The Scottish Government

The Strategic Group on Gypsies/Travellers

While progress has been made in public service provision for Gypsies/Travellers in recent years, there is more still to be done, as highlighted by the latest Inquiry of the Scottish Parliament's Equal Opportunities Committee.

That is why the Scottish Executive has set up a short life Gypsy/Traveller Strategic Group to examine specific issues highlighted by its recent Race Equality Review.

The ultimate aim of the Race Equality Review is a strategic action plan setting out what the Scottish Executive will do over the next three years to ensure equality for all and build a safe and cohesive Scotland. The work of the Gypsy/Traveller Strategic Group will feed into the wider Review.

The Group, which has been meeting regularly since October 2005, will consider issues of concern for Gypsies/Travellers and develop an action plan to enable the provision of more accessible, co-ordinated and good quality services.

First Meeting

Second Meeting

Third Meeting

First Meeting of the Strategic Group on Gypsies/Travellers, October 12th 2005 , Highlander House, Glasgow

Present: Chair: Johann Lamont, Deputy Minister for Communities

Lesley Irving, Scottish Executive Equality Unit

Fiona Campbell, Scottish Executive Equality Unit

Jon Owens, Scottish Executive Equality Unit

Helen Jones, Scottish Executive Social Housing, Strategy and Finance Division

Ron Ashton, Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA)

Chief Inspector Ian Bease, Association of Chief Police Constables in Scotland (ACPOS)

Dr. Rafik Gardee, National Resource Centre for Ethnic Minority (NRCEMH)

Karen Carrick, Save the Children

Dr. Pauline Padfield, Scottish Traveller Education Programme

Harriet Hall, Commission for Racial Equality

Mary Hendry, Gypsy/Traveller representative

Benny Wilson, Lochaber Routes

Martha Kennedy, Gypsy/Traveller representative

Shamus McPhee, Gypsy/Traveller representative (substituting for Roseanna

McPhee)

Jessie Wallace, Travellers Site Managers Association (TSMAS)

Apologies: Betty Jordan, Traveller Education Information Project (TEIP)

Fiona Townsley, Chair of Doubledykes Tenants Association, Perth & Kinross

Roseanna McPhee, Gypsy/Traveller representative

Assistant Chief Constable Allan Burnett, ACPOS

Introduction

The Deputy Minister thanked everyone for coming.

The Handheld Health Record

At the Deputy Minister's invitation, Martha Kennedy announced the official launch of the Handheld Health Record. Martha noted that multi agency training on how to use the Record would be essential, to ensure proper access was made available to associated services and information. Dr. Gardee explained that NRCEMH have a number of ideas in mind on how to distribute the records, and would discuss these with Gypsy/Traveller communities. A letter had been issued to Health Board Chief Executives.

The Deputy Minister noted that she was keen to meet at a later date with those involved in the production of the Handheld Health Record. It would be important to monitor how well the Handheld Health Record worked.

Background

The Deputy Minister explained that the Strategic Group was one of four set up to examine specific issues highlighted by the Race Equality Review. The ultimate aim of the Race Equality Review was a strategic action plan setting out what the Scottish Executive would do over the next three years to ensure equality for all and build a safe and cohesive Scotland. She emphasised that it will be important that the work of the Group both feeds into and is informed by other areas of the Review.

The Deputy Minister noted that good work had been done in public service provision for Gypsies/Travellers in recent years, but acknowledged that there was more still to be done. She expressed her hope that the Group would be productive and make a difference. Input from others would be valuable.

Remit of the Group

The Deputy Minister outlined the proposed remit of the Group, being "To consider issues of concern for Gypsies/Travellers, and develop an Action Plan to enable the provision of more accessible, co-ordinated and good quality services". The core remit was agreed with the proviso that further comments would be taken into account.

Monitoring of the Action Plan

It was agreed that consideration would have to be given as to how the Action Plan was to be monitored and by whom.

The Deputy Minister informed the members that she had recently met with key officials throughout the Executive to impress on them the need to be alert to the needs of Gypsies/Travellers in their policy areas. Once the Action Plan was prepared, she hoped to have a follow up meeting to discuss implementation.

Context of the Strategic Group's work

The Deputy Minister welcomed the Interim Report of the Scottish Parliament's Equal Opportunities Committee and noted that it set the context for the Group's work. She was keen to follow up on actions she had agreed to when appearing before the Committee in June. She suggested that the Committee's Convener, Cathy Peattie MSP, be invited to the next meeting to discuss the Report.

The Group's work was proceeding in parallel with Communities Scotland's follow up thematic inspection of local authority sites, due for completion in March 2006.

Issues to be Addressed by the Group

It was agreed that there was a need to address the following issues:

• Accommodation e.g. site funding and unauthorised camps
• Planning applications
• Access to employment
• Media reporting, public attitudes and relations with the settled community
• Relationships with the police
• Human rights issues and access to legal services
• Ethnic status
• Promotion of inclusive approaches to education
• Awareness raising, including the issue of resources for promoting Gypsy/Traveller culture e.g. museums, heritage centres

Specific Issues

The following issues were identified and it was agreed that they could be raised, along with other relevant issues which may arise, at the appropriate future meetings:

Site Improvement Grant

The level of take up of the 2005-06 grant was discussed. In response to a suggestion that local authorities were deliberately minimising their funding applications because they have to provide 25% match funding, it was explained that the reverse was true. Around 1 in 3 councils had submitted bids. COSLA too said that they had received positive feedback from local authorities.

A member asked if Gypsies/Travellers were being properly consulted on how the site improvement grants were being spent. Consultation with Gypsies/Travellers had been a prerequisite for grant awards.

It was suggested that there was a need to establish a list of traditional stopping places. The Deputy Minister asked if there are guidelines in place for defining what is a traditional stopping place.

The Deputy Minister noted that these issues would be discussed at a future meeting.

Unauthorised Encampments

There was concern that the Executive's guidelines could have resulted in sites that had been used for a number of years being classed as unauthorised encampments. There was also a view that the guidelines could infringe on the human rights of Gypsies/Travellers by suggesting that councils consider limiting the numbers of vehicles that can be assembled at an encampment, and setting out a code of behaviour at encampments.

The Deputy Minister expressed her hope that this difficult issue could be addressed at a future meeting. She noted that she had already acknowledged, when appearing before the Equal Opportunities Committee, a need for the Executive's guidelines to be placed in an appropriate context, and that standalone guidelines sent out an inappropriate message.

Ethnic Status

The lack of an officially recognised ethnic status for Scottish Gypsies/Travellers (as opposed to Irish Travellers and Roma) was raised. Racial status has always been determined by case law rather than by the race legislation itself. The CRE plan to take forward a case as part of their Gypsy/Traveller strategy.

The Deputy Minister agreed that the Group would return to this issue.

Education/Health

An informal group of local authority-designated teachers had been meeting to discuss inclusive education issues for Gypsies/Travellers. A suggestion had been made by the group that when the Handheld Health Record became available, a printout of the Phoenix pupil record could be inserted in the back of a child's Handheld Health Record. Dr Gardee welcomed this as an example of constructive partnership working. Dr. Padfield will attend the next meeting of the group.

Falkirk Council Education Department have a welcome pack for Gypsies/Travellers arriving on site that includes a record for documenting previous education. Their officials will also attend the meeting referred to above.

Planning

The Deputy Minister will highlight a need for Gypsy/Traveller views to be taken account of in subsequent Executive meetings about the White Paper on modernising the planning system. Issues relating to planning decisions will be considered at a future meeting.

Decision Making

The Group agreed that decisions should be agreed by consensus wherever possible. If consensus was not reached, then the majority view would be accepted, provided that alternative views would be represented.

Consultation

There was discussion about how the views of Gypsies/Travellers could be fed into the Group. The issues raised included:

• The role of agencies working with Gypsies/Travellers in speaking on behalf of Gypsies/Travellers
• The views of those who might otherwise be overlooked e.g. older Gypsies/Travellers.
• How to identify and consult with Gypsies/Travellers living in permanent accommodation in settled communities.
• The need for monitoring how policies are implemented in terms of adequate consultation with Gypsies/Travellers. CRE guidelines on this were not always being adhered to.

It was agreed that some method was required so that the diversity of views that existed across the country could be conveyed to the Group, and that one way of doing this could be to make the minutes and agenda widely available and for any views expressed in their regard to be fed back. The issue of promoting community participation would be discussed at a further meeting in more detail.

The Deputy Minister acknowledged the importance of the above points but reminded the Group that there was a need to distinguish between the process of drawing up an Action Plan - i.e. the work of the Strategic Group - and the recommendations it will contain. Effective consultation with Gypsies/Travellers would be an issue for the Action Plan itself, rather than the Strategic Group, to address.

It was suggested that a sub group be set up for young Gypsies/Travellers to consider in detail and devise a means of reporting those issues that were relevant to them. It was recognised that this would require a relaxed and informal environment. No final decision was made on how the sub group would operate or what its reporting mechanisms would be. It was also suggested that one young Gypsy/Traveller could be invited to participate regularly on the main Group, and that one of the meetings of the main Group should be devoted to issues affecting young Gypsies/Travellers.

Arrangements

The Deputy Minister noted earlier in the meeting that she would like to attend as many meetings as possible, and that Mondays would be most suitable for her. The meetings will take place on approximately a monthly basis.

The Group members were asked to confirm their contact details and indicate how they would like information relating to the meetings to be sent to them i.e. by email or by hard copy.

Group members were advised that travel expenses for meetings could be reclaimed.

The Deputy Minister confirmed that minutes of the Group meetings would be public information, as one of the aims of the Group was to encourage public discussion/dialogue.

Dates for the next meeting and minutes of the first meeting would be circulated as soon as possible.

It was noted that meetings in Glasgow and Edinburgh were awkward for those who had to travel a long distance, and it was agreed that venues further north such as Perth or Stirling would also be considered for future meetings.

Next Meeting

The Deputy Minister proposed that the agenda for the next meeting should be accommodation issues and the Equal Opportunities Committee report.

Conclusion

The Deputy Minister once again thanked everyone for attending.

Second Meeting of the Strategic Group on Gypsies/Travellers, November 21st 2005 , Carlton Hotel, Edinburgh

Present: Lesley Irving, Scottish Executive (Chair)

Fiona Campbell, Scottish Executive

Jon Owens, Scottish Executive

Helen Jones, Scottish Executive

Ian Fleming, Scottish Executive

Carolanne Quigley, Communities Scotland

Chief Inspector Ian Bease,

Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland (ACPOS)

Michelle Lloyd, Save the Children

Dr. Pauline Padfield, Scottish Traveller Education Programme

Harriet Hall, Commission for Racial Equality

Shamus McPhee, Gypsy/Traveller representative

Jessie Wallace, Travellers Site Managers Association (TSMAS)

Dave Simmers, Traveller Education Information Project (TEIP)

Apologies: Johann Lamont, Deputy Minister for Communities

Benny Wilson, Lochaber Routes

Martha Kennedy, Gypsy/Traveller representative

Mary Hendry, Gypsy/Traveller representative

Dr. Rafik Gardee, National Resource Centre for Ethnic Minority Health (NRCEMH)

Ron Ashton, Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA)

Fiona Townsley, Chair of Doubledykes Tenants Association, Perth & Kinross

Roseanna McPhee, Gypsy/Traveller representative

Assistant Chief Constable Allan Burnett, ACPOS

Introduction

1. The Chair thanked everyone for attending. Cathy Peattie MSP sent her apologies but would like to attend a future meeting subject to her commitments.

Minutes of the last meeting

2. Minutes of the last meeting were agreed.

Paper on Accommodation Issues

3. The Chair re-emphasised the importance of remaining focussed on national issues to feed into a national action plan, rather than issues specific to certain areas or individuals. Helen Jones was invited to present the paper on accommodation issues.

4. There had been a lot of changes in recent years with regard to accommodation issues affecting Gypsies/Travellers, but it was recognised that there was still some way to go. The figures contained in the paper were taken from the last Gypsy/Traveller Count. It was recognised that there was no one single source for estimating the numbers of Gypsies/Travellers. Occupancy of local authority sites was fairly static over the year but private sites varied from season to season.

5. The Housing Act 2001 introduced Local Housing Strategies. These required local authorities to consider housing need for the following five years and should have regard to equality issues, including Gypsy/Traveller needs. These were required to be submitted to the Executive in 2004. Communities Scotland had discussed individual strategies with the appropriate authority and stressed the need to tackle accommodation issues. The Act also established a single regulatory framework. Communities Scotland had conducted an inspection of local authority sites and was also conducting a follow-up study.

6. The Executive had made available additional funding for local authority sites. Almost £1 million was allocated for spend on 15 sites by March 2006. Bids for the next two years were to be submitted by the end of January 2006. Local authorities were required to demonstrate that they had consulted with Gypsies/Travellers and that the proposals were what the community wanted.

7. The Group agreed that Helen's paper was only a starting point for the Group's consideration of accommodation issues, and that it would be important to take into account the evidence presented to the Equal Opportunities Committee in 2005. It was suggested that there was a need for a radical rethink of accommodation issues.

Unauthorised Encampments

8. It was suggested that the Executive's 'Guidelines for Managing Unauthorised Encampments' violated the Framework Convention on Human Rights e.g. article 16 (evictions/expulsions) and article 7 (free assembly). Small encampments of less than 10 caravans were vulnerable to attack; there was safety in numbers. Small encampments also broke down the family unit.

9. The guidelines were intended to help local authorities and police draw up their own local strategies specific to the needs of their area. The guidelines had been issued in draft for consultation. There was some discussion over how effective the consultation process had been. It was claimed that several agencies had submitted responses which were not taken into account. Officials were of the opinion that all consultation responses had been given due consideration.

10. The Group wanted to know if use of the Executive's guidelines was being monitored, given the commitment made by the Deputy Minister for Communities, during her appearance before the Equal Opportunities Committee, to recognise the need for the Executive's guidelines to be placed in an appropriate context.

11. Officials agreed to write to local authorities to ask what action was being taken to devise their own strategies for managing unauthorised encampments as the Executive guidelines recommended. The Group agreed that as a part of this process it would also be desirable to consult with Gypsies/Travellers.

12. The Group agreed that Gypsies/Travellers should also be consulted about councils' strategies for managing unauthorised encampments, and that an agency could possibly be commissioned to do this.

Site Grant Scheme

13. The conditions of the site development grant specified that local authorities must consult with Gypsies/Travellers in preparing their bids. Members of the Group wanted to know how this consultation would be monitored. It was explained that local authorities were expected to state in their applications how Gypsies/Travellers were consulted. However, concern was expressed that the money will be spent on local authority priorities for their official sites, rather than what is really needed. It will be important that the money is spent according to needs.

14. Responsibility for all housing needs assessments lies with local authorities, under the 2001 Act. It was pointed out however that the terminology employed in the Act is all about "housing" and that it is important that local authorities consider a range of accommodation needs and other associated needs such as access to health and education.

15. The terms of the new site development grant were queried, specifically the requirement that planning permission was required to have been granted. The former DD grant scheme had awarded outline funding prior to planning permission being received; the time taken to obtain permission meant that spending was often delayed. The Executive now wanted to ensure that funding was spent and projects were not delayed.

16. The question was raised as to the long term sustainability of funding. The Executive had taken an opportunity to provide funding through the site grant. However, local authorities also have a responsibility to consider funding requirements although it was acknowledged that local authorities had not been proactive in doing so during the five years between the 100% grant winding up and the introduction of the new grant. The Group was reminded that funding post-2008 (when the current scheme runs out) should not be ruled out, and that the Group might want to consider making this one of its recommendations.

17. It was suggested that there was a need for a social partnership for Gypsies/Travellers so that they are able to apply directly for government site funding.

The Twice Yearly Gypsy/Traveller Count

18. Several members of the Group claimed that the Count grossly underestimated the total Gypsy/Traveller population of Scotland. There was also concern that the conducting of the count could be racist as no other group was monitored in this way. A differing view was put forward suggesting that the Count was required to provide an understanding of numbers within the community so that appropriate services could be provided. The Census provided information about other minority ethnic groups but did not yet cover Gypsies/Travellers. A question on Gypsy/Traveller status would be added to the 2006 test Census but it was recognised that individuals were not always willing to self-identify.

19. There was a suggestion that to become more complete the twice yearly Count should include members of the settled community and those on unauthorised and private sites as well as local authority sites. It was suggested that TEIP might wish to consider the practicalities of arranging for a count of Gypsy/Traveller members of the settled community.

20. It was noted that Gypsies/Travellers should be consulted about this idea.

Planning Permission and the definition of a 'mobile home'

21. There was some discussion about issues relating to mobile homes/residential units and planning permission. Reference was made to a site at Luncarty in Perthshire, and Secretariat agreed to try to find out more about this case. In order to clarify local authority's policies on planning permission for mobile homes/residential units on sites, it was agreed that TSMAS would consult with site managers at their next meeting and report back to the Group and that a question would be placed in the Communities Scotland survey of local authorities asking them to outline their policy on planning permission for mobile homes/residential units.

Transit Sites

22. It was suggested that provision of accommodation is the key to the issues that affect Gypsies/Travellers. A network of transit sites - comprising basic facilities such as a portaloo, water supply and rubbish collection - would be a possible solution, to counter the need for formal local authority site management. Experience to date suggested that obtaining planning permission for such sites was extremely difficult because of opposition from local residents and media. Aberdeen and Edinburgh were cited as two local authorities who wanted to develop transit sites but couldn't identify land.

23. In Aberdeenshire and Moray, where transit sites are being considered, private landowners and the Forestry Commission were being approached. It was noted that the Scottish Landowners Federation may have a view on private land provision and any problems in releasing up land. Dave Simmers agreed to draft a letter to the Scottish Landowners Federation.

24. Another option suggested by TEIP was that of 'set aside land' where farmers were paid to set land aside. This proposal could be pursued with Executive officials in Environment and Rural Affairs Department. Already in Fife, a group of farmers are going to attend the next meeting of a Gypsy/Traveller group to discuss a proposal.

25. It was suggested that more money is needed for transit sites rather than permanent sites, and for a national needs assessment based on the evidence presented to the Equal Opportunities Committee during its recent Inquiry. It was agreed that consideration could be given to recommending a range of pilots for different models of accommodation.

26. The question was raised as to what would happen if some Gypsies/Travellers remained on transit sites on a permanent basis. It was questioned whether there would be any problem in Gypsies/Travellers doing so, if they were living effectively.

27. Concern was raised about an over-reliance on the concept of transit sites, as accommodation policy should not just be about keeping Gypsies/Travellers on the move. If transit site provision lapsed, it could force Gypsies/Travellers back into settled housing.

28. It was noted that research would issue soon on models of Gypsy/Traveller accommodation in Ireland, such as group housing. The Communities Scotland official present agreed to find out when the research was due. A member of the Group had already done some personal research on this subject, and noted that there were a number of group housing projects in Ireland but that they didn't cater for Gypsy/Traveller needs. The member reported that the Irish government had consulted with Gypsies/Travellers. Allegedly the feedback was not put into effect as the recommendations were considered too expensive; also because the Irish government had recently stated that it did not recognise the ethnic status of Irish Travellers and was therefore reluctant to invest money in sites. The member stated that he would try to find out more about why the Irish government had refused to invest more money.

Awareness Raising

29. There was concern that there was a culture of ignoring Gypsy/Traveller issues. There was an underlying issue of prejudice which needed to be tackled. There was no real balance between the needs of Gypsies/Travellers and the wider community. One member suggested that government funding was needed for a Gypsy/Traveller-led national awareness raising group.

30. Although it was agreed that changing attitudes is a long term goal, it was also suggested that there were existing examples of good practice which could be rolled out nationally; that there was a need for the Executive to show leadership; and that there was a need for racial diversity training for public service providers, including an awareness raising package, to change attitudes but also to seek institutional, structural change.

31. It was noted that there was a need to make Gypsies/Travellers more aware of their rights, and what they can do to challenge their predicament. The CRE, among others, acknowledged that it had a key role to play in raising political awareness and educating the public, whilst Scottish Executive Ministers would likewise be happy to endorse the final agreed recommendations of the Group.

Consultation with Gypsies/Travellers

32. It was noted that Communities Scotland would have to demonstrate that it was consulting with Gypsies/Travellers during its latest Thematic Inspection, and the methods by which that consultation was carried out.

33. It was suggested that a checklist of consultation good practice could be drawn up. The Executive had published 'Good Practice Guidelines' but this applied to Scottish Executive consultations. Another document entitled 'Make Consultation Work' was also cited by a member, who thought it had been recently published.

34. It was suggested that consultation with Gypsies/Travellers must be conducted differently to conventional consultation in order to be effective. Dave Simmers offered to write up what the characteristics of such 'effective consultation' could be. The work of TEIP involved consulting with Gypsies/Travellers when and where local authorities wanted them to, whether it be on sites, settled housing etc.

35. Alternative methods of consultation were discussed. It was suggested that employing a combination of methods is the best way to consult with Gypsies/Travellers.

36. It was suggested that a key problem was that the majority of areas in the country don't have Gypsy/Traveller representative groups to consult with. It was noted that it was essential to engage with Gypsies/Travellers and persuade them that the information elicited from them would be used for positive reasons.

Local authority pitch allocations

37. It was noted that many local authorities were still operating a 'date order' system of allocations rather than a system based on need. The Communities Scotland thematic inspection was considering the issue of allocations. A report was due in March 2006, presenting a national picture of progress since 2002, and might include recommendations on this subject. It was agreed that the report of the Strategic Group could also consider the Communities Scotland report in making its own recommendations. It was clarified that the Communities Scotland report will go to all local authorities. The Communities Scotland report would identify good and bad practice.

38. It was pointed out that the Communities Scotland report would only look at local authority sites, and that the Group could consider recommending that private sites should also be inspected.

39. It was also suggested that a list of names of private sites be drawn up. The Executive indicated that it would be willing to approach local authorities for this information. However, previous experience of the former Advisory Committee on Gypsies/Travellers was that many private site owners did not want to be identified.

Traditional stopping places

40. The last meeting of the Scottish Gypsy/Traveller Law Reform Coalition raised the idea of a charter of traditional stopping places. It was suggested that some traditional stopping places could be protected as cultural heritage sites under the Land Reform Act 2003.

41. In Grampian, boulders were put down by the local authorities to stop Gypsies/Travellers accessing more discreet areas, forcing them into high profile areas which bring them into conflict with local communities. It was suggested that this practice of blocking access with boulders was racist, since it forced Gypsies/Travellers to stay on the move. The practice had allegedly begun as a result of isolated incidents associated with particular stopping places, but became a 'knee-jerk' reaction to any Gypsy/Traveller roadside encampments, even though 90% of encampments within the Grampian area, it was claimed, did not cause problems.

42. It was noted that local authorities are expected to record where roadside encampments have been; how long they have stopped; if any complaints were logged; and why the boulders were put down.

Argyll and Bute Council Housing Stock Transfer (HST)

43. A Group member had attended a recent multi agency meeting on the proposed Housing Stock Transfer. The three local Gypsy/Traveller sites had not been considered. The Council subsequently said that management of the site would transfer to the HST management, but that residents wouldn't have a vote. This was cited as a prime example of failure to consult with Gypsies/Travellers. Argyll and Bute was one of the case studies being undertaken for Communities Scotland's Thematic Inspection.

44. It was noted that in the other three areas in Scotland where HST was taking place, the local authority was retaining responsibility for its sites.

45. This issue would be raised with the Communities Ownership team in Communities Scotland. There was a need to clarify whether Gypsy/Traveller sites should stay with the local authority or go to the new landlord. TEIP suggested that Gypsy/Traveller sites should be distinct from Council housing stock because they have different requirements.

46. The Group agreed that the fundamental point was that Gypsies/Travellers should be consulted on the transfer.

Gypsy/Traveller Representation on the Strategic Group

47. Concern was expressed about the limited Gypsy/Traveller representation on the Group, and asked if the membership could be widened. The question then arose as to how this could be done on an equitable basis, and also how it could be ensured that there would be useful input from those invited to participate.

48. It was suggested that one approach - in combination with others - would be for 2 or 3 members to be nominated at the next Scottish Gypsy/Traveller Law Reform Coalition meeting. Another suggestion was that the participation of somebody who had never been involved before would be useful, in order to get a fresh perspective.

49. Officials were also concerned that members of the community had not been able to attend this meeting. They proposed that members would be contacted to find out whether there was anything the Executive could do to facilitate attendance. Gypsy/Traveller representatives could also be asked to nominate an alternative attendee in order to ensure that a greater number of representatives could attend meetings. Subject to the outcome of these discussions, consideration would be given to widening membership.

50. It was suggested there was a need for a national Gypsy/Traveller group. However this was contested by another member of the Group who argued that it was not a practical idea, since many Gypsies/Travellers disagreed on who were Gypsies/Travellers. The Chair acknowledged that the Group had different views on this issue.

Travel Costs

51. Save the Children indicated a willingness to cover costs upfront for those Gypsy/Traveller members of the Group who found it difficult to attend meetings and then claim costs afterwards.

Summary

52. The Group agreed that the Secretariat should frame the issues discussed at the meetings into a list of recommendations to be cleared by the Group at the next meeting.

53. The dates of the next meetings were agreed for :

· Monday 19th December at 2pm in Glasgow [subsequently cancelled]

· 16th January in Perth or Stirling - to discuss planning issues

· 13th February in Edinburgh - to discuss relations with the police

· 13th March in Glasgow

Minutes of Third Gypsy/Traveller Strategic Group Meeting

16th January 2006 , Stirling

Present: Lesley Irving, Scottish Executive (Chair)

Jon Owens, Scottish Executive

Helen Jones, Scottish Executive

David Reekie, Scottish Executive

Carolanne Quigley, Communities Scotland

Dr. Pauline Padfield, Scottish Traveller Education Programme (STEP)

Jessie Wallace, Travellers Site Managers Association (TSMAS)

Shamus McPhee, Gypsy/Traveller representative

Ron Ashton, Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA)

Mary Hendry, Gypsy/Traveller representative

Michelle Lloyd, Save the Children

Dr. Rafik Gardee,

National Resource Centre for Ethnic Minority Health (NRCEMH)

Dave Simmers, Traveller Education Information Project (TEIP)

Benny Wilson, Lochaber Routes

Chief Inspector Ian Bease,

Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland (ACPOS)

Martha Kennedy, Gypsy/Traveller representative

Harriet Hall, Commission for Racial Equality

Apologies: Johann Lamont, Deputy Minister for Communities

Assistant Chief Constable Allan Burnett,

Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland

Fiona Townsley, Chair of Doubledykes Tenants Association

Welcome and Introductions

1. The Chair welcomed all to the meeting. Apologies were sent from Johann Lamont and Cathy Peattie MSP, Convener of the Equal Opportunities Committee (EOC). Ms Peattie felt that it was possibly not a constructive use of the Group's time, now that its work had commenced, for her to give a presentation on the EOC interim report, but was happy to attend a future meeting if the Group wished, subject to her diary commitments.

2. The Group felt that as the EOC had not yet published its final report, it would be of mutual benefit to the Group and the EOC if Ms Peattie or a representative was to attend a future meeting. The Group agreed that Ms Peattie should be invited to the 5th meeting on March 13th.

3. The Group agreed that it had not yet directly addressed the recommendations of the EOC interim report, and the Chair noted that in subsequent meetings the Group would focus on the EOC recommendations relevant to the themes of each meeting, and that the relevant recommendations would be sent out with the meeting papers.

Minutes of the 2nd Meeting

4. It was agreed that the following points had been raised at the second meeting but not included in the minutes:

• That the Group had not yet directly addressed the recommendations of the EOC.
• That there was a need for the Group to consider radical solutions.
• That the sentence "Officials agreed to write to local authorities to ask what action was being taken to devise their own strategies for managing unauthorised encampments as the Executive guidelines recommended." should be followed by "the Group agreed that as a part of this process it would also be desirable to consult with Gypsies/Travellers ". However the Group could not agree on how Gypsies/Travellers affected by the guidelines might be contacted.
• That there was inconsistency in the minutes regarding the attribution of comments to members: sometimes named, sometimes not. The Group agreed that it would like to see more consistency, and wherever possible for a point raised by individual members to be reflected in the minutes as having been endorsed/echoed by other members of the Group if this had been the case.
• That there were mixed views about the Gypsy/Traveller Count and that the Group had agreed to discuss the issue further when there were more Gypsy/Traveller representatives on the Group.
• That the phrase "TEIP might wish to consider the practicalities of arranging for a count of Gypsies/Travellers in settled housing on a pilot basis covering only the north east area of the country" should be amended to read "TEIP might wish to consider the practicalities of arranging for a count of Gypsy/Traveller members of the settled community."
• That the phrase "Traveller Law Reform Coalition" should be amended to read "Scottish Gypsy/Traveller Law Reform Coalition".
• That the phrase "The CRE acknowledged that it had a key role to play in raising political awareness and educating the public" should be altered to read "The CRE, among others, acknowledged that it had a key role to play in raising political awareness and educating the public" as being a more accurate reflection of the context in which the original comment had been made and what the Group had understood by it.
• That the phrase "Save the Children indicated a willingness to cover costs upfront for those members of the Group who found it difficult to attend meetings and then claim costs afterwards" should be amended to specify "those Gypsy/Traveller members of the Group"

The Secretariat agreed to revise the minutes accordingly.

Matters Arising

Consultation:

5. The efficacy of the consultation procedure for the draft guidelines on managing unauthorised encampments was discussed and several suggestions were put forward for improving upon existing consultation procedure with Gypsies/Travellers in future:

• The Chair noted that a checklist of consultation good practice was one of the recommendations.
• The Group agreed that it was not always practical for Gypsies/Travellers to submit written responses to consultations and that public consultation meetings were a possible alternative. The Group agreed that organisations like TEIP needed to be replicated in other areas, so that they could get out to Gypsies/Travellers and engage with them.
• The Group agreed that there was a growing number of organisations engaging with Gypsies/Travellers and that these efforts needed to be harnessed.
• The Group agreed on the need for a mapping exercise to identify areas that didn't have representation.
• The Group agreed on the need to think of innovative ways of consulting with Gypsies/Travellers appropriate to their unique circumstances and requirements; it was agreed that a combination of methods should be considered.
• The Group agreed on the need for capacity building within Gypsy/Traveller communities, so that addressing Gypsy/Traveller needs would not always have to be about consultation and could instead involve more proactivity on the part of Gypsies/Travellers themselves. The Chair noted that the Executive's new race equality and community integration fund would incorporate capacity building as an objective.

Health Needs Assessment:

6. The Group was informed that the National Resource Centre for Ethnic Minority Health (NRCEMH) had organised special events for Gypsies/Travellers, designed to be fun but also to convey a serious health message. The first part of the pilot assessment would be out soon and Dr. Gardee agreed to send an outline of its methodology to the Group. The Chair agreed to circulate the methodology with the minutes of the third meeting

Argyll and Bute Housing Stock Transfer:

7. The Group was informed that Argyll & Bute Council had confirmed that Gypsies/Travellers were not included in the ballot because they did not have secure tenancies. The Group heard evidence from two of its members who had visited Gypsy/Traveller local authority sites in Argyll & Bute. The members felt on the basis of these visits that the consultation with Gypsies/Travellers on the sites - besides being too late as the decision had already been made - had also been inadequate and misleading in terms of what the site residents thought they were being asked to comment on.

8. The Group was unanimous in strongly condemning on moral grounds the lack of consultation with Gypsies/Travellers prior to the housing stock transfer; however Executive officials were of the opinion that the council had not acted illegally.

9. The Group discussed a range of issues around the inclusion of Gypsy/Traveller sites in housing transfers. The Group agreed that it was essential for local authorities to consult with Gypsy/Traveller tenants on their sites. It was noted that up till now local authorities had retained responsibility for sites.

10. The Chair noted that an unfortunate precedent had been set by Argyll & Bute Council for how Gypsy/Traveller sites could be dealt with in Housing Stock Transfers, given that up till now local authorities had retained responsibility for sites.

11. The Group was informed that the Communities Scotland registration team that registers new housing associations was currently doing a risk assessment of the proposed new landlord in Argyll and Bute- ACHA.

12. It was agreed that Communities Scotland officials should try to find out if the Gypsy/Traveller sites were incorporated in the ACHA business case or whether they were a last minute add-on.

13. It was agreed that the secretariat should write, on behalf of the Group, to Argyll & Bute Council to ask what their plans were for their Gypsy/Traveller sites, and to seek clarification from the Council as to whether or not its consultation procedure had been compatible with its obligations under race equality legislation to promote race equality.

Gypsy/Traveller Representation on the Group:

14. The Chair informed the Group that Fiona Townsley had indicated that she might have to withdraw from the Strategic Group due to other work commitments relating to the Doubledykes Tenants Association. The Group agreed that an alternative to Fiona Townsley would be found if Fiona was unable to come to future meetings. The Chair would also invite recommendations from members of the Group.

15. It was noted that there was still no Gypsy/Traveller representation on the Group from the south west region of Scotland.

16. It was suggested that Gypsies/Travellers in South Lanarkshire who had done awareness raising training sessions at the police training college in Tulliallan should be invited to the next meeting.

17. The Chair endorsed this and suggested that six to eight Gypsy/Traveller representatives would be an appropriate number for the next meeting. It was reiterated that those Gypsies/Travellers currently participating in the Group had been asked to do so because they had some kind of representative status within the Gypsy/Traveller communities.

18. The Group agreed relevant Gypsies/Travellers could be considered for each meeting and that the Secretariat should be notified of any suggested names in advance of each meeting.

Scheduling of meetings:

19. The Chair asked the Group if they wished to consider rescheduling the meetings so that they would take place every six weeks instead of every 4 weeks, as the latter was proving to be a very tight schedule. The Group agreed that it would like to stick to the 4 week schedule, given the Deputy Minister was already signed up for the next two meetings.

20. The Chair agreed therefore that the Group would stick to monthly meetings in Feb, March, April and May as scheduled, with some flexibility towards the latter end of the schedule.

Other Issues -

Awareness Raising Training:

21. The Chair asked members of the Group involved with the NRCEMH's awareness training to update the rest of the Group on the project's progress. Dr. Gardee invited those Gypsies/Travellers present who had been involved in planning and providing the training to speak about it. They explained that two dates had been agreed for pilot awareness raising on 14th February in the Highlands, and 17th February in Glasgow [Note - the second date and venue was subsequently changed]. They were currently considering who to invite to the meetings. Progress was being made, and materials had been agreed. Dr. Gardee noted that he was encouraged by the co-operation of those involved in the project. They had invited approximately 40 people to be trainers from all round Scotland.

22. It was noted that awareness raising had been done in the past around Scotland, and that on such occasions those who attended the events had always asked if there would be any kind of follow up. It was suggested that funding from the Executive should be made available to allow NRCEMH to follow up on its awareness raising work. Dr Gardee then explained that thirty eight inter-disciplinary sessions throughout Scotland would follow the two pilots. These would be assessed by NRCEMH. Dr. Gardee expressed his hope that the Executive would see the value of the exercise and that something positive could emerge from it.

23. It was also noted that the awareness training employed for the NRCEMH project was a tried and tested method, which is why progress had been made. The number of Gypsies/Travellers willing to participate had also been a factor. But other sectors of society - e.g. the media - were not being targeted in the way that NRCEMH is targeting the NHS. The Group agreed that awareness raising needed to be extended.

Negative Media Reporting:

24. The Group discussed several examples of negative media reporting and stereotyping of Gypsies/Travellers, particularly in the north east of Scotland. The remit for investigation of the media belonged to the Press Complaints Commission, and the Group queried how effective this body was, given that it was essentially self-regulation by the Press. The Chair noted that similar issues had been encountered by those working to tackle negative media portrayal of asylum seekers and refugees. The Group agreed there was a need to look at the issue of awareness raising regarding the media. The Chair noted that this issue was also being considered by the Executive through its 'One Scotland. Many Cultures' campaign. The Group was also informed that STEP would be willing to follow up on any complaints about negative media reporting.

Recommendations from the 2nd Meeting

25. The Chair asked for comments on the draft recommendations. The Group wanted to know why only three were chosen out of all the issues discussed at the meeting. The Chair explained that it was necessary to avoid producing a Plan containing too many unrealisable actions. There was a need to focus on what was achievable.

26. The Chair cited the example of the Scottish Refugee Integration Action Plan supporting document, which contained all the issues that were discussed by the Forum which didn't go into the final Action Plan. Something similar could be done for the Gypsy/Traveller Strategic Group outcomes, with the Action Plan itself focussing on immediate priorities.

27. It was suggested that recommendations from each meeting could be listed and a top three prioritised. The Secretariat agreed to maintain a comprehensive list of the Group's ideas, and that a total list of ideas from the 2nd and 3rd meetings should be drawn up and sent out to the Group. It was agreed that this approach was important, so that ideas would not be forgotten.

28. The Group was asked to look at the second draft recommendation drawn up from the previous meeting: "A national 'models of accommodation' needs assessment should be undertaken and a range of different models of accommodation should be piloted." It was noted that it was important to make a distinction between 'needs assessment' and 'models of accommodation', and that 'needs assessment should' come before 'models of accommodation'.

29. The Group was also informed that the Executive would be unable to both fund a pilot 'models of accommodation' assessment and extend the site grant scheme beyond 2008. The Group agreed that existing information should therefore be used to assess accommodation models.

30. A member noted the need to avoid duplication of work, and suggested that the priority should be a pot of money that could fund a particular model of accommodation if a case was made for that model.

Planning Paperx

31. The Chair invited David Reekie to present the paper on planning issues.

David noted that the starting point for his paper was recommendation 10 of the Equal Opportunities Committee Inquiry. This had been addressed by Scottish Planning Policy 3 (SPP3) which states that local authorities are expected to take Gypsy/Traveller needs into account in their development plans. In June 2005, a White Paper was published on modernising the Planning System and increasing its transparency. The Bill was introduced to Parliament on 20th December 2005. The first stage would be an evidence collecting stage. Under the current system, all local authorities were expected to produce an up to date development plan setting out what they saw as their priorities and future needs, and designating suitable land. However this system was not working. Some plans were more than 10 years old. So the intention would be to introduce a statutory duty to update the plans every 5 years. This would allow Gypsies/Travellers to update their comments to local authorities and ensure they were represented in the Plan.

32. The Bill proposed a range of measures to ensure local authority engagement with interested parties. Firstly, they would have to draw up a consultation timetable outlining who they intended to consult and how they intended to undertake the consultation. This timetable would be updated each year. Secondly, they would be required to demonstrate that the consultation statement reflects local interests, and how they met consultation needs.

33. David also noted that the Executive was working on a planning consultation advice good practice note, and that a standard planning application form was being introduced, which would be available in other formats and online.

34. The way in which local authorities publicised their information would also be standardised, and the Executive would review local authority planning enquiry processes (the Local Public Enquiry and the Public Local Enquiry) to try to encourage a less formal approach.

35. The Group was informed that Planning Aid for Scotland - a free advice service for anyone seeking advice on planning services - was receiving Executive funding of £100,000 per year up to 2006/07. One of their roles was to educate community groups, and it was suggested that Gypsies/Travellers could take advantage of this.

Discussion of Planning Issues

36. David noted that identifying a potential site in the new planning process would be the responsibility of the local authority, which would in its Development Plan have to identify uses for areas of land. Where the local authority identified a need for Gypsy/Traveller accommodation, it would then have to identify an area suitable for that site. Once an area in the Development Plan was designated as a site suitable for a Gypsy/Traveller site then it would expected to be used for that purpose. This would not lead automatically to Planning Permission, which would require assessment of the case in greater detail.

37. With regard to a query raised about landfill sites, the Group was told that a requirement under existing regulations was that the polluter was supposed to clean up the land (or the local authority if the polluter could not be identified). But the proposed statutory consultees - SEPA; Scottish Water; Scottish National Heritage - would have to be consulted by the local authority drawing up its plans, and those consultees would be expected to rule out unsuitable areas.

38. Martha referred to a particular case (Dumbarton) where the council had offered a site on landfill. David would forward copies of the guidance on contaminated land.

39. It was suggested that public consultation might have an adverse effect, as the majority of respondents would not be sympathetic to Gypsies/Travellers. David reiterated that local authorities had a duty to find land for Gypsies/Travellers. Under the proposed new system, where there were unresolved objections there would be a statutory requirement for an independent inquiry by a Reporter appointed by SEIRU (Scottish Executive Inquiry Reporter's Unit). The local authority would have to accept the Reporter's recommendations, unless there were exceptional circumstances.

40. David went on to explain how the new proposals would affect planning for private sites. If someone was going to buy a section of land, it would be for them to find out from the relevant planning authority what uses were set out for that land in its Development Plan and evaluate if his/her own plan would satisfy the criteria. There might be exceptional circumstances where an application for a different use for the land would be approved but the assumption would be that such cases would usually not be approved. The process of submitting a planning application would not be greatly changed.

41. David was asked how the new system would differ from the old in terms of lodging a complaint, objections to planning decisions, and ensuring that consultation would have an effect.

42. David replied that the current procedure was that the local authority should consider all objections, then decide whether to act on them or not. He acknowledged that this was an issue. In the new system, when objections could not be resolved, an independent Reporter would look at the case. Also, when a local authority made a planning decision, they would have to explain how they made their decision. Whilst this information could potentially be obtained currently under the Freedom of Information Act, under the proposed changes, planning authorities would be required to issue it as a matter of routine.

43. The Group welcomed the proposed new measures, but was concerned that the planning system would still not be separate from the political process. The Group felt that as long as planning applications were dealt with at a local level - even with an independent examiner - then NIMBYism would prevail. Members of the Group wanted to see a lead from central government on planning issues, and appealed to the Executive to take responsibility at national level and to make sites for Gypsies/Travellers a statutory requirement.

44. A member of the Group took issue with the claim that Executive had, through SPP3, implemented recommendation 10 of the original EOC Inquiry Report, since local authorities were only "expected" - not 'required' - to identify sites. The member cited research in recent years which had established that over 49% of Gypsy/Traveller applications were turned down. Another member underlined the impossibility of identifying land for transit sites which would meet planning requirements.

45. The Group was informed that the forthcoming Executive planning guidance would address how to engage with Gypsies/Travellers, and if possible provide examples of best practice. It was agreed that the guidance would take the Group recommendations into consideration. David noted that he had been made aware by attending this meeting that there were no national Gypsy/Traveller bodies to consult with and that therefore Gypsies/Travellers would need to be consulted on a local level.

46. David agreed to pass on relevant contact details for Planning Aid Scotland to Michelle Lloyd and Pauline Padfield, who wished to discuss some awareness raising proposals with them. A member reported that Planning Aid were considering a research project looking at ethnic minorities including Gypsies/Travellers, and the planning process, and that they might put in a bid to the Scottish Executive. David agreed to check if they had put in a bid.

47. David was asked what would happen if Gypsies/Travellers refused to decamp from a site that was not identified by the Development Plan. He replied that people would need to come forward at the Development Plan stage to identify accommodation needs. Also, the local authority would be required to explain any planning decision it made.

48. Earlier concerns were reiterated that the Planning Bill might have an adverse effect on Gypsies/Travellers in terms of the potentially negative consequences of consultation with the public. A member wanted to know how many planning authorities had actually received race relations training. A CRE scrutiny exercise would be published in February, covering England & Wales. Planning was one of the areas that created most tension between Gypsies/Travellers and the settled community; therefore it was a key race relations issue to which individual local authorities should give consideration.

49. It was explained to the Group that the Executive did not hold centrally figures on how many planning applications from different groups in the community were accepted/rejected. The Group noted that such data could be important, to indicate where discrimination was taking place. A member reminded the Group that the Equal Opportunities Committee had recorded disappointment at the slow rate of progress around recommendation 10 of its Report, and called for the Executive to show leadership. Until councillors and decision makers really understood the issues around Gypsies/Travellers, there would not be any progress, and Gypsies/Travellers would continue to be discriminated against in planning.

50. The Group agreed that there would always be a degree of NIMBYism, even if statutory regulations were laid down, and that other minority groups also suffered discrimination; therefore there was a need to work on changing public attitudes.

51. The Group was reminded that there were existing duties to promote race relations under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act. A member wanted to know how much the Royal Town Planning Institute Guidance had been picked up by local authorities in understanding their duties under race relations legislation.

52. Research done by Planning Exchange several years ago was discussed, on attitudes pre- and post-planning applications. Those who were opposed 'pre-'often reversed their attitude 'post-'.

53. In respect of the 5 year development plan proposed by the Bill, the Group wanted to know who would require local authorities to make their decision making process public, and who would ask them to explain how they reached their decisions? David would report back to the Group on whether this would be a statutory requirement.

54. Family-specific site provision was discussed and the Group was asked for its views. . Another member pointed out that although in principle, local authority sites were open to anyone, in practice most local authority sites basically played host to one Gypsy/Traveller family. It was noted that this practice was nevertheless not fair, as some Gypsy/Traveller families were unable to live on the sites they wanted to. There was speculation that if a local authority were, for example, to build a new permanent site with 15 pitches, it would be very hard to say it could only be available to one family, and it might lead to trouble. A counter view was expressed that Gypsies/Travellers self-regulated the issue, and that local authorities therefore didn't need to explicitly state that sites were for one family only. The majority of the Group agreed that more money should therefore be made available for Gypsies/Travellers to apply for sites and that it was necessary to help Gypsies/Travellers help themselves by making the planning system easier, planning permission being the main obstacle.

55. A member suggested that Gypsy/Traveller families needed to form a Housing Association or otherwise, unless they could get RSL status, funding would not be diverted to them.

56. It was noted that in England, a major issue had been Gypsies/Travellers buying land and applying for retrospective planning permission, yet this did not seem to be happening in Scotland. A possible reason was that Gypsies/Travellers in Scotland had observed the difficulties that arose in England, or that Gypsies/Travellers in Scotland who had bought land had assessed the planning system more carefully. The Group was reminded that under planning legislation, if an unauthorised site was occupied continuously for a certain period of time and was not subject to any enforcement action, it might be deemed to have planning permission.

57. It was agreed that Gypsies/Travellers needed to inform those drafting the legislation and that there should be a dialogue between Gypsies/Travellers and local authorities.

58. Executive officials were asked to clarify what would be the remedy if a local authority wasn't willing to refurbish an existing site. Officials replied that the residents would have the option of going to the Public Services Ombudsman.

59. It was pointed out that this was a legal situation between tenant and landlord. The Chair reminded the Group that the Executive and COSLA representatives present had offered to help members address any issues relating to specific sites, and that this could be done outwith the Group.

Recommendations

60. The Chair asked the Group to consider recommendations from the meeting. Suggestions were:

• That planning had to be made simpler and easier and to ensure that Gypsies/Travellers could benefit from positive action wherever possible.

• That planning decisions needed to be free of politicians at the local level; that the Executive should consider passing legislation to enable this; and that the Executive needed to take the lead in providing clear guidance to planning authorities.

• That training should be provided for planning authorities so as to make them aware of their obligations under Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 and of how to deal with racist representations.

• That research into the number of positive and negative decisions be broken down further into ethnic classifications by local authorities and that the data be collated centrally by the Executive, in compliance with duties under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act and established precedents such as education authorities collation of ethnic data in response to the Stephen Lawrence case.

• That the Group should propose to Planning Aid that they devise a Toolkit for flagging up issues relating to Gypsies/Travellers.

• That local authority Development Plans should be studied to see how many Gypsy/Traveller issues had been brought from the Local Housing Strategies into the Development Plans.

The Chair thanked everyone for attending and contributing to a very useful discussion.

Issues for Next Meeting

61. The Chair noted that the fourth meeting would be on Monday 13th February in Edinburgh, and would focus on relations with the police.

Dates for Subsequent Meetings

62. The fifth meeting would be March 13th. The Chair proposed that the sixth meeting be in April, and asked members to come with diaries to the next meeting.