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

3. The UK Government and the Scottish Office

Introduction

The following chapter represents the results of an examination and analysis of archival materials relating mostly or wholly to Scotland and that are held by the National Records of Scotland. This has been supplemented by evidence from Hansard, and from the Katherine Stewart-Murray Private Archive held at Blair Castle and was further confirmed by narrative evidence available from the British Newspaper Archives.^[72]

It is important to highlight how Scotland was governed during the period examined in this report. From 1827, Scottish executive government was much more tightly administered from London than previously. The various revenue boards lost almost all their purported ability to self-govern, an ability which they had had since the Act of Union in 1707.^[73] The general lead in Scottish public affairs was taken by the Lord Advocate. Fuller governmental representation for Scotland only arrived with the establishment of the Scottish Office in 1886, which created a Secretary for Scotland, a post that was not initially intended to be Cabinet-level. Despite this, Scotland continued to be mostly administered through boards. In 1939, the functions of these boards were entrusted to the Secretary of State (now a Cabinet-level post, hence the change of name from Secretary ‘for’ to Secretary ‘of’) and the Scottish Office was divided into separate departments that would deal with specific matters, notably Agriculture, Education, and Home and Health. Following World War II, the Secretary of State was given additional responsibilities including town and country planning and childcare. From 1960 to 1962, a series of internal changes in the Scottish Office resulted in the reconstitution of four departments: the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland; the Scottish Development Department (with functions including those relating to local government, town and country planning, housing, roads, environmental services and Highland development); the Scottish Education Department; and the Scottish Home and Health Department. The latter had responsibility for health services, law and order.

Chapter Structure

The findings outlined in this chapter are organised around the key date of 1895, which was the year when the Scottish Office published the outcomes of a commissioned report, the Report from the Departmental Committee on Habitual Offenders, Vagrants, Beggars, Inebriates, and Juvenile Delinquents, which has subsequently become known as The Scottish Traveller Report. This report made recommendations that, as this report will highlight, were used to guide later policy and so effectively provided a mandate for key government, local authority and civil society actors to manage and intervene in the lives of Gypsy/Travellers in Scotland.

Following analysis of the materials described, evidence was found of three distinct forms of government activity impacting Gypsy/Traveller communities in Scotland that either directly connect to the TE or that laid the foundations for the policies associated with the TE to be able take place.

1. Legislation that directly impacted the social, economic, and cultural welfare culture of Gypsy/Traveller communities in Scotland

2. National government/Scottish Office-led committees

3. Direct public commentary on Gypsy/Traveller communities in Scotland in both Houses of Parliament

Legislation that directly impacted the social, economic, and cultural welfare of Gypsy/Traveller communities in Scotland

Pre-1895 legislation

Two pieces of legislation are worthy of mention here given that, although they did not target specific communities or minority ethnic groups, they had a disproportionate impact on the lives of Gypsy/Travellers in Scotland. First, the Reformatory and Industrial Schools Act (Scotland) of 1854 which was a key element in the Victorian criminal justice system.^[74] Under the 1854 Act, vagrant children were sent to reformatory and industrial schools - some of which were residential - under a court order. The Act was originally called, ‘A Bill to render Reformatory and Industrial Schools more available for the Benefit of juvenile Delinquents and vagrant Children,’ and ”allowed vagrant children to be committed to industrial schools if they were considered 'likely' to commit a crime in the future.^[75] As the reformatory system was first developed in Scotland, there were far initially more ”industrial schools here than in England as it was only in the late 1860s that England began to follow the Scottish model and expand its reformatory system”.^[76] In 1866, the Act was further extended giving magistrates the authority to sentence homeless children aged between seven and fourteen years to a period in an industrial school, with the costs being borne by local education authorities.^[77]Although not state-run as such, industrial schools were regulated by statute, subject to statutory inspection, in receipt of public funding, and under the direction of the Home Office.^[78]

As will become evident throughout this report, this is a highly significant piece of legislation in terms of the use of ‘child welfare’ policies for the wider TE project. To be clear, it is very difficult to find the numbers of Gypsy/Traveller children in Scotland who were removed from their families in one way or another as records rarely highlight whether children were from Gypsy/Traveller families. Further research on these numbers is therefore warranted. The research period did yield one indication of the extent to which such removals took place. In ‘Scotland’s Travelling People, Problems and Solutions,’ a report published in 1971 that was produced by the Scottish Development Department, the authors note that in 1917 there were 171 Gypsy/Traveller children in industrial schools in Scotland.^[79] Elsewhere their report stated that the Gypsy/Traveller population in Scotland in 1917 numbered 2,728 people.^[80] Although the Gypsy/Traveller population figures are likely inaccurate,^[81] it is important to recognise that these were official figures given by government researchers, and that as such they imply that a substantial portion (around 1 in 16) of the Gypsy/Traveller population in Scotland was in an industrial school in 1917. We could find no direct comparison to the general UK population for that specific year. However, based on comments in Hansard by Lord Aberdare, around 1 in 3757 of the general population were in industrial schools in 1888.^[82] As we were unable to find any evidence of, or reason for, a significant increase in industrial school enrolment for the general population between those two dates - 1888 and 1917 - these statistics could indicate that Gypsy/Travellers in Scotland were over-represented within the industrial school population.

Second, the Trespass (Scotland) Act of 1865 made camping on private land without the permission of the landlord a criminal offence.^[83] This includes private roads, land that is near those roads, and any enclosed land, cultivated land, and ‘plantation’ land (including Forestry Commission land). This Act, which is still in place today, arguably marks the beginning of modern-day legislation whereby Gypsy/Traveller communities in Scotland had become increasingly immobilised in terms of access to land and the ability to set up their homes in particular places. We saw evidence of the direct ongoing impact of this in the archives of Children First, historically the Scottish National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (SNSPCC) then later, in 1921, the Royal Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (RSSPCC). In Aberdeen, a 1930 report, by a sanitary inspector who visited ‘Camping Grounds’ regularly, noted that they were ‘gradually being closed’. The inspector further remarked:

“[A]t present the Vagrant class complain of not being able to get proper Camping Ground, and in some places are only allowed to remain the night, and in consequence the children are unable to attend school.^[84]”

That same year, and again in 1936, reports of the Inspector from the Ross, Cromarty and Sutherland Branch of the RSSPCC, who noted that Traveller parents were increasingly asking for officials to secure a “recognised camping ground…within a short distance from a school”.^[85] Another Inspector from the Moray, Nairn, and Banff Branch, cited that one reason for a decrease in the number of families travelling from place to place was the “closing down of many camping grounds”,^[86] whilst an Inspector from the Dunbartonshire Branch of the RSSPCC noted in his 1936 report that:

“Again I have had many complaints of the increasing difficulty the tinkers are having in getting camping ground, particularly where they do not require to pay for it. There were several places where previously they were allowed to camp quite freely, but now they are prohibited from doing so and this is just within the past two years.^[87]”

Evidence like this, and more broadly these two key pieces of legislation, highlight two key elements regarding government policy, enacted by the Scottish Office, that significantly impacted Gypsy/Traveller communities in Scotland: first, the centrality of child welfare policies to how government, local authorities and other key stakeholders ‘dealt’ with Gypsy/Traveller communities; and, second, the question of land, housing, and settlement. Together these form a significant part of the legislative framework upon which 20th century policies affecting Gypsy/Traveller communities in Scotland were built.

Post-1895 legislation

We would seek to highlight two key pieces of legislation in the post-1895 period. First, the Children Act of 1908 (also known as the ‘Children’s Charter’) which sought to bring together a range of existing legislation - including the 1868 Industrial Schools Act - and is often considered as laying the foundation for juvenile justice prior to the 1971 Kilbrandon report, which significantly reformed childcare in Scotland.^[88] The Children Act was applicable in the UK with the necessary modifications for Scotland being made by section 132 of the Act.^[89] The 1908 Act is important for this present research because of its reference - in Part VI, Article 118 - to the children of those parents, or guardians, who were ‘wandering’. Specifically, the Act put in place legislation that required children of parents who “engaged in a trade or business of such a nature as to require him to travel from place to place”^[90] to attend school for not less than 200 attendances. Those who didn’t achieve this could be removed from their family, meaning that Gypsy/Traveller communities faced the threat of having their children put into an industrial school, as had frequently happened previously.^[91] Commentary within the report of the 1918 Departmental Committee on Tinkers notes that institutional life had assimilationist outcomes: it “disciplines them [Gypsy/Traveller children]... [and] tends to draw them from their roving ways”, though it ”cannot eradicate altogether the wandering instinct”.^[92] One example of child removal to industrial schools happened in April 1912, when Frank Stewart and Elizabeth White found themselves at the Justice of the Peace Court in Aberdeen. They had been found wandering at Pitcaple in Aberdeenshire with their children, John (13 years and 11 months), James (10 years and 2 months) and Maxwell (6 years and 1 month) contrary to Article 118 of the Children Act and were each fined 15 shillings or 7 days imprisonment. All three boys were committed to Oakbank Industrial School in Aberdeen until they reached the age of 16.^[93]

It should be noted too that the inability of Gypsy/Traveller families in Scotland to find stopping places as evidenced by the previous discussion of the Trespass (Scotland) Act of 1865 worked in tandem with the provisions of the Children Act of 1908. Evidence of this can be seen in a 1930 letter from the RSSPCC Inspector in Dingwall to RSSPCC head office which notes:

“As time goes by it is becoming more difficult for tinker parents to find a small piece of land on which to camp or set up his caravan. The few places where camping is permitted or tolerated are without exception far from a school with the result that the children cannot possibly attend.^[94]”

Second, the question of housing was further impacted by the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act of 1960 which further reduced the number of sites, albeit substandard ones, that Gypsy/Traveller communities had previously used. This paved the way for local authority action in terms of specific sites that were designated for the use of Gypsy/Travellers in Scotland.^[95] The Act has been heavily amended since it was first instituted but remains in place today and covers most privately-owned residential mobile home sites, holiday sites, and privately-owned Gypsy/Traveller sites.^[96] It required site owners to get a site licence from the local authority before being able to use the land as a caravan site, giving local authorities the power to control the mobility of Gypsy/Travellers in their local authority areas by imposing conditions in terms of site licences and enforcing those if breached. The result was that only those Gypsy/Travellers who could find a pitch on a licensed site that would admit Gypsy/Travellers could remain within the law. Under section 23 of the Act, local authorities were given the power to close public spaces to those using caravans for habitation which they often did whilst at the same time ignoring the powers given to them under Section 24 which was to open caravan sites as compensation for the loss of the commons.^[97] The provisions of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 also worked in tandem with the provisions of the 1878 Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act, which in turn made it an offence for travellers to camp on the road or its verges and to give local authorities the powers to force Gypsy/Travellers to move on.^[98] One researcher would go on to note:^[99]

“The underlying aim of the use of this legislation was still assimilationist. The intention was to eradicate the nomadic way of life and force travelling people to settle down and conform to the lifestyle of the dominant society.”

Having considered these pieces of legislation, this report turns to the role of government committees.

National government/Scottish Office-led committees

In the questions and witness statements heard in government-led committees prior to the release of a government report, and in the subsequent reports themselves, we see the feelings of officials addressing the question of Gypsy/Travellers in Scotland verbalised, and the reasoning for certain policies and approaches outlined. These government-led committees were often exploratory in nature and provided information either upon which legislation and policies were subsequently built or as will be evidenced below, that served to sanction the activity of other stakeholders e.g. the police (see later evidence in chapter 7). In this regard, this section will demonstrate clear evidence of assimilationist opinions, dehumanising language and a desire to monitor and control Gypsy/Traveller lives. It has already been noted that the Scottish Traveller Report of 1895 marks a key point for the policies that set the stage for the TE and so this section will focus upon this document first, before moving to the work of other key Government-led Committees.

The 1895 ‘Scottish Traveller Report’

“And is there any way of ending the gypsy race as such except by taking forcible possession of their children and sending them to Industrial Schools and Training Ships?^[100]”

In 1894 the then Secretary for Scotland, Sir George Trevelyan, created a Departmental Committee on Habitual Offenders, Vagrants, Beggars, Inebriates and Juvenile Delinquents, chaired by Sir Charles Cameron, on behalf of the then Scottish Office. The subsequent report – now more often referred to in the literature as The Scottish Traveller Repor’- heard evidence from 151 witnesses in Aberdeen, Glasgow, Edinburgh, and London, and visited 35 institutions across Scotland. The report was submitted in April 1895 and presented to MPs on 20 May 1895. Although not within the initial explicit remit of the Committee, the report contains extensive discussion of ‘tinkers and gipsies’ particularly concerning the education of Gypsy/Traveller children and social welfare, noting “we fully recognise the evil of permitting any class of children to remain outside the pale of the law which enforces compulsory education”.^[101] As a result the Report made recommendations that, as this research will highlight, were used to guide later policy and discussion, thus effectively provided a mandate for key government, local authority and civil society actors to manage and intervene in the lives of Gypsy/Travellers in Scotland. This included discussion around the need for civil society actors to be given increased authority:

“powers should be given to School Board districts and parishes in a county or adjoining counties to unite in enforcing the attendance at Schools of the children of nomadic parents, and that such united districts and parishes should be empowered to frame bye-laws for the purpose of carrying on the education of such children, which bye-laws, if approved by the secretary of state for Scotland, should have the force of law.^[102]”

Concerning mechanisms and legislation to enforce school attendance, we note a letter from Sir George Trevelyan’s Office dated 20 September 1894, which states that:

“my Lords fear that, without the aid of fresh legislation, School Boards can do little or nothing in the way of putting in force the compulsory clauses of the Education Acts in the case of wandering Tinker children, inasmuch as under these Acts, the local authority can only proceed against parents who are resident within their district.^[103]”

This letter, written in advance of the Report, was then published within the Report and formed part of the call/mandate for updated education legislation. As illustrated by this quote, the 1895 Report - in addition to its recommendations on child welfare - represents a growing awareness amongst policymakers that a substantial legislative gap existed regarding what was often referred to in documentary evidence as the ‘Traveller problem’. In the 1904 Education (Scotland) Northern Division Report, education inspector J. Boyd similarly notes – echoing the sentiments of Sir George Trevelyan - that “it is impossible with the present machinery of compulsion to bring them within the range of the Education Acts.”^[104] Two government bills were drafted and debated: the Bill for Securing the Education of Tinker children in the Counties of Dumbarton, Perth, Ross and Sutherland, and other parts of Scotland, which set out provisions for forced housing, compulsory school attendance, and child removal;^[105] and the Movable Dwellings Bill, which aimed to regulate the use of tents, vans, and other mobile homes as dwellings.^[106] Neither of these bills were passed; however, the perceived legislative gap was later addressed in the Children Act of 1908.

The Scottish Traveller Report is also highly significant in terms of the snapshot that it provides of exactly how key stakeholders and civil society actors viewed Gypsy/Traveller communities in Scotland at that time by recounting - through the statements of 151 witnesses and 499 pages of evidence -an array of witness statements that frequently use dehumanising language or reference a desire for assimilation or control. Through both written statements and oral testimonies, witnesses and members of the Committee discuss having “them [Gypsy/Travellers] extirpated as a class and absorbed in the labouring population”^[107]; “ending the gypsy race…by taking forcible possession of their children”;^[108] and “after having them compulsorily educated, to send them away out of reach of their tribe.”^[109] Perhaps the strongest evidence of a desire for assimilation and control in the form of stronger forced housing policies amongst civil society stakeholders comes from representatives of the Perthshire Committee on Vagrancy:^[110]

“I may appear rather hard-hearted and callous in the few remarks I have had the honour of addressing to you, but I am firmly convinced that the only effectual treatment is eradication. For the children I have only pity. For the grown-up members, knowing them as I do I feel sure that all philanthropic efforts based on sentimentality are useless.”

There were also examples of dehumanising language, including the words of William Mitchell:^[111]

“ ... the tinkers I speak of and their children are positively just like cattle. They have no moral training or teaching of any kind whatever.”

This tone is also evidenced elsewhere in the Committee evidence and is a reminder of its significance. Though there had been a long history of state legislation against Gypsy/Travellers, as discussed above, this was the first major instance we found of the government so directly engaging in the public debate on Gypsy/Travellers, thus transforming the issue into a matter of state concern.

Early 1900’s Departmental Committees

Following the 1895 report, the issue of the education of Gypsy/Traveller children in Scotland was returned to repeatedly - always in terms of those children being a ‘problem’, and often using dehumanising language and advocating for increased control of Gypsy/Traveller communities or their assimilation. For example, a second key Departmental Committee was the Departmental Committee on Tinkers, which was launched in 1917 and published its final report in 1918 where Gypsy/Travellers are described as an “immigrant class representing a stage of human development different from that current in the society into which they intruded”.^[112] ‘Tinkerdom’ is also described in the report as a “very real social disease” which required long-term action to remedy, recognising that “a condition that has existed for at least 400 years cannot be wholly obliterated in one or even two generations.”^[113] If settling was a requirement, then the possibility arose that the state would have to intervene in providing housing, hence the Committee Report highlights the need for housing to be operated by the county council and financed by them and the state jointly. The recommendations of the 1918 Committee were more wide-ranging than its predecessor, including: ^[114]

(1) Schemes for the settlement and employment of tinkers to be prepared by county councils of the counties in which they are found.

(12) For every tinker family a house to be provided in a locality where a means of livelihood is available; such houses to be in the country.

(23) Tinker children to be required to put in the maximum number of attendances at school, involving repeal of Section 118 (3) of the Children Act, 1908.

(24) If parents refuse to settle, and persist in wandering with their children, the children to be committed to an industrial school or placed under a suitable guardian.

(28) The purchase of intoxicants by tinkers to be prohibited.

(30) The sale of intoxicants to tinkers to be prohibited.

The 1918 Report is significant in that it establishes an explicit remit for the provision of housing for Gypsy/Travellers. This was borne from the recognition that, although police authorities were increasing their persecution of Gypsy/Travellers for violation of the Children Act of 1908, the failure of councils to provide housing meant that Gypsy/Traveller families were unable to send their children to school. Forced housing was therefore seen as the solution to what was widely discussed as the ‘Tinker Problem’. The 1918 Report discusses a desire for “the nomadic habit to be destroyed” and to “mould” Gypsy/Travellers so that they “shall adopt a new standard of values...in preference to his own”.^[115] On Saturday 20 April, 1918, an article was published in the ‘Aberdeen Evening Express’ under the headline ’The Tinker Problem’ referencing the 1918 Report:

“Will the disappearance of the tinker date from the great war? It would be a loss which Scotland would bear with equanimity, the tinker being more picturesque than useful. A Departmental Committee appointed by the Secretary for Scotland has made a series of suggestions regarding the housing and general improvements of the social conditions of the tinker gypsies who have been familiar figures in Scotland for 400 years and there appears to be a serious intention of grappling with a problem that has hitherto baffled the social reformer. A fairly large number of tinkers are now serving in the army, and the habit of discipline thus acquired may have a salutary effect in the future. Many children have found their way into industrial schools, and hopes are entertained of their reclamation. The granting of allowances to wives and children of men on military service has induced many tinkers to ‘settle down’ and the leading proposal is that they should be induced to live in decent dwellings. For the partial maintenance and training of families the state would make provision, the County Councils bearing a proportion of the cost.^[116]”

The general economic and social hardship experienced within the UK in the post-world War I period had a particularly severe impact on Gypsy/Travellers in Scotland. This established the remit of the 1936 Departmental Committee on Vagrancy in Scotland, who admitted that “the condition of tinkers now is, in some respects at least, worse than at the date of the Departmental Committee’s inquiry”.^[117] The Committee noted that properties previously inhabited by Gypsy/Travellers in Scotland were increasingly being demolished which came in tandem with the widespread closure of camping areas.^[118] As a result, Gypsy/Traveller families had limited places to legally stay and were therefore unable to meet the provisions of the Children Act of 1908. Not only did this create a significant social crisis for Gypsy/Travellers in Scotland, but police officers, poor inspectors, social workers, and educational authorities found themselves inundated with requests for aid from Gypsy/Travellers.^[119] Additionally, this raised the fear that closure of legal housing would lead to a resurgence of vagrancy and a rise in the numbers of Gypsy/Travellers in Scotland. Recommendations of the Committee included:^[120]

(16) Houses for tinkers where required (not in colonies), should be provided by local authorities, where a means of livelihood is available and within a reasonable distance from schools.

(19) When houses are provided, full school attendance of children should be enforced.

(20) Until houses are provided, local authorities should have powers to arrange temporary camping for tinkers, by permit, subject to strict sanitary control.

Post-World War II Research and Advisory Committees

Although the advent of WWII limited efforts to implement the recommendations of the 1936 Departmental Committee, as we will see in the next chapter, the post-WWII efforts of local authorities across Scotland to house Gypsies/Travellers bear a marked resemblance to the recommendations of both the 1917 and the1936 Departmental Committees. The establishment of emergency housing camps and segregated schools, widespread programs of housing provision, and the provision of permanent campsites for Travellers all bear the mark of the 1936 Report, while discussions of ‘integration’ and ‘absorption’ continued well into the latter half of the 20th Century.

Following the post-war period, in which efforts were primarily devolved to the local level, the Government was less directly involved in the issue until the late 1960s. The enactment of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, which introduced licensing requirements for caravan sites, severely limited the movements of Gypsy/Travellers in the UK.^[121] This led to backlash from both the settled and Travelling community,^[122] which in England and Wales led to the creation of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 mandating Traveller site provision.^[123] The Act did not, however, extend to Scotland as Scottish parliamentarians noted that “they would prefer to continue their efforts to integrate the gipsy [sic] population gradually into normal [emphasis added] communities rather than establishing ’ghettoes‘”, which was felt to be the impact of the 1968 Act.^[124] Understanding the issue was seen as a necessary first step, and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, William Hughes (Baron Hughes of Hawkhill), commissioned two Scotland-wide censuses and a report to be written in 1969.^[125] The report (also referenced in the previous chapter) – ‘Scotland’s Travelling People: Problems and Solutions’ – was written by Hugh Gentleman and Susan Swift who were employed by the Scottish Development Department. It noted that Gypsy/Travellers in Scotland had few to no places to legally stay because of housing legislation and made recommendations including the provision of housing and campsites by local authorities, the use of “second-class accommodation” to facilitate the move to council housing and improved education for Traveller children.^[126]

To implement these recommendations, Gentleman and Swift recommended the creation of a body that could coordinate stakeholders and also provide oversight to local processes.^[127] This body, the Advisory Committee on Scotland’s Travelling People, was established immediately following the publication of the report in 1971.^[128] It operated for nine terms between 1971 and 1999 and published reports at the conclusion of each term. Throughout its lifespan, these Advisory Committees directly advised the Secretary of State for Scotland and instigated government policies such as the Policy for Toleration and Non-Harassment (PTNH) and district campsite pitch targets.^[129] Both of which defined relations between Gypsy/Travellers in Scotland and state actors during the latter portion of the 20th Century. These will be discussed in more detail later in this report.

Direct public commentary on Gypsy/Traveller communities in Scotland in both Houses of Parliament

“[I]s the Minister aware that people concerned with the gypsy problem would like to congratulate the Scots on the humane way in which they have tried to deal with this problem…?^[130]”

The words of members of both Houses of Parliament are useful in highlighting the ways in which Gypsy/Traveller communities in Scotland were viewed and the discussions that were taking place outside of those around bringing forward legislation. For example, on Wednesday 14 April 1886, the question of the ‘Education of Children of Travelling Tinkers’ was debated in parliament, with the Lord Advocate, in response to a question from the MP for Leith, Mr Jacks, seeming to make a case for government intervention. Specifically, the Lord Advocate, J. B. Balfour addressed the subject of the education of Gypsy/Traveller children in Scotland which had been “brought under the notice of the Scottish Education Department”:

“The subject had since been carefully considered by the Department, and he had caused certain inquiries to be made, with the view of ascertaining approximately the number of tinkers' children who could neither read nor write.^[131]”

The issue was further discussed on Monday 7th December 1908, when Lord Herschel - debating the Education (Scotland) Bill - identified the “systematic ways in which tinkers and vagrants refuse to send their children to school’ as ‘one of the most acute problems which school boards have to face”.^[132]

On Tuesday 16 December 1919, in answer to the question “what steps, if any, are being taken to house the tinkers, and educate and otherwise improve their children?” posed by James Gardener MP, the then Secretary of State for Scotland seeming to directly reference the later TE replying: ^[133]

“As regards housing, the Scottish Board of Health, with the approval of the Secretary for Scotland and in co-operation with the local authorities concerned, have formulated a scheme for the utilisation of Army huts for housing tinkers in Caithness. A similar scheme for Perthshire is now under consideration. As regards education and improvement of tinker children, I have no reason to think that education authorities are failing to exercise their powers under the Education (Scotland) Acts and the Children Act.”

Housing for Scottish Gypsy/Travellers was discussed further in 1959 in regard to emergency housing in Caithness, where J. Nixon Browne - Joint Undersecretary of State for Scotland - argued that “the absorption into the community of tinkers, with their traditionally itinerant mode of life and dwelling, presents grave problems for all concerned and does not always meet with success.”^[134] As we will see in the following chapter, these schemes were also mentioned in the archival materials available discussing the role of local authorities.

On October 24, 1961, Parliament noted its approval of anti-Traveller legislation and policies in Scotland, with Norman Dodds, MP for Erith and Crayford, asking Secretary of State for Scotland John Maclay:^[135]

“[i]s the Minister aware that people concerned with the gypsy problem [emphasis added] would like to congratulate the Scots on the humane way in which they have tried to deal with this problem, which is in marked contrast to the disgraceful conditions in this country which make a mockery of the claim of both sides of the House about the brotherhood of man, which seems to apply in other countries but not on our own doorstep?”

These sentiments demonstrate that overall, the commentary in Parliament largely adds to the narratives of legislation pre- and post-1895 rather than dissenting from it. These kinds of comments also demonstrate that not only was discussion taking place regarding the treatment of Gypsy/Travellers within Scotland but at the UK-wide level too.

Chapter Summary

This chapter highlights the legislative framework surrounding Gypsy/Traveller communities in Scotland at the level of the national government, and more specifically of the Scottish Office. Significant pieces of governmental legislation, such as the Trespass (Scotland) Act 1865 and the Children Act 1908, were discussed with the evidence demonstrating that these were seen as providing the means to restrict the nomadic lifestyles of Gypsy/Travellers through the language of child welfare. This legislation was complemented by the work of a series of Departmental Committees, whose recommendations on education, housing, and social welfare laid the foundation for efforts to assimilate the Gypsy/Traveller population throughout the 20th Century. Finally, parliamentary discussions and evidence of multi-stakeholder collaboration highlight the nature of wider sentiments and the policy environment surrounding Gypsy/Traveller communities in Scotland at that time.