I will pursue them.
Does the Executive believe that any national strategy for Gypsy Travellers should be centrally funded, or does it expect funding to be provided by local authorities?
I will come back to the member on that issue. When discussing education, I will say more about the Executive's relationship with local authorities.
A number of the key recommendations of the Equal Opportunities Committee concerned accommodation. The Executive recognises that the provision of safe and appropriate accommodation is a basic human need. I have had a long dialogue with the Social Justice Committee about housing, in which representations were made about equal opportunities issues. I have given considerable thought to the issues that the committee raised, because there is a difference of opinion in this area. I am anxious not to impose on Gypsy Traveller communities legislation that arises from the experiences of settled communities. I am not yet convinced that the recommendations that the Social Justice Committee has made are appropriate, although I commit myself to a continuing dialogue with the committee. I reassure the Parliament that we are ensuring that issues pertinent to the Gypsy Traveller community are being addressed in all the work that we are doing on housing, including the work of the housing improvement task force.
I do not know whether I have time to go into much detail about the history—if members wish, I may be able to do so later.
The new initiatives and legislation that are being put in place will make real changes to the provision of accommodation for Gypsy Travellers, although I accept that the effects may take a little time to filter through. I understand the frustration that people felt with our response to the report, particularly if they felt that we were not paying proper attention by saying that issues were covered elsewhere. However, that is a consequence of mainstreaming and we must ensure that other issues and processes apply to key groups in the equality agenda.
I must address the important new strategic planning system for housing that was set out in the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001. That system will require all councils to undertake an assessment of housing needs and conditions in their areas, and to produce a five-year local housing strategy. Many members will remember that we were at pains to ensure that a requirement to deliver and address equal opportunities was contained in the act. The needs of Gypsy Travellers will be addressed as part of that work. Local housing strategies will have to take into account Gypsy Travellers on sites and Gypsy Travellers who seek to move into the socially rented sector. We wish to pursue a number of recommendations that were made previously on that point—I am rattling along at speed because I see the Presiding Officer giving me that look.
The Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 was instrumental in creating Communities Scotland—formerly Scottish Homes—in November. Communities Scotland is responsible for regulating the provision and management of local authority sites for Gypsy Travellers. During the summer, Scottish Homes was involved in consultations on the standards that Communities Scotland will use in its work.
I illustrate the commitment of Communities Scotland with the following quotation:
"We plan and provide or arrange good quality, service stopping places for Gypsies/Travellers. We let pitches in a way that ensures fair and open access for all. We take Gypsies/Travellers' views into account in delivering our services, and we are responsive to their needs".
I hope that the establishment of Communities Scotland, with its regulatory powers, will mean that considerable progress is made.
As I said earlier, Communities Scotland will develop a core standard by conducting a thematic study of the provision of sites for Gypsy Travellers. It will also pilot its framework of standards and inspections for Gypsies/Travellers' sites, which will come into force from April next year. The thematic study will bring to light and spread examples of good practice and identify areas of weakness. I believe that bringing local authority sites for Gypsy Travellers into the regulatory framework is a significant and positive development and will make local authorities more accountable for the provision of Gypsy Traveller accommodation.
I do not have time to respond to other specific points, but I am happy to do so on another occasion. I must move on to speak about education, because it featured so strongly during the debate. There is an understanding in the Executive that we must go further on some issues than our response to the Equal Opportunities Committee's report indicated. I am pleased that Cathy Jamieson took time out of her busy diary to spend time in the chamber during the debate, so that she could hear members' comments on educational issues. Rhona Brankin clearly articulated the agenda that we must take forward.
I say categorically that we intend to make progress on these issues. We understand the points that were raised about bullying and we recognise the need to support local authorities—we already do so in various ways. I do not want to divert this debate into our usual debate about local authority funding. Members know that I would respond to that debate with information about our record settlement and the fact that we met the needs of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. I would say that everyone is happy with us. I do not want to trample on the toes of local authorities. We are funding and encouraging the work of bodies such as the Scottish Traveller education programme, the centre for education for racial equality in Scotland, the anti-bullying network, the Scottish school ethos network and the ChildLine anti-bullying helpline. [Interruption.] I will be only two seconds, Presiding Officer.
Cathy Jamieson and I listened carefully to the debate. We are not complacent about the needs of Gypsy Travellers in education. We recognise the need for diversity in education—our work in that area will continue. I do not have the time to go through my notes on the police—I will discuss the issue with any member who wishes to raise it with me. I will arrange an informal meeting with the Equal Opportunities Committee to go through the Executive's response to its report. I assure the Parliament that we are not complacent about this agenda—we will embed it into our equality strategy. This issue is not just flavour of the month—it is a piece of on-going work for the Scottish Executive.
I thank the minister for the impressive speed at which she delivered her speech.
I call Kay Ullrich to wind up the debate for the committee. My script shows me that you have up to 10 minutes, but any time that you are able to save would be gratefully appreciated.
I will do what I can, Presiding Officer, but I make no promises.
This has been a good debate. On behalf of the Equal Opportunities Committee, I thank all members who took part in it. Most of all, I echo Kate MacLean's thanks to those who contributed to the committee's inquiry.
It is fair to say that the Scottish Parliament is subject to what we might call the media knocking copy and not recognising the good work that is done by members of the Parliament in its committees. As Jamie Stone pointed out, the Equal Opportunities Committee inquiry into Gypsy Travellers is a fine example of the Parliament's accessibility. The inquiry shows the ability of the committee system to react to issues that are raised by members of the public.
As members have heard, we spent nine months taking written and oral evidence from a wide range of organisations and individuals. I am sure that I speak for all committee members when I say that our visits to the nine local authority sites most informed our deliberations. I give the committee's thanks to the Gypsy Traveller community throughout Scotland for its courtesy and hospitality during our visits.
The committee's report covers the broad policy areas of education, culture, health, social services, accommodation, policing and criminal justice. All those areas have been covered during today's debate. On education, Kate MacLean spoke of the young Gypsy Travellers who so impressed us when they gave evidence on their experiences of the education system. They told us of bullying and of teachers who treated them differently from other children. In an eloquent speech, Elaine Smith also spoke of Gypsy Travellers' problems in accessing education and of the seeming inability of the education system to adapt the curriculum to embrace the Gypsy Traveller culture. Irene McGugan urged that there should be flexibility in the education system and gave us some examples of current good practice. Rhona Brankin spoke of the bullying and name-calling that Gypsy Traveller children have suffered over many generations.
The most damning indictment of the education system's failure to embrace the needs of Gypsy Traveller children is surely to be found in the statistics. Only 21 per cent of Gypsy Traveller children in Scotland receive a regular secondary education. Contrary to the views that were expressed by my colleague, Kenny Gibson, I maintain that those children are simply voting with their feet in reaction to a system that does not adequately address their needs. Once and for all, let us dispel the myth that Gypsy Travellers do not want education. I came across the working document, "The Education of Gypsy Traveller Children in the UK", which states:
"We need education if we are to have self-determination. For, in a society which has historically denied us education, the first reason given for not recognising our needs is that we are ignorant. Illiteracy should not be confused with ignorance."
On accommodation, Jamie McGrigor spoke of the poor conditions of the access roads to two of the sites that he visited. He was also concerned that the encampments were locked overnight without access to the keys should an emergency occur.
My most vivid memory from my visit to a site in Lochgilphead is of the amenity blocks, which comprised a laundry room through which there was access to a bathroom. There was no insulation and only one small heater. Even in May, I would not have liked to take a bath or shower in that cold place, yet right now—today, in this weather—children are being bathed there. They will not be lingering long in the soapsuds in Lochgilphead.
As Jamie McGrigor and others pointed out, it is not as if that accommodation comes cheap. In 1995, a survey that was commissioned by the Scottish Office showed that the average pitch rent for a site in Scotland was £36.42. That should be compared with the average council house rent of £31.87. Bear in mind the fact that Gypsy Travellers provide their own trailer and that use of electric meter cards is mandatory. The price of those cards is higher than the price for people in social rented housing.
I was promised 10 minutes for my speech, but I will skip the section on health and concentrate on a subject that has been neglected—policing and the criminal justice system.
I mentioned it.
Yes, Kenny did mention it—and this time I agreed with what he said.
Will the member give way?
No, we are already into extra time, Mr Sheridan.
I am sorry, Mr Sheridan, but I am on my last minute. Or two.
It has been acknowledged that much has to be done to improve relations between the police and Gypsy Travellers. Submissions to the Equal Opportunities Committee highlighted the fact that it was not unusual for the police to attend a Gypsy Traveller funeral in order to serve outstanding warrants on some of the mourners. I have first-hand experience of that kind of practice. I used to work as a hospital social worker, and I remember a time when an elderly and very much respected member of a Traveller family was dying. Family members came from near and far to pay their last respects. The police came too—but not to pay respects. They came to serve outstanding warrants on grieving relatives. There is a real need to monitor relations between the police and Gypsy Travellers, and an urgent need to review policing practices and arrangements.
This has been a good debate. It is no secret that we in the committee are deeply disappointed at the Executive's response. However, I thank Margaret Curran for her response today, which has given us a little hope. I know that discussions between us will be, as they say, on-going.
Let us end discrimination. Let us raise society's awareness and, in doing so, let us end racism towards Gypsy Travellers, who, after all, are our fellow citizens in this little community of Scotland.
The next item of business is consideration of Parliamentary Bureau motions, but as there is none, we will move straight to decision time.