The Scottish Parliament - Equal Opportunities Committee Report

The remit of the Equal Opportunities Committee is to consider and report on matters relating to equal opportunities and upon the observance of equal opportunities within the Parliament.

Cathy Peattie (Convener)
Frances Curran
Marlyn Glen
Marilyn Livingstone
Mr Jamie McGrigor
Nora Radcliffe (Deputy Convener)
Elaine Smith
John Swinburne
Ms Sandra White

1. This report sets out the preliminary findings of the Equal Opportunities Committee’s review of progress in relation to the recommendations made in the Equal Opportunities Committee’s 1st Report 2001, Inquiry into Gypsy Travellers and Public Sector Policies. The Committee has agreed to publish this report in order to inform all interested parties of the issues raised in evidence to the Committee and to give an indication of the Committee’s current view of progress. It is also intended to inform the work of the Scottish Executive’s short-life strategic group on Gypsy/Travellers which was announced by the Deputy Minister for Communities at the Equal Opportunities Committee meeting on 28 June 2005.¹

2. In light of the Deputy Minister’s announcement of the establishment of this group and of the commitment to make available further funding², the Committee agreed, at its meeting on 3 October 2005, to defer making final recommendations until the short-life strategic group had carried out its work.

3. The Equal Opportunities Committee published the report of its Inquiry into Gypsy Travellers and Public Sector Policies in June 2001 and the Scottish Executive’s initial response to the report was published in October 2001. At its meeting on 9 September 2003, the Committee agreed to hold a taking stock exercise in the current session on the progress of the Executive in responding to the recommendations of the 2001 Report.

4. The Executive published an updated response - Delivering for Scotland’s Gypsies/Travellers - in June 2004 and the Committee agreed at its meeting on 21 September 2004 to carry out, as part of its work programme, further investigation into what had been achieved and what impact, if any, there had been on the lives of Scotland’s Gypsy/Travellers.

5. The Committee issued targeted calls for evidence based on the recommendations in its 2001 report and on the 2004 response issued by the Scottish Executive. Written submissions were invited from all Scottish local authorities, the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland (ACPOS) and further detail was requested from the Scottish Executive. The Committee also agreed a comprehensive oral evidence programme as outlined below.

8. The Committee would like to record its thanks to all those who provided written or oral evidence.

9. In evidence presented to the Committee, a number of witnesses expressed the view that there was a need for legislative change in order to make a real difference to the lives of Gypsy/Travellers. The three areas where witnesses felt that such legislative change was particularly necessary were in relation to the formalisation of the ethnic status of Scottish Gypsy/Travellers; changes to housing legislation to provide that mobile homes and caravans on Gypsy/Traveller sites are considered as housing; and the introduction of a statutory duty for local authorities to provide suitable and adequate sites.

10. Both the question of ethnic status for Gypsy/Travellers and a wide range of accommodation issues are dealt with in more detail below, however examples of specific calls for legislation as a way of dealing with these issues are given in the following paragraphs.

11. On the general issue of legislative support for the package of measures proposed in the Committee’s earlier recommendations, Sandra Bruce of Aberdeen City Council noted in evidence:

12. Save the Children (Scotland) noted its concern at the lack of formal legal status of Scotland’s Gypsy/Travellers:

13. The GTLRC stressed the need for a statutory duty on councils to provide sites:

14. This view was echoed by Save the Children (Scotland) in a written submission to the Committee:

15. The GTLRC further noted that there is wide support for this view in England and that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was to issue a new planning circular setting out that obligation.⁷

16. Both the GTLRC⁸ and Save the Children (Scotland)⁹ also stated their support for the Committee’s 2001 recommendation that the definition of “home” for the purposes of future amendments to housing legislation should be reconsidered to include sites, which are homes to Gypsy Travellers.¹⁰ The Committee notes the advice of the Deputy Minister for Communities that the term used in Scottish legislation is ‘house’.¹¹

18. There was a widespread feeling of disappointment amongst the witnesses at the slow pace of progress and patchy delivery in relation to the recommendations in the Committee’s 2001 report.

20. The evidence received by the Committee suggests that progress achieved to date has been slow, inconsistent from one local authority to another and often dependent on the commitment of key individuals. With specific reference to accommodation, which he pointed out was fundamental to service delivery for Gypsy/Travellers, Ron Ashton from the ALACHO notes:

21. Even where positive progress had been made, for example in the development of the hand-held health record system, referred to specifically in recommendation 30 of the 2001 report, concerns were expressed at the length of time it had taken to implement the system, which, at the time of evidence taking, had still not been fully implemented.

22. Perceptions amongst members of the Gypsy/Traveller community who gave evidence to the original inquiry and returned to give evidence for the review, were not positive about the pace of progress. Nadia Foy, for example, expressed her frustration at what she saw as a lack of progress:

23. This view was echoed by fellow panel member, Sharon McPhee. In addition, written evidence submitted by Save the Children (Scotland) on peer research carried out by young Gypsy/Travellers reports that when asked if their situation had improved since 2001 in relation to accommodation, healthcare, education and discrimination, over 70% of those in the study described their situation as the same or worse.¹⁶

24. A number of witnesses stressed the need for a national strategy and strong, national leadership on Gypsy/Traveller issues. The TEIP noted its concern at the pressures faced by local authorities in delivering effectively for Gypsy/Travellers:

27. This view was echoed in the evidence provided by other witnesses. Save the Children (Scotland), for example, expressed disappointment at the approach of the Scottish Executive exemplified in its 2004 response:

28. Dr Lloyd of STEP pointed out that many things that had been done by both the Executive and the UK government had been very positive developments for Gypsy/Travellers, but that they had not been afforded a high profile “because there are no votes in the issue.”²¹ She called on the politicians involved to stand up and be seen publicly to support such work and noted that:

29. In addition to the need for visible, national leadership, the evidence received highlighted a further difficulty which would be best resolved at national level. Although a number of the witnesses were able to identify individual examples of good practice across Scotland, there appeared to be no process which facilitated the sharing of these examples nationally. In relation to the difficulty experienced by local projects in sourcing funding, for example, Save the Children (Scotland) said:

30. It is clear from the evidence received that Gypsy/Travellers stand out as a section of the community that receives particular levels of discrimination and negative treatment. The CRE noted in oral evidence to the Committee:

32. Both organisations point out that, due to the extreme situation for Scotland’s Gypsy/Travellers, they are, in effect, a specific case and generic equality policies and campaigns are insufficient to effect significant change. There is, therefore, a need for specific measures, highly targeted work, enforcement and monitoring.

33. Assistant Chief Constable Allan Burnett from ACPOS supported this view in oral evidence to the Committee:

34. The Committee’s 2001 report recommended that local authorities should appoint Gypsy/Traveller liaison officers. This role would require close working with but would remain separate from that of site managers and would involve developing information and support services for Gypsy/Travellers in the local area and appropriate mechanisms for consultation.²⁶

35. It is clear from the evidence received that little progress has been made in terms of local authorities appointing GTLOs. Only a minority of the local authorities responding to the Committee’s call for evidence said they had appointed or intended to appoint a GTLO and there appeared to be a reluctance to appoint a GTLO whose role was understood to be distinct from that of site manager. Save the Children (Scotland) noted for example:

36. Save the Children (Scotland) agreed that the role of GTLOs was crucial and explained how their introduction would be beneficial:

37. It was suggested that this would provide a more practical interface with council services for Gypsy/Travellers and do away with the situation highlighted in evidence by the SHRC, whereby each service sends a different person out to visit.²⁹ Inspector Taggart of Grampian Police noted that the role had not been progressed uniformly nationally and pointed out:

38. The Committee has heard significant concerns raised at the slow pace of progress against the recommendations in its 1st Report 2001. The evidence makes it clear that while there has been some progress across the range of issues, progress has been patchy and it is unlikely that any good practice developed has been shared effectively across the country. The Committee appreciates the frustration expressed by key stakeholders during this review and is concerned that more progress has not been achieved in the four years since the publication of its report. It is the view of the Committee that there is an urgent need for an improvement in the pace of progress and the sharing of good practice across Scotland.

39. The Committee recognises the need, expressed clearly in evidence, for strategic, national leadership to push the agenda forward and accepts that this role would be best delivered by the Scottish Executive. The Committee welcomes the fact that the Deputy Minister for Communities has also recognised this need:

40. It is, however, also clear that, given the extreme level of discrimination and negative stereotyping experienced by Gypsy/Travellers, the generic policy approach to dealing with service delivery for Scotland’s Gypsy/Travellers is not effective and there is a need for targeted work specifically to deal with issues in relation to this highly marginalised group.

41. The lack of commitment to the appointment of GTLOs, as identified by the written submissions and discussed in evidence, is perhaps indicative of a wider lack of appreciation amongst some local authorities of the extreme situation faced by Scotland’s Gypsy/Travellers and the need for specific recognition of this group in local authority policies and processes.

42. The Committee appreciates that, in light of the slow progress against its 2001 recommendations, legislative change in certain key areas may ultimately be the means by which swifter progress could be achieved.

43. However, the Committee welcomes the additional funding from the Scottish Executive specifically for Gypsy/Traveller sites, which was announced by the Deputy Minister for Communities to the Committee on 28 June 2005,³² and hopes to see significant improvements in Gypsy/Traveller sites as a result.

44. The Committee further welcomes the requirement that those receiving money from this funding stream should show they have consulted with Gypsy/Travellers. This is another key area which will be discussed below and where evidence has identified that there is a need for improvement. The Committee looks forward to hearing from the Scottish Executive how compliance with this requirement will be monitored.

45. The Committee welcomes the establishment of the Scottish Executive’s short-life strategic group on Gypsy/Travellers, also announced to the Committee by the Deputy Minister,³³ and looks forward to scrutinising the report from the group in due course. It is hoped that the work of this group will, amongst other things, assist in the development of the kind of national leadership called for by witnesses during the review.

46. Finally, the Committee welcomes the following more general commitment from the Deputy Minister for Communities:

47. A key recommendation in the Committee’s 2001 report was that Gypsy/Travellers should be regarded, for legislative and policy development purposes, as an ethnic group until such time as a court decision is made on recognition as a racial group under the Race Relations Act 1976³⁵. Four years after the publication of this recommendation, there has still been no court case formalising the ethnic status of Scottish Gypsy/Travellers under the Race Relations Act.

48. In evidence to the Committee, the CRE outlined the three elements that were needed in order for a case to be successful and described some of the difficulties associated with them, including the willingness of the victim to spend a considerable period of time going through a very difficult process and the need for a respondent who will defend the case. The CRE noted that, as respondents often settled out of court, it had been difficult to get a court decision.³⁶

49. When asked whether, in the absence of formal recognition, the recommendation had had any impact on service provision for Gypsy/Travellers, Save the Children (Scotland) noted:

50. The CRE confirmed in evidence that published plans and race equality schemes rarely referred to the specific needs of Gypsy/Traveller groups and highlighted a further issue in relation to the ethnic status of Gypsy/Travellers:

51. It was suggested that the absence of legal protection under the Race Relations Act effectively leaves one particular group of people in Scottish society vulnerable and unprotected against inappropriate attitudes and behaviour while other, similar groups are able to benefit from the protection afforded by the Act. It also allows the media greater latitude in their reporting than they might use when dealing with other ethnic minority groups. Sharon McPhee, for example, noted in evidence:

53. The CRE pointed out in evidence that the equalities review due to be carried out by the UK government might offer an opportunity to change the relevant legislation through statute rather than through case law⁴¹. Save the Children (Scotland) supported the need to amend legislation by statute rather than case law in their written evidence.⁴²

54. The Committee is extremely concerned at the continuing lack of formal legal status for Scottish Gypsy/Travellers under the Race Relations Act four years after the publication of its report. The consequent lack of protection afforded to this marginalised group in Scotland remains a serious concern to the Committee.

55. Whilst recognising that some local authorities are working hard to include Gypsy/Travellers in their policies and processes, the evidence the Committee has received shows that this is patchy and inconsistent. The absence in policies of a specific reference to Gypsy/Travellers and their needs means that they are often not included for policy consideration.

56. It is also clear that if they are not recognised by all as a minority ethnic community by the terms of the Act, they will continue to be vulnerable to inappropriate attitudes and behaviour. Evidence received by the Committee has stressed that, given the extreme situation for Scotland’s Gypsy/Travellers, generic race equality policies will not be sufficient to ensure effective service delivery which includes Gypsy/Travellers.

57. Given the likelihood of a continuing difficulty in obtaining a successful test case, the Committee welcomes the Deputy Minister’s commitment to raising the possibility of changing the legislation to formalise the ethnic status of Scottish Gypsy/Travellers with ministerial colleagues at Westminster:

58. Recommendation 3 of the Committee’s 2001 report stressed the need for consultation with and participation in decision making by Gypsy/Travellers, their inclusion in the provision of funding and other resources for community development and capacity building and the promotion and encouragement of their recruitment into public services.

59. In evidence to the review, the Committee heard that there had been an improvement in certain local authorities’ efforts to involve Gypsy/Travellers in decision making through, for example, including them on working groups, but this was patchy and could be greatly improved on. Communities Scotland noted in evidence that where they saw involvement of Gypsy/Traveller communities in the development of local authority services, that involvement:

60. Rosemarie McIlwhan of the SHRC gave examples of good practice, which she, however, also described as the exception rather than the norm:

61. The CRE outlined some of the difficulties involved in engaging effectively with hard-to-reach communities and pointed out that there was still a need for “consistent grass-roots investment in capacity building to enable people to participate”:

62. The NRCEMH and STEP were cited as examples of good practice in involving Gypsy/Travellers in decision-making programmes at a national level, although one witness to the Committee expressed concerns at the limited level of involvement of Gypsy/Travellers in the work of the NRCEMH.⁴⁷

63. Save the Children (Scotland) expressed concern at the continuing lack of involvement of Gypsy/Travellers at national level and pointed out that there was still a lack of investment in capacity building at local level:

64. There are clearly also issues around the manner in which information is provided to Gypsy/Travellers given the oral traditions of the community and the likelihood that levels of literacy may differ from those taken for granted within the settled community. Janet McPhee noted in evidence, for example:

65. The lack of a national, representative group for Gypsy/Travellers was noted in evidence and previously active groups were mentioned which had ceased to operate when unable to obtain continued funding. Andrew Ryder of the GTLRC proposed the establishment of a Gypsy and Traveller task force in Scotland, which would “include members of the Traveller community at the heart of decision making.”⁵⁰

66. Other panel members from the Gypsy/Traveller community called for the provision of training and other support for Gypsy/Travellers who wanted to be outreach workers or run projects for the Gypsy/Traveller community. Nadia Foy, for example, suggested that funding should be available for seminar work for local authorities and local communities:

67. It was, however, suggested by one witness that there was a reluctance by central and local government to provide funding to projects that might be managed by Gypsy/Travellers.⁵²

68. It is clear from the evidence received that some progress has been made by some local authorities in relation to involving Gypsy/Travellers in working groups or other decision-making processes which are likely to have an impact on their lives. There is also some evidence of some good work being done at national level. However, four years after the publication of the inquiry report it is also clear that progress in this respect is patchy and inconsistent and there is evidence to suggest that much of the consultation of Gypsy/Travellers is tokenistic and lacking in commitment to ensure effective participation. The Committee would like to stress that the purpose of consultation with the Gypsy/Traveller community is to ensure the development of effective service provision and not an end in itself.

69. Evidence received in respect of capacity building suggests that there is still little, if any, investment and insufficient commitment to the concept. The Committee recognises the difficulties inherent in engaging effectively with hard-to-reach groups in general and the particular issues involved in engaging with a dispersed and nomadic community such as that of the Gypsy/Travellers. However, the progress achieved in the four years since the publication of the Committee’s report is inadequate and disappointing.

70. If Gypsy/Travellers are to be effectively included and achieve a degree of ownership of policies and processes which affect their lives, there is a clear need at national and local authority level for a significant improvement in representation of and engagement with Gypsy/Travellers, as well as in capacity-building programmes targeting the Gypsy/Traveller community.

71. The largest number of issues raised with the Committee during the review of progress related to accommodation, which was identified in evidence as central to the effective delivery of services to Gypsy/Travellers.

73. This view was echoed strongly by Inspector Ian Taggart of Grampian Police, who said:

74. It is, however, clear from the evidence received that there is a lack of understanding amongst local authorities of the range of housing needs of Gypsy/Travellers which is needed to inform the effective provision of suitable accommodation. Communities Scotland pointed out in evidence, for example, that one of the weaknesses identified in their thematic study of service provision for Gypsy/Travellers⁵⁵ was that councils did not have particularly good information about the needs and demands of the communities with which they were working.⁵⁶

75. Save the Children (Scotland) praised the research into the housing needs and aspirations of Gypsy/Travellers carried out by Communities Scotland in Tayside⁵⁷ and called for this type of assessment to be carried out across Scotland:

76. Roseanna McPhee cited the same research and referred to the recognition in the report of the interest expressed in small family group housing. Ms McPhee also pointed out that she had visited such housing developments in Ireland and felt they were a positive option. She also noted in evidence that, in seeking to limit the number of vehicles which could park on an unauthorised camp, the Scottish Executive’s Guidelines for Managing Unauthorised Camping by Gypsy/Travellers in Scotland⁵⁹ did not effectively take into account the tradition amongst Gypsy/Travellers of travelling in family groupings. This could also be a problem, for example, on local authority sites where limits are placed on the number of caravans per pitch.

77. In its 2001 report, the Committee recommended that local planning authorities should be required to identify the need for Gypsy/Traveller site provision and land for sites in statutory plans.⁶⁰

78. The Scottish Executive’s 2004 response to the Committee in relation to this recommendation noted:

79. In a letter to the Convener of the Communities Committee in June 2005, the Minister for Communities stated that the first ever Local Housing Strategies had been submitted to Communities Scotland by April 2004 and that many councils had identified a requirement to do more work to assess the needs of Gypsies/Travellers in their areas and were setting up or involved in local multi-agency working groups to begin this process. Communities Scotland area teams would be meeting with councils in July 2005 to monitor progress with Local Housing Strategy action plans.

80. The CRE stressed the need to develop a strategic vision for accommodation underpinned by choice:

81. Regarding local authority sites for Gypsy/Travellers, the Committee heard concerns expressed that the provision of sites was inadequate to meet both current and future need. Save the Children (Scotland) pointed out, for example, that current site provision in Scotland was based largely on figures that were produced in 1980.⁶³

82. Communities Scotland reported that one of the themes that had emerged from their thematic inspection of services for Gypsy/Travellers (2002) was that there was no planned approach to investment in sites. They further noted that across a number of local authorities there tended not to be a long-term planned approach towards investing money to upgrade the quality of the services or the sites themselves.⁶⁴

83. The TEIP suggested that there was a need for more short-stay sites provided with skips and access to water and noted that the official sites had not been entirely successful:

84. In addition, a number of specific issues were raised in connection with the provision of local authority sites and the facilities available on them. The SHRC noted, for example, that the location of sites was often an issue as they were often located in marginal areas, near landfill sites or in industrial areas which are not ideal for residential purposes.

85. For those sites which were located out of town, there was often also inadequate public transport provision linking sites to local shops and other amenities. This could additionally cause problems for children living on sites who had to travel to school.

86. It was highlighted in evidence that sites still often lacked accessible community facilities, which would be useful, for example, for on-site education provision, tenants’ meetings or private medical consultations etc. Concerns were expressed at the condition of the amenity chalets and the continuing need for them to be upgraded to meet acceptable standards for health and safety purposes in terms of, for example, insulation and heating.

87. The Committee heard how there had been problems in having adaptations made to amenity chalets and other facilities on site where these were required for disabled or elderly Gypsy/Travellers. One witness explained a council’s rationale for not making requested adaptations:

88. The CRE pointed out that there were still fundamental problems with the facilities available on sites:

89. Witnesses noted in evidence that there is often a restrictive policy on leaving sites to travel and that the cost of rent and power on sites is often higher than in mainstream housing. Communities Scotland accepted that there was a lack of uniformity of pricing on sites in Scotland and recommended that local authorities should provide housing-related services to Gypsy/Travellers so that they are on a par with those provided to settled tenants. They also pointed out that there was a need for transparency in charging and clarity in the relationship between rent setting, budgeting and maintenance.⁶⁹

90. Concerns were raised in evidence regarding the poor involvement of the settled community in the process of setting up sites. The CRE pointed out the need for local authorities to address the expectations and understandings of settled communities as well as ensuring that both the settled community and Gypsy/Travellers were fully aware of both their rights and responsibilities.⁷⁰

91. Although examples of good practice were mentioned by the SHRC, ALACHO also recognised in evidence that local authorities could run into significant problems when trying to explain to the settled community what they were legitimately trying to do. They did, however, note that there were examples of good practice where “understandings were reached and education processes” were undertaken.⁷¹

92. The Committee also heard evidence in relation to unauthorised encampments. Inspector Ian Taggart of Grampian Police noted:

93. ACPOS accepted that current provision of sites tended to be inadequate and that this informed the police approach to dealing with unauthorised encampments.⁷³

94. As noted at paragraph 83 above, TEIP proposed that a network of transit sites was needed across Scotland and both David Cooper of Aberdeenshire Council and Ron Ashton of ALACHO stated their organisation’s commitment to the establishment of transit sites.

95. The SHRC praised the police’s policy on the management of roadside encampments but both the CRE and SHRC were critical of the Scottish Executive’s published guidelines. Rosemarie McIlwhan of the SHRC noted, for example:

96. The CRE stressed the importance of the guidelines forming part of an overarching, national approach rather than standing as an isolated approach to dealing with a problem.

98. Regarding the concerns raised in relation to the impact of the language used in the guidelines, the Deputy Minister conceded that if people were concerned then the matter needed to be considered.⁷⁶

99. The Committee recognises that accommodation is central to the effective delivery of services for Scotland’s Gypsy/Travellers and further recognises that, as is the case for other areas of this review, although it is possible to highlight examples of good practice, overall progress achieved since the publication of the Committee’s report has been inadequate and disappointingly slow in relation to accommodation issues.

100. There is clearly an absence of accurate, up-to-date data in respect of both the accommodation needs of Gypsy/Travellers in general and of Gypsy/Traveller sites in particular. The Committee supports the call for a comprehensive, national review of sites and for the extension across Scotland of an effective, co-ordinated assessment of Gypsy/Travellers’ accommodation needs and aspirations such as was carried out by Communities Scotland for Tayside.

101. Such an assessment would then inform the delivery of accommodation which suits the needs of Gypsy/Travellers, their family structures and lifestyles, which is likely to encompass short- and long-stay sites as well as settled housing. The Committee wishes to record its disappointment at the slow pace of progress against recommendation 10 in its 2001 report in this respect, given that, three years after the publication of the recommendation, local authorities are reported as needing to do more work in this respect.

102. The Committee recognises that some sites were initially developed as temporary and have since become permanent. There is, therefore, a consequent need for these sites to be upgraded accordingly.

103. The Committee would also reiterate the need, as identified in its 2001 report, for sites to be identified as part of the local planning process. This could also engage both settled and Gypsy/Traveller communities and ensure they were involved in discussions on the location of sites and related issues. The Committee notes the actions of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in this regard and urges the Executive to consider whether existing planning guidance is sufficient in this regard and investigate whether there is an opportunity to address this issue in the forthcoming planning bill.

104. The delivery of suitable housing solutions for Gypsy/Travellers will need to be supported by long-term planning and investment not only for the provision of new sites and housing, but also for the effective maintenance and upgrading of existing sites. The evidence shows that there is an urgent need for significant investment to ensure that there are suitable facilities available on existing local authority Gypsy/Traveller sites, including the provision of suitable adaptations for disabled and/or elderly Gypsy/Travellers.

105. The Committee wishes to express its serious concerns at hearing that vulnerable members of an already marginalised community are being denied access to adaptations based on which budget rent money is allocated to at local authority level. It seems unfortunate that the money raised from site rents goes into the general fund as opposed to the Housing Revenue Account (HRA), which means that the HRA funds cannot be accessed to pay for disabled adaptations on sites. The committee is of the view that this issue requires some examination with a view to resolving what appears to be an unfortunate anomaly.

106. In addition to the investment needed, there is a real need to engage effectively with Gypsy/Travellers both in relation to the design and location of new sites, as discussed above, and for the improvements to be made to existing sites. The Committee would stress here the terminology used by Ron Ashton of ALACHO in evidence when he said:

107. The Committee supports Communities Scotland’s recommendation that housing-related services for Gypsy/Travellers should be treated on a par with those that are provided to settled tenants, that is that they should be mainstreamed. This approach should also be applied to charging for rent and facilities on sites.

108. Given the negative reactions the Committee has heard to the Scottish Executive’s Guidelines for the Management of Unauthorised Camping by Gypsies/Travellers in Scotland, the Committee urges the Executive to review this guidance and how it is disseminated as a matter of urgency. The Committee welcomes the recognition by the Deputy Minister for Communities of the need to do so.⁷⁸

109. Some good examples were provided in evidence of individual health visitors and doctors providing effective services sensitive to the needs of Gypsy/Travellers, but general evidence suggests that such services are still patchy across the country. Dr Gardee from the NRCEMH confirmed this view from his experience:

110. He also pointed out that there was fairly high-level support for the provision of equality of services in Scotland and identified where he saw a need for further work to be done:

111. There were also very specific issues raised which are of importance in relation to dealing with Gypsy/Traveller communities. When asked about their knowledge of the work of the NRCEMH, one witness expressed concerns about the actual involvement of Gypsy/Travellers and at the extent to which the organisation has listened to what Gypsy/Travellers had told them. The importance of gender in the Gypsy/Traveller communities had, for example, been highlighted and the consequent need to use both male and female researchers in finding out about health issues. It had also been suggested that researchers should be sourced, where possible, within the community. These suggestions had apparently not been acted on.⁸¹

112. Concerns were also expressed in evidence that the health needs of male Gypsy/Travellers and young Gypsy/Travellers were being neglected. For example, there was a need to provide suitable health education to young Gypsy/Travellers, such as seminars etc., where they can discuss issues away from their parents. This is particularly the case for those young Gypsy/Travellers who are not attending school and will, therefore, not have access to this type of information in the school environment. The Committee heard of the good work being done by Save the Children (Scotland) in this respect, and of the need for funding to assist in widening access to these type of seminars to more young people.

113. The Committee also heard of the need to provide health-related information to Gypsy/Travellers in suitable formats to facilitate their access to health services. Given the likelihood of different literacy levels in the Gypsy/Traveller communities, written information leaflets are unlikely to be adequate for this purpose. As Save the Children (Scotland) noted in evidence:

114. Save the Children (Scotland) also stressed the importance of carrying out an effective assessment of Gypsy/Travellers’ health needs and pointed out:

115. The NRCEMH, however, stated in evidence that it was doing some interesting work on an assessment of needs in the north of Scotland. The Committee also heard from the NRCMEH that a hand-held health record had been developed and that they were awaiting a decision on when the system would be launched. Hand-held records were welcomed by a number of the Committee’s witnesses.

116. It is clear from the evidence that some good work is being done and that progress is being made. However, once again it seems that this progress is not only patchy, but also often still dependent on the commitment of key individuals. Save the Children (Scotland) noted, in fact, that many examples of good practice appeared to come about almost by luck rather than by good design.⁸⁴

117. The Committee welcomes the work of the NRCEMH as mentioned by the Deputy Minister for Communities in her evidence to the Committee, but notes that concerns have been raised in evidence about how this work is being carried out. The Committee would, for example, welcome further information on progress particularly in relation to the health needs assessment which the NRCEMH is reported to be carrying out.

118. The Committee welcomes the introduction of hand-held health records, which it mentioned specifically in its 2001 report, but is concerned about the delay both in terms of developing the records and now also in the implementation of the system across Scotland.

119. The Committee also welcomes the fact that there is commitment to the provision of equality of services at a corporate level in health boards but is concerned that there is still a question about front-line delivery, including reception staff at GP surgeries. The Committee heard in evidence, for example:

120. It is clear that there is a need not only for the provision of training in operating the hand-held record system, but also, throughout the national health service, for awareness raising of the issues which are crucial to providing an effective service which includes the needs of Gypsy/Travellers in Scotland. The Committee looks forward, therefore, to hearing that funding will be made available for the provision of such training.

121. The Committee recognises the need for health-related information to be provided in suitable formats to facilitate access for Gypsy/Travellers and notes that this would include seminars of the type supported by Save the Children (Scotland).

122. The evidence the Committee has received suggests that, by and large, primary school education is valued by Gypsy/Travellers for providing basic skills relevant to their lives.⁸⁶ Three key issues, however, were raised in relation to the attendance of Gypsy/Travellers at secondary level.

123. Firstly there is the question of safety and acceptance for Gypsy/Travellers at secondary level. STEP pointed out that in every piece of research and every conversation they had with parents and children, it was reported that racial harassment and bullying was still an issue in the playgrounds and corridors of Scottish schools.⁸⁷ It was made clear to the Committee in evidence that anti-bullying and anti–harassment policies are perceived to be highly ineffective at secondary level and are a factor in the self-exclusion of many Gypsy/Travellers from secondary provision. STEP stressed the need to make schools safe and appropriate places for Scottish Gypsy/Travellers.⁸⁸

124. Secondly, it was noted that many young Gypsy/Travellers do not see the secondary curriculum as relevant to their way of life and this was a further reason for non-attendance. The Committee did, however, hear of a good example from Perth and Kinross where a land-based course was run in one school whereby pupils could go out and learn the skills to enable them to become ghillies, work in forestry or to work on the land. This had been a popular course for young Gypsy/Travellers.⁸⁹

125. When asked what the Executive was planning to do to ensure the relevance of the curriculum to Gypsy/Travellers, the Deputy Minister for Communities undertook to raise the issue with the Minister for Education and Young People.⁹⁰

126. Finally, there was a need to recognise that for Gypsy/Travellers who were mobile or did not attend for some other reason, there was a need to provide access to education outwith school and for that education to be of a high-quality rather than a cheap alternative. To achieve this, there was a need for better use of alternative methods of educational delivery, such as on-site classes and distance learning.

127. The Committee also heard, however, that many young Gypsy/Travellers attend and are successful at secondary level but that that there was a tendency for many to hide their identity while attending school, feeling that they were likely to be safer if they could not be identified as Gypsy/Travellers.⁹¹ One witness told the Committee that a teacher had advised her to tell her daughter “not to let on to the other kids” that she was a Gypsy/Traveller.⁹²

128. Concerns were expressed at both the lack of co-ordination across the country and also within local authorities. STEP accepted that some councils were further ahead than others in terms of joined-up working and highlighted the need for co-ordination of pupils’ records when they moved, to show a continuous record and to assist in integrating Gypsy/Traveller children into the appropriate learning in their next educational setting.

129. The Committee heard in evidence that the recent publication of Her Majesty’s Inspector of Education’s (HMIE) self-evaluation guidance ‘How good is our school? Taking a closer look at: Inclusion and Equality – meeting the needs of Gypsies and Travellers’ meant that inspectors would look for evidence that schools were responding to STEP’s guidance, which had been issued to all schools.⁹³

130. Good practice examples of alternative approaches for young Gypsy/Travellers were highlighted in evidence and Dr Padfield of STEP noted that addressing the needs of Gypsy/Traveller children had also demonstrated that there were other children who had similar needs, although not for the same reasons.”⁹⁴

132. STEP also noted in evidence that the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 contained a much broader indication of the circumstances in which people might need support for learning and that these would include those whose education had been interrupted. Dr Lloyd stated:

133. The Committee recognises that much good work is being done in relation to the issues faced by Gypsy/Travellers in taking part in education and particularly welcomes the work done by STEP, supported by funding from the Scottish Executive, and such voluntary organisations as TEIP.

134. The Committee is, however, concerned at the apparently poor take-up of the guidance issued by STEP, as evidenced in its own research. The Committee further notes that voluntary organisations, such as TEIP, typically depend on a number of short-term funding streams and this necessarily limits the effectiveness of the services they are able to provide in the long-term.

135. The Committee recognises that there is a need for continual monitoring to ensure that guidance is adhered to and that progress is made not only where committed individuals are taking the agenda forward. In this context, the Committee welcomes the news that, following the publication of their recent self-evaluation guidance, HMIE inspectors will look for evidence that schools are responding to STEP’s guidance.⁹⁷ The Committee also welcomes the reassurance of the Deputy Minister for Communities that:

136. Concerning the relevance to Gypsy/Travellers of the curriculum at secondary level, the Committee welcomes the commitment made in evidence by the Deputy Minister for Communities to raise the issue with the Minister for Education and Young People⁹⁹ and looks forward to hearing the outcome from the Deputy Minister.

137. It is clear from STEP’s 2004 report that better use should be made of information and communications technology for alternative educational delivery and the Committee welcomes the fact that the Scottish Executive is funding the development of blended learning opportunities through STEP.

138. Unfortunately, the evidence from STEP also highlights that good practice is patchy across Scotland. Dr Lloyd noted that there are good, sound teams working with schools and Gypsy/Travellers in some council areas, but not in others.¹⁰⁰ There is a clear need for the Scottish Executive to look at how best to ensure that good practice is both identified and shared across Scotland.

139. The Committee is of the view that it is unacceptable that young Gypsy/Travellers should feel the need to hide their identity in order to be safe at school and this is clearly an area where significant work is needed. The Committee heard powerful evidence from Dr Lloyd of STEP:

140. The Committee welcomes the Deputy Minister’s recognition of the need to “challenge educators on understanding and listening to young people” and the Deputy Minister’s acceptance that this refers equally to young Gypsy/Travellers. ¹⁰² The Committee reiterates here the following recommendations from its 2001 report:

141. Finally, to put the progress achieved in perspective, the Committee would quote Dr Lloyd from STEP:

142. The Committee heard that there had been some positive developments within the police service, particularly in relation to the policing of unauthorised encampments and the presumption of non-prosecution, but that there was still a need to make sure that the message was transmitted through the whole of the police force.

143. Whilst commending the police on its policy on the management of roadside encampments¹⁰⁶, SHRC also noted that there was a long way to go before we could say that good relations existed between the Gypsy/Traveller community and the police and described the practice as patchy.¹⁰⁷

144. When asked whether confidence in the police was increasing amongst Gypsy/Travellers, Assistant Chief Constable Burnett from ACPOS stated his view that the evidence was mixed.¹⁰⁸

145. Oral evidence from members of the Gypsy/Traveller community confirmed that there was some good practice, but that there were variations in approach not only between different police areas, but also between individual officers within one police area.¹⁰⁹

146. The Committee heard from the police of their effective liaison with councils and site managers but also of the difficulty they had in finding national representatives from the Gypsy/Traveller communities. However, they also spoke of the excellent work of support organisations, such as Save the Children (Scotland) when they engaged with them.¹¹⁰

147. The Committee heard from both members of the police who gave evidence that the current provision of sites for Gypsy/Travellers was inadequate and that that this led to more widespread use of unauthorised sites, placing a requirement on the police to deal with these sites appropriately and sensitively.

148. Assistant Chief Constable Burnett of ACPOS recognised the need to monitor racist incidents involving Gypsy/Travellers and further noted that not all forces were in a position to do this effectively. He also stated his view that there was a need to consider how best to carry out such monitoring nationally.¹¹¹

149. Inspector Taggart stressed the need to overcome the negative view that many people have about Gypsy/Travellers:

150. Witnesses from the police noted the impact that negative media reporting could have on relations with the Gypsy/Traveller community, on Gypsy/Travellers themselves and on the professionals who are trying to provide services to them. Assistant Chief Constable Burnett pointed out that there was a need for a “joined-up media strategy that would promote positive stories and address negative stories.”¹¹³

151. The Committee welcomes the ACPOS Guidance for the Management of Unauthorised Encampments of the Gypsy/Traveller Community and, in particular, its focus on “the responsibility on all relevant public authorities to resolve issues affecting the community with sensitivity and compassion, giving due regard to Human Rights and wider Diversity issues.”¹¹⁴

152. The Committee recognises the police’s difficulty in engaging with representative groups and welcomes the police’s willingness to engage with support agencies, such as Save the Children (Scotland), in dealing with issues relevant to Gypsy/Travellers.

153. The Committee welcomes the recognition from those members of the police who gave evidence, and, indeed, at policy-making level within the police that site provision for Gypsy/Travellers is inadequate and that there is, therefore, a need for sensitive policing in dealing with unauthorised encampments.

154. There is, however, clearly still a need for widespread training for all police officers and for this to be extended beyond the issue of dealing with unauthorised encampments to cover all situations where there is potential for police involvement with Gypsy/Travellers.

155. The Committee heard powerful evidence from a number of witnesses to show the particular situation facing Gypsy/Travellers and their children in Scotland. This included physical and verbal attacks at Gypsy/Traveller sites, bullying at school, poor attitudes in the school staffroom and negative reporting in the media. As the CRE pointed out in evidence:

156. The Committee heard how the media can have a significant impact on people’s perceptions and Inspector Taggart of Grampian Police gave one example from his area which had serious consequences. He explained in evidence the impact of negative media reporting on professionals who worked with the Gypsy/Traveller community and on Gypsy/Travellers themselves. He noted that following negative reporting by a local newspaper, there had been a significant increase over the previous year not only in the number of incidents where Gypsy/Travellers were the victims, but also in their severity.¹¹⁶

157. The CRE pointed out that the way in which Gypsy/Travellers are reported and stereotyped in the media stands out from the general racism that might be seen.¹¹⁷ They stressed the need to:

158. Save the Children (Scotland) expressed their disappointment that Gypsy/Travellers received only a brief mention on the ‘One Scotland, Many Cultures’ website and no mention in the high profile media campaigns. They pointed out:

160. In addition, there were worrying indications in a peer research report carried out with the support of Save the Children (Scotland)¹²⁰ that young Gypsy/Travellers continue to suffer an unacceptable level of discrimination. Ninety-two percent of the young people who took part reported they had been picked on because they were Gypsy/Travellers.

162. From the evidence received by the Committee in its review of progress it is clear that there has been little, if any, progress in terms of promoting good relations. In fact, the Committee has heard evidence which suggests that much of the good work being done by the local authorities in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire has been undermined by negative media reporting.

163. The Committee wishes to express its concern at the unacceptable and irresponsible reporting in relation to Gypsy/Travellers, which has come to light during the course of its review of progress. As the SHRC pointed out in evidence:

164. The Committee calls on the media in Scotland to consider very carefully the likely impact of their reporting, in particular when reporting on already vulnerable and marginalised communities, such as Gypsy/Travellers.

165. There is a clear and continuing need for positive images of Gypsy/Travellers and their culture to be promulgated throughout society and not only in schools. The One Scotland, Many Cultures campaign was a missed opportunity on the part of the Executive in this regard and is unlikely to support an attitude change in relation to Gypsy/Travellers. Given the extreme exclusion and discrimination faced by Gypsy/Travellers in Scotland, as the Committee heard clearly in evidence, it is clearly not enough to expect those issues to be dealt with effectively as part of generic, mainstream equality policies and campaigns.

166. The Committee welcomes the Deputy Minister’s recognition of the need to consider the content of the One Scotland website in relation to Gypsy/Travellers and, in particular, the need to consider the use of positive images in partnership with Gypsy/Travellers.¹²³

167. There is a continuing need for a major attitude change towards Gypsy/Traveller communities, a fact recognised in evidence. This might, in part, be encouraged by legal recognition of their status, which would formally include them in all racial equalities policies. Whilst the Committee recognises that formal legal status alone may not be sufficient, the Committee believes that it would go a long way towards encouraging effective policy making and support provision.

168. The Committee has received a significant body of evidence to assist it in reviewing progress achieved since the publication of its 2001 report. Much of that evidence has, naturally, highlighted areas of concern, where, for example, it is felt that there are still problems or there has been insufficient progress against the Committee’s recommendations. The Committee is, however, also keen to record that there are areas where good work is being done and where there has clearly been progress.

169. The Committee commends, for example, the work of STEP and recognises that this work is funded by the Scottish Executive. The work of the NRCEMH, also funded by the Executive, has resulted in the development of a hand-held health record for Gypsy/Travellers, an issue which the Committee mentioned specifically in its 2001 report. The Committee also notes that these organisations are continuing their work and have the potential to deliver further benefit for the Gypsy/Traveller communities through, for example, better delivery of alternative education provision and in developing a clearer understanding of the health needs of Gypsy/Travellers in Scotland.

170. It has been recognised that progress has been made in relation to the work of the police in their involvement with Gypsy/Travellers, particularly with regard to the policing of unauthorised encampments. The Committee recognises that there is commitment at senior level to provide appropriate policing strategies.

171. The Committee has heard that some local authorities are working hard to involve Gypsy/Travellers in their decision-making processes, to work with them on the refurbishment of sites, provide on-site facilities for education classes, private health consultations etc., involve both Gypsy/Travellers and the local settled community in consultations about the provision of sites and work in a joined-up manner both across council services and with other agencies to provide services to Gypsy/Travellers.

172. The Committee also commends the work of key groups in the voluntary sector, such as Save the Children (Scotland) and the TEIP for their ongoing work with the Gypsy/Traveller communities.

173. However, whilst recognising that these examples of good practice exist, the Committee has also been made aware that they are not widespread and that there is inconsistency across Scotland in good service delivery in relation to Gypsy/Travellers. The Committee, additionally, heard evidence to suggest that much of the good work being done tends to rely on the commitment and energy of key individuals rather than being an integral element of an effective service.

174. Where there has been progress against the recommendations in the Committee’s 2001 report there was general agreement amongst the witnesses before the Committee that it had been slow. There was praise for the Committee’s 2001 recommendations from the witnesses but a strong message was also issued that there was a need for a renewed effort to deliver against them. The Committee is mindful of the frustration expressed by, amongst others, members of the Gypsy/Traveller community who gave evidence:

175. The Committee does not wish to have to go through the same procedure again in another four years’ time and welcomes the Deputy Minister for Communities’ recognition of the need to inject new energy into the matter.

176. The continuing lack of formal legal recognition of the ethnic status of Scotland’s Gypsy/Travellers is a key concern for the Committee. In the absence of this status, it is not clear how they will be effectively included in policy making and service development processes. The Committee notes the opportunity presented by the forthcoming equalities review to amend the legislation by statute rather than case law and welcomes the commitment of the Deputy Minister for Communities to raise the issue of this gap in legislation at ministerial level at Whitehall.

177. Equally, given the extreme situation experienced by Scotland’s Gypsy/Travellers, the Committee does not believe that generic policies and solutions are sufficient to deal with the issues they face. The Committee recognises, as was made clear in evidence, that there is a need for specific, targeted work aimed at improving the situation for Gypsy/Travellers. The Committee is also of the view, in line with its earlier recommendations, that there is a continuing need for Gypsy/Travellers to be mentioned specifically in relevant policies and procedures to make it clear to all relevant parties that they are to be treated as an ethnic group, until such time as a court decision is made or the law is changed.

178. There is clearly a continuing lack of effective engagement with the Gypsy/Traveller community at all levels and this includes the use of formats and settings appropriate to their needs. The Committee is also of the view that more investment in capacity building would serve to assist Gypsy/Travellers in engaging more widely at both local and national level.

179. The Committee has heard that there are still many issues in relation to the provision of suitable accommodation for Scotland’s Gypsy/Travellers. The Committee welcomes the Scottish Executive’s provision of additional funding aimed specifically at Gypsy/Traveller sites and looks forward to hearing from the Executive how this additional money is spent. The Committee would like to stress, however, that there is also a need to take a wider view of accommodation issues for Gypsy/Travellers, encompassing, long- and short-stay sites as well as settled housing. There is clearly a need for more information both on the current and future accommodation needs of the Gypsy/Traveller community and of current and planned site provision.

180. The Committee is also of the view that there is a need for local authority housing services provided to Gypsy/Travellers to be on a par with those provided to settled tenants and to be subject to effective investment and long-term planning.

181. In relation to health issues, there is clearly still a need for a comprehensive assessment of needs for all sections of the Gypsy/Traveller community and for widespread training throughout the health service to raise awareness and ability in front-line staff to deal appropriately with Gypsy/Travellers, in addition to the specific training needed to deal with hand-held records.

182. Having recognised that there has been progress in relation to education provision, the Committee records its concern at the high levels of bullying and racial harassment reported from the Gypsy/Traveller community in Scotland’s schools. Widespread training throughout the education services and in teacher training should deal with Gypsy/Traveller issues and raise awareness amongst all staff.

183. The Committee commends the work being done by STEP to develop alternative educational provision which includes online provision and recognises that the Executive is funding this work. However, the need has also been clearly identified in evidence to make the curriculum more relevant to the lives of young Gypsy/Travellers in Scotland and there is a need to disseminate such good practice as is available in this respect.

184. The Committee welcomes the establishment by the Executive of a short-life strategic group on Gypsy/Travellers as well as the Executive’s commitment to work with groups such as the CRE, Save the Children (Scotland), the SHRC, the Gypsy/Traveller Community Development Project and the Gypsy/Traveller community to deliver the work of the group. The Committee also welcomes the commitment of the Executive to take account of the work of the Equal Opportunities Committee and of this report in the work of the short-life group.

185. The Committee awaits with interest the outcomes of the work of this group and the hopefully positive impact it will have on the lives of Scotland’s Gypsy/Travellers. The Committee would encourage the Executive carefully to note and consider the findings contained in this report. The Committee will defer publication of its final report on its review of progress, and of relevant recommendations, until it has had the opportunity to consider both the report of the short-life strategic group and the potential impact of any subsequent activities undertaken as a result of the work of this group. As part of that process, the Committee will carefully review the outcomes of the group’s work against the issues raised in this report.

¹ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 28 June 2005, col 1054

² Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 28 June 2005, col 1056

³ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 7 June 2005, col 1007

⁴ Save the Children, written evidence, paragraph 3.2

⁵ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 21 June 2005, col 1023

⁶ Save the Children (Scotland), written submission, May 2005, para 4.6

⁷ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 21 June 2005, col 1024

⁸ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 21 June 2005, col 1023

⁹ Save the Children (Scotland), written submission, para 10.2

¹⁰ Equal Opportunities Committee, 1st Report 2001, Recommendation 6

¹¹ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 28 June 2005, col 1064

¹² Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 12 April 2005, col 881

¹³ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 12 April 2005, col 872

¹⁴ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 7 June 2005, col 1010

¹⁵ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 21 June 2005, col 1025

¹⁶ Having Our Say, A peer research project with young Gypsy/Travellers in Scotland 2005, Save the Children, page 22, second paragraph

¹⁷ TEIP, Written Submission, Conclusion

¹⁸ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 24 May 2005, col 954

¹⁹ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 12 April 2005, col 890

²⁰ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 7 June 2005, col 988

²¹ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 24 May 2005, col 955

²² Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 7 June 2005, col 983

²³ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 12 April 2005, col 871

²⁴ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 7 June 2005, col 973

²⁵ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 24 May 2005, col 970

²⁶ Equal Opportunities Committee, 1st Report 2001, Recommendation 8

²⁷ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 7 June 2005, col 981

²⁸ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 7 June 2005, col 981

²⁹ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 12 April 2005, col 879

³⁰ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 24 May 2005, col 961

³¹ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 28 june 2005, col 1054

³² Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 28 June 2005, col 1056

³³ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 28 June 2005, col 1054

³⁴ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 28 June 2005, col 1079

³⁵ Equal Opportunities Committee, 1st Report 2001, Recommendation 2

³⁶ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 12 April 2005, col 873

³⁷ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 7 June 2005, col 975

³⁸ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 12 April 2005, col 874

³⁹ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 21 June 2005, col 1015

⁴⁰ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 7 June 2005, col 975

⁴¹ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 12 April 2005, col 873

⁴² Save the Children, written evidence, para 3.2

⁴³ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 28 June 2005, col 1958

⁴⁴ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 12 April 2005, col 865

⁴⁵ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 12 April 2005, col 875

⁴⁶ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 12 April 2005, col 876

⁴⁷ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 21 June 2005, col 1039

⁴⁸ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 7 June 2005, col 974

⁴⁹ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 21 June 2005, 1044

⁵⁰ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 21 June 2005, col 1014

⁵¹ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 21 June 2005, col 1020

⁵² Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 21 June 2005, col 1020

⁵³ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 24 May 2005, col 947

⁵⁴ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 24 May 2005, col 971

⁵⁵ Communities Scotland, Regulation & Inspection, Thematic regulation studies 2002, Services for Gypsies/Travellers

⁵⁶ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 12 April 2005, col 865

⁵⁷ Communities Scotland’s Assessment of the Housing Needs and Aspirations of Gypsies/Travellers in Tayside, July 2004

⁵⁸ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 7 June 2005, col 976

⁵⁹ Scottish Executive, December 2004

⁶⁰ Equal Opportunities Committee 1st Report 2001, Recommendation 10

⁶¹ Scottish Executive, Delivering for Scotland’s Gypsies/Travellers, 2004

⁶² Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 12 April 2005, col 877

⁶³ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 7 June 2005, col 975

⁶⁴ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 12 April 2005, col 865

⁶⁵ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 24 May 2005, col 952

⁶⁶ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 12 April 2005, col 878

⁶⁷ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 21 June 2005, col 1031

⁶⁸ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 12 April 2005, col 877

⁶⁹ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 12 April 2005, col 871

⁷⁰ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 12 April 2005, col 878

⁷¹ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 7 June 2005, col 998

⁷² Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 24 May 2005, col 962

⁷³ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 24 May 2005, col 962

⁷⁴ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 12 April 2005, col 888

⁷⁵ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 28 June 2005, col 1074

⁷⁶ ibid

⁷⁷ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 7 June 2005, col 998

⁷⁸ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 28 June 2005, col 1074

⁷⁹ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 24 May 2005, col 957

⁸⁰ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 24 May 2005, col 958

⁸¹ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 21 June 2005, col 1040

⁸² Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 7 June 2005, col 979

⁸³ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 7 June 2005, col 978

⁸⁴ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 7 June 2005, col 978

⁸⁵ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 21 June 2005, col 1044

⁸⁶ Issues in school enrolment, attendance, attainment and support for learning for Gypsies/Travellers and school-aged children and young people based in Scottish local authority sites, STEP, March 2004

⁸⁷ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 24 May 2005, col 948

⁸⁸ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 24 May 2005, col 948

⁸⁹ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 21 June, col 1036

⁹⁰ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 28 June 2005, col 1070

⁹¹ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 24 May 2005, col 949

⁹² Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 21 June 2005, col 1035

⁹³ Inclusive Education Approaches for Gypsies and Travellers within the context of interrupted learning, Guidance for Local Authorities and Schools, STEP, 2003

⁹⁴ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 24 May 2005, col 947

⁹⁵ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 24 May 2005, col 946

⁹⁶ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 24 May 2005, col 946

⁹⁷ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 24 May 2005, col 941

⁹⁸ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 28 June 2005, col 1071

⁹⁹ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 28 June 2005, col 1070

¹⁰⁰ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 24 May 2005, col 946

¹⁰¹ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 24 May 2005, col 949

¹⁰² Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 28 June 2005, col 1068

¹⁰³ Equal Opportunities Committee, 1st Report 2001, Recommendation 19

¹⁰⁴ Equal Opportunities Committee, 1st Report 2001, Recommendation 20

¹⁰⁵ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 24 May 2005, col 956

¹⁰⁶ ACPOS Operational Guidance for the Management of Unauthorised Encampments of the Gypsy/Traveller Community

¹⁰⁷ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 12 April 2005, cols 882, 883

¹⁰⁸ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 24 May 2005, col 968

¹⁰⁹ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 21 June 2005, col 1046

¹¹⁰ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 24 May 2005, col 960

¹¹¹ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 24 May 2005, col 970

¹¹² Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 24 May 2005, col 965

¹¹³ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 24 May 2005, col 970

¹¹⁴ ACPOS Operational Guidance for the Management of Unauthorised Encampments of the Gypsy/Traveller Community, Introduction, para 1.4

¹¹⁵ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 1 April 2005, col 871

¹¹⁶ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 24 May 2005, col 969

¹¹⁷ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 12 April 2005, col 886

¹¹⁸ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 12 April 2005, col 887

¹¹⁹ Save the Children, Written submission, para 9.4

¹²⁰ Having Our Say, A peer research project with young Gypsy/Travellers in Scotland 2005 (Save the Children)

¹²¹ Having Our Say, A peer research project with young Gypsy/Travellers in Scotland 2005 (Save the Children), section 2.8

¹²² Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 12 April 2005, col 887

¹²³ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 28 June 2005, col 1075

¹²⁴ Equal Opportunities Committee, Official Report, 21 June 2005, col 1026