Twentieth century policies affecting Gypsy/Traveller communities in Scotland: archival research

7. The Police

Introduction

The structure of the police force at any specific point in time had a differential impact on how the law was enforced and, in turn, how Gypsy/Traveller communities in Scotland were policed. For much of the past two centuries, police enforcement in Scotland was largely decentralised until 2013 when Police Scotland was formed. In 1859, there were 89 separate police forces, and by 1959 this had declined to 33. Until 1975, when eight regional police authorities were formed in Scotland, cities and counties maintained their own constabularies, which had oversight of those parts of the country considered too rural and remote to form their own. This was the case for parts of the Highlands and Islands, which came under the direction of the county constabularies of Caithness, Sutherland, and Inverness.^[338] Taken together, while the police cannot be consistently viewed and analysed in its post-2013 centralised form, the collected documentation suggests that the police, whether as constabularies or regional police authorities, played a multi-faceted role in 20th century policies impacting Gypsy/Traveller communities in Scotland. They upheld the legislation that the national government put in place, enforced local authority byelaws, and acted as key informants for the national government (Scottish Office) and local authorities in the surveillance of Gypsy/Traveller communities.^[339] Our research found witness statements that members of the police force made to government committees, which demonstrated their role in monitoring Gypsy/Traveller communities in Scotland. Following an examination and analysis of the evidence there are three roles that the police played that this report would specifically highlight.

Monitoring and Enforcement over Sites and Children

“Chairman: Is it possible, in your view, if machinery were provided, to improve the position of tinkers in Scotland, and, perhaps, gradually to abolish tinkerdom?

Chief Constable: I should think that the easiest way to deal with that would be to deal with the children…^[340]”

First, there are a significant number of instances within the archival materials of police visiting and monitoring Gypsy/Traveller sites, Gypsy/Traveller mobility, and educational provision.^[341] With evidence, this section sets out that this monitoring resulted in information being gathered and fed into the work of other key stakeholders (e.g. local authorities) engaged in forced housing schemes and the removal of Gypsy/Traveller children from their families. Sometimes police representatives were very clear in their desire to monitor the lives of Gypsy/Travellers in Scotland. For example, when evidence was given at the 1918 Departmental Committee on Tinkers, the Chairman asked James Ross, Deputy Chief Constable of Argyleshire [sic], if he would be in favour of “registering tinker families so that they should be all known to the Police and so that their movements could be followed?” Ross replied: ^[342]

“That is the case at present in Argyleshire. A certain part of the weekly return made by every Constable deals with the matter of tinkers who have been challenged during the week. The information there given includes their names and ages and other particulars… and that has been the practice for the last 40 years.”

There is also archival evidence that this was taking place during the 1950s. In a letter from the County Clerk for Perth and Kinross, in February 1957, he notes that the Director of Education had recently said:^[343]

“About 18 months ago the police agreed to cop-operate with the Education Authority by visiting tinkers’ encampments or stopping tinkers on the road and inquiring if they could produce a certificate of attendance that their children of school age had been in attendance at school throughout the period October to March. Where a certificate could not be produced they were instructed to have the children enrolled forthwith at the nearest school. The majority complied but a few families removed from the district.”

Second, documentation was found of police representatives who appeared to support the idea of separating Gypsy/Traveller children from their parents. Giving evidence in 1917, R.T. Birnie, the Chief Constable of Forfarshire (present day Angus), stated this quite clearly. We especially highlight here, the Chief Constable’s words after stating his recognition that taking a child away from their parents was not something to be done lightly. ^[344]

“Chief Constable: I find, as soon as I begin to deal with the children, that a good many of them don’t come so close to us. We have fewer tinkers than we were accustomed to have… They will not touch a community…

Chairman: If the present condition of the tinker is in a measure due to the fault of the state, and that re-acts [sic] on his children, would you not think it harsh to take his children from him?

Chief Constable: You have sometimes to be cruel to be kind. If a child is living in an evil environment, living in such a state as to endanger its health, and to endanger the morals of a whole community, then, surely, it would be right for the State to step in and say ‘We must take charge of this child.’

Chairman: Do you suggest, as a remedy, to give the tinker assistance to establish a home, to give him work, and to put him under the care of some kindly but firm and sensible person?

Chief Constable: I suggest that, as a trial, at any rate.”

Once again, then, the use of ‘trial’ and the notion of ‘experimentation’ remain attached to a potential policy to be used when dealing with Gypsy/Travellers in Scotland. This idea of taking ‘charge of the child’ was also referenced in the ways in which legislation was upheld. For example, in the same testimony, the Chief Constable is asked about his experience of prosecutions, related to school attendance, under the Children Act of 1908. The Chief Constable was proactive in considering the possibility of taking children younger than 5 from their parents, despite the Scottish Office and the Scottish Education Department’s stance of having nothing to do with the child until it reached 5 - the statutory age in the Children Act. Nevertheless, the Chief Constable had consulted with industrial school authorities over one case and found that they were prepared to take a child aged between one and two, and board them out until they were ready to “bring it into the school” at the age of five. This exemplifies that legislation could be unilaterally reinterpreted.

That same industrial school had taken other children which the ‘Scotch Education Department’ had paid for, but financial concern led the Scottish Education Department to tell the Chief Constable that they would not in fact become responsible until the child reached the age of five. This testimony is important because it so clearly enunciates the prevailing view held of Gypsy/Travellers in Scotland not only from the Chief Constable but from the Chairman of the Committee, who had been appointed by, and was thus representing, the government. ^[345]

“Chairman: Is it possible, in your view, if machinery were provided, to improve the position of tinkers in Scotland, and, perhaps, gradually to abolish tinkerdom?”

The Chief Constable responded:^[346]

“I should think that the easiest way to deal with that would be to deal with the children. It is unfortunate if one has to take the children away from their parents, but the only other alternative scheme would be to try and settle the tinkers in some place where they could get agricultural employment, and give them a home, furnish a home comfortably but plainly and try to improve them in that way…”

Another member of the Committee, Miss Campbell interjects to discuss the written statement that the Chief Constable gave prior to the Committee meeting: ^[347]

“You say, on page three of your statement, that you have taken advantage, in many instances, of the provision in the Minute of the Scotch Education Department dated 25th June 1911, in regard to the removing of children from their parents and having them boarded out or sent to an Industrial School at the expense of the state.”

His reply is important to the earlier discussion in this report of the very high numbers of Gypsy/Traveller children in Scotland in Industrial Schools: ^[348]

“I now produce a statement made up, although not recently, in connection with a departmental Committee that sat four years ago in connection with Reformatories and Industrial Schools at which I gave evidence. That gives the names and ages of children I have dealt with during these years and they are all [emphasis added] tinker children.”

Third, the police have also played a significant role, backed by the legislation, in the enforcement of Gypsy/Traveller sites in Scotland.^[349] Often being the primary actor to implement the closure of sites and the subsequent removal of Gypsy/Traveller families to other locales.^[350] There is discussion in the archives specifically regarding the PTNH and instances where the police either ignored it or acted against it, including instances of policies vis-à-vis the protection of Gypsy/Travellers in Scotland that were weaponised by authorities into tools of persecution. For example, as mentioned previously between 1977 and 2001^[351] the PTNH of Gypsy/Travellers in Scotland existed which was designed to encourage local authorities to provide them with permanent campsites. Local authorities found themselves unable to evict Gypsy/Travellers from sites because of this, but our research suggests that what happened instead was an increased police presence near campsites with Gypsy/Travellers feeling pressured to move after the police increased their presence in the area.^[352] During that timeframe (part of which is covered by this present research), evidence of this police presence included: inspecting vehicles, checking vehicle licences, road tax and insurance, and charging Gypsy/Travellers with a variety of offences.^[353] Although not forcibly evicted from the site, Gypsy/Travellers in Scotland were “harassed by the police's abnormal interest in them.”^[354] Similar actions were highlighted in the Scottish Parliament’s Equal Opportunities Committee Report of 2001 which stated concerns about the situation at that time and the high levels of monitoring and control which manifested in frequent site visits to check vehicles and property, with complaints of intimidation and threatening attitudes during evictions.^[355] It must be said, too, that there was evidence of the police themselves feeling pressured to move Gypsy/Travellers from non-established sites.^[356]

Chapter Summary

Within the archives, we found evidence of police monitoring and surveillance of Gypsy/Traveller populations, while their role in enforcing legislation saw police authorities play a significant role in the forced relocation and sedentarisation of Traveller families. Finally, we have outlined some of the uncovered police commentary on child removal and welfare, noting that this contributes to the picture of a wider environment of hostility towards Gypsy/Traveller communities in Scotland that the evidence in this report relays. The Committee evidence in this chapter and the fact that the Chairman was recognising that the State was (at least partially) culpable for the conditions faced Gypsy/Travellers in 1917, as well as the importance of State policies on their lives, speaks to the heart of this research.