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

4. The Scottish Local Authorities

Introduction

For Gypsy/Travellers in Scotland, local authorities were at the heart of how policies were actioned and how the experiences of the TE played out. This chapter will provide evidence demonstrating that local authorities enacted policies that were clearly sanctioned by the Scottish Office. At the same time, the UK government, and the Scottish Office, saw local authorities as a key stakeholder in ‘dealing’ with the issue of Gypsy/Travellers in Scotland. One instance that exemplifies this took place in 1924 with the Secretary of State for Scotland responded to calls from a delegation of representatives of Scottish churches. The delegation had called for better housing for Gypsy/Travellers, noting that little could be done unless the issue was seen as essential by local authorities.^[136]

As noted previously, government policies that affected Gypsy/Travellers in Scotland in the 20th century did not take place in a vacuum, and this present chapter demonstrates this perhaps most of all. Over the 20^th century, Scotland experienced changes in local authority areas, changes in housing policies, and the aftermath of global conflicts; all of which have at times made the evidence of the TE difficult to separate from other events. However, this section will demonstrate that local authorities generally approached what they themselves often referred to as the ‘Tinker Problem’ by separating Gypsy/Travellers from society, putting in place policies that frequently had the stated intention, and outcome, of stopping the Gypsy/Traveller way of life and enforcing/encouraging sedentarism.^[137]

In examining housing policies, there is a tendency to question whether Gypsy/Traveller communities, families, and individuals were treated that differently from members of the general population, who were also suffering socio-economic hardship at the time. This is understandable, however we believe that there is clear archival evidence that this was the case, even if it did not always appear so in the legislative record. One important piece of evidence here lies in the testimony given by John Thomas Maxwell, Secretary to the Local Government Board^[138] for Scotland, to the Departmental Committee on Tinkers of 1918:^[139]

“Tinkers are not singled out for special treatment or special control under the provision of the Statutes administered by the Board as a Central Authority or under regulations framed by Local Authorities with the approval of the Board. They enjoy the same local privileges and are subject to the same regulations and restrictions of other classes of the community. There are, however, certain provisions which, while general in their application, affect tinkers more particularly.”

John Maxwell then goes on to outline these provisions specifically concerned with ‘Public Health and Housing’ and ‘Poor Law’, including those pertaining to: premises as nuisances, overcrowding, dirty houses, infectious disease, bye-laws as to tents, vans, sheds etc., prevention and suppression of vagrancy, the provision of houses and finally references the obligations of local authorities under the Children Act of 1908. He concludes that section of his evidence by noting that regarding the latter:^[140]

“provisions ordaining adequate lodging and elementary education for the children tend to force tinkers to live at least during the winter months in houses of some description in or near towns or villages.”

Stepping back, public-facing and differentiated treatment of Gypsy/Travellers is only one form of discrimination. To say, for example, that the general population experienced the same level of hardship as Gypsy/Travellers is to downplay the significance of evidence highlighting the many references to sub-standard housing as a means to assimilation, rather than as solely poor living conditions.^[141] Housing policies experienced by Gypsy/Travellers should therefore be viewed through this lens to better contextualise their narratives.

Impact of Housing Policies

Presently, there are 32 council areas in Scotland,^[142] and for the purposes of this research, our findings are reported in terms of this present system of local authority areas. With this in mind, we undertook an in-depth examination of materials from the archives of six local authorities: Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (specifically Lewis), Dundee City, Fife, Glasgow City, Highlands^[143], and Perth and Kinross. We also examined archival materials from Clackmannanshire, Aberdeen City, Aberdeenshire, Angus,[144] and Stirling.^[145] These Council areas were chosen because they were the most frequently highlighted in a range of publications - e.g. government reports, research articles, newspaper archives - as having significant Gypsy/Traveller populations. Many of the materials referenced in this section are County Council and Town Council minutes and so represent a formal record of the decisions that were made by the local authorities, and the reasons for them. As such they represent an agreed, and invaluable, account of the policy discussions and decisions that took place. We were also able to supplement our findings by using newspaper accounts of County Council and Town Council meetings.^[146]

This chapter identifies and evidences three forms of housing policy which had a forced and/or discriminatory effect against Gypsy/Travellers in Scotland (discussions of which gather pace from the end of World War I). These are defined as:

1. Specific sites designated for the use of Gypsy/Travellers in Scotland, including the provision of an assortment of ‘built’ housing (e.g. Nissen and Nissen-type huts, repurposed military infrastructure, disused houses), which were known by government agents to be substandard including that they were often without amenities such as electricity and plumbing; and later purpose-built housing also deemed to be substandard in a number of ways (e.g. over-crowding).

2. Specific sites designated for the use of Gypsy/Travellers in Scotland, but with no provision of ‘built’ housing, nor of facilities, and frequently located far from local amenities (e.g. council-run campsites).

3. The provision of former military sites for emergency housing, many times located in more urban areas, for Gypsy/Travellers in Scotland to live together with others. Such housing was again substandard (e.g. the former Castlehill Barracks in Aberdeen which is frequently referenced as ‘slum housing’ and the so-called ‘Tinker’s Quarter’ in Perth).^[147] These arrangements sometimes resulted in the ‘ghettoisation’ of Gypsy/Travellers, alongside other under-privileged groups.

On the basis of the research conducted for this report, and without the benefit of being able to utilise the ‘lived experiences’ of the victims/survivors of the TE, archival evidence strongly suggests that the provision of the previously defined ‘built’ sites was more prevalent in the 1940s and 1950s, and that the provision of sites designated for the use of Gypsy/Travellers but with no provision for ‘built’ housing was more prevalent in the 1960s and 1970s.

Overall, we found that there was evidence of at least one of the three forms of forced and/or discriminatory housing policy used against Gypsy/Travellers in twenty-seven of the thirty-two council areas in present-day Scotland. Of the remaining five, two council areas - Orkney and Shetland - were discussed as having solved their Traveller problem some time ago, and that Gypsy/Travellers residing there had already been housed.^[148] This suggests that there may have been policies of forced sedentarisation in place there at some point in the 19th or 20th Century. Although we were unable to find direct evidence of this during the time frame, we also did not find any evidence that Orkney and Shetland had followed different policies to other local authorities and would suggest that this is a fruitful area for future research. We would also emphasise that although we looked at a large number of archival materials - meeting minutes, local authority reports, and other documents including letters, formal communications, legal documents and newspaper reports – we were still only able to look at a limited portion of the local authority archival evidence that exists. Moreover, not all the archival materials were indexed and so it is highly likely that additional materials exist that we did not have the opportunity to access. Of the materials that we analysed, many further replicated the discriminatory attitudes and approaches referenced in direct quotes in this report, but where we found counter-narratives we have included these^[149] This chapter will demonstrate that the evidence that we uncovered was extensive and that it was also frequently underpinned by rhetoric reflecting the normalisation of assimilatory and dehumanising attitudes towards Gypsy/Travellers in Scotland.

Sub-standard ‘built’ housing designated for Gypsy/Travellers in Scotland

This section is concerned with specific sites designated for the use of Gypsy/Travellers in Scotland, including the provision of an assortment of ‘built’ housing (e.g. Nissen or Nissen-type huts,^[150] disused houses) that were known by government agents to be substandard and that were often without amenities such as electricity and plumbing.

“The object is to break off the nomadic habit of the tinkers by placing them in a position to earn a living…^[151]”

Of the archival materials that were examined in depth, we found that this form of forced or discriminatory housing was richly evidenced in the Highlands, Perthshire, and Na h-Eileanan an Iar, as well as a brief mention of a site in Angus.^[152] Outside of those archival sites where materials were looked at in great depth, we also saw evidence of similar policies in Aberdeenshire, in Stirling, and in Argyll and Bute. Overall, we believe that our research offers strong evidence that this category of site was used to address the issues that local authorities saw as arising from the presence of Gypsy/Travellers in their areas. Often these policies were described as an ‘experiment’ or ‘trial’ that might lead to assimilation, sometimes involving policies of involuntary segregation. Gypsy/Travellers who were placed in these sites were also “subject to fairly close supervision”.^[153] This includes mention, in 1917, of a crofting experiment that had “recently been inaugurated” at Swinton in the Borders^[154] and discussion of a “most promising effort to solve a most difficult problem’ in Kirkhill, Thurso that same year, which was discussed as a ‘scheme of reclamation’”.^[155] We see further discussion in a document titled ‘Letter on Housing of Tinkers in Caithness’, dated 30 Mar 1917 which highlights:

“… a suggestion by the General Superintendent of Poor that something might be done to provide Small Holdings for these people on the Crown property of Dorrery and Scootscalder. The object is to break off the nomadic habit of the tinkers by placing them in a position to earn a living and apparently the idea is that there is a suitable opportunity of doing so at present when many of the men are away at the War and their dependents have separation allowances.^[156]”

Similarly, in a letter from the local government board in June 1917, the author links land/housing allocation with those serving in the armed forces:

“the Office of Woods and Forests should set aside a portion of Crown Lands in Caithness for the purpose of forming a crofting settlement for the tinkers in that county, especially for those men of the tinker class who are now serving in H. M. Forces.^[157]”

We have identified two reasons why there is increased discussion of Gypsy/Traveller lives by key stakeholders during the two immediate post-war periods.^[158] First, families of Gypsy/Traveller men who were away fighting had often ‘settled’ in order to be eligible for family and dependant allowances, and once war ended it was clear that the mobility of Gypsy/Travellers in Scotland would once again increase.^[159] Second, there was also an acute housing shortage in post-World War II Scotland that saw increased discussion about housing policy and the options that local authorities could provide. For Gypsy/Travellers in Scotland, almost without exception,^[160] this meant substandard housing. In some cases, this was Nissen huts (see the case study of the Bobbin Mill site below) whilst in others it meant dilapidated and disused buildings, or wooden huts or shacks. There are numerous references to substandard housing, including one discussion that took place on 6 April 1960, when the Inverness County Council Landward Committee on Public Health noted that the:

Town Council had agreed that enquiry should be made as to the possibility of purchasing prefabricated houses to be used to house the families concerned and that meantime the Burgh Sanitary Inspector had been instructed to prepare a list of sub-standard properties in the burgh which might be suitably adapted.^[161]

Similarly, it is noted that:

“In Aberdeenshire prefabs are being used which are not considered adequate housing for normal housing purposes. When dismantled, two of these might make one dwelling for tinkers.^[162]”

although it is later noted that “dwellings would have to be strong.”^[163] There was no clarification as to what ‘strong’ means in practice.

To understand fully the role that local authorities played, this chapter will use two case studies: a case study of Ross and Cromarty, the local authority which yielded the most extensive evidence for this kind of housing during the research process; and a case study of the oldest, and only remaining TE site of its kind, i.e. the Bobbin Mill built-housing site in Pitlochry. Overall, our findings from this local authority area were in line with the broader findings of our research: repeated mention of the assimilation of Gypsy/Travellers, evidence of significant discrimination, and numerous examples of the provision of substandard accommodation to Gypsy/Traveller families.

Case Study: Ross and Cromarty

Like many other local authority areas, Ross and Cromarty faced a housing shortage in the post-World War II period.^[164] This meant that emergency housing had to be provided for people across the area, sometimes in former military camps. It also meant that Ross and Cromarty, like other local authority areas across the UK, was dealing with the issue of squatters, who were sometimes utilising former military camps. Ross and Cromarty had a high Gypsy/Traveller population and as such, also had a complex set of arrangements for addressing the housing needs of Gypsy/Traveller families in the area. From the research carried out, we identified evidence of the following forms of housing experienced by Gypsy/Travellers in Ross and Cromarty (with such provision largely taking place between 1945 through to the 1960s):

1. emergency housing in former military camps.

2. ‘squatting’ in former military camps because no housing was available.

3. ‘built’ sites specifically allocated to Gypsy/Traveller families.

This case study will focus on the third category but will also later highlight some key points regarding the first and second forms of housing vis-a-vis former military camps in Ross and Cromarty.^[165] The archival evidence that we uncovered for Ross and Cromarty highlighted two key issues. First, that there was significant discussion of the provision of substandard housing, and second, narratives of segregation and assimilation were frequently evidenced in the examined documents.

Provision of sub-standard housing

The accommodation that was provided in Ross and Cromarty was substandard for the time, either in terms of the physical geography of the site, or of the type of housing that was proposed there.^[166] At the time one common issue was overcrowding. At Muir Of Ord in 1957, for example, there was a report mentioning that the council owned land which two wooden huts could be erected on and that it was recommended that 10 people be housed in hut 1 and 16 people be housed in hut 2.^[167] In December 1959, after a visit to a family at Carnaclasair lands, the Sanitary Inspector reported that one part of the family remained living in a timber shack whilst two others lived in a double decker red bus.^[168] It was proposed that those living in the shack should be rehoused to a hut and another family of three should be given an adjoining half-hut.^[169] We also see Scottish Gypsy/Traveller families moving into houses in Mulbuie in 1964 which although they would not necessarily be recognised as substandard at the time of building were one-storey houses, of probably no more than three rooms and occupancy levels noted by the council indicate overcrowded conditions.^[170]

Another issue was access to amenities: at Balavil, Conon Bridge, we see agreement in 1959 for the siting of a timber house that would be built for £600 and would have a cold-water supply to the house.^[171] For the huts at Carnaclasair, council minutes from 1960 show that the families had asked for electricity to be installed.^[172] Three months later the decision on electricity was deferred until the tenants could confirm whether they could provide electricity at their own expense.^[173] In council discussions in 1959 regarding a hut at Tor Achilty there remained doubts in the Sub-Committee as to the availability of a water supply.^[174]Sometimes the geography of the site itself and the costs of building, or renovating, led to discussions that were noted in local authority minutes. For the proposed site of three houses at Invergordon Mains, for example, the building tenders came back as too expensive, so some modifications and omissions were suggested, including omitting plaster on the internal walls, excluding roughcasting for external walls and omitting roadworks and footpaths and part fencing.^[175] These omissions resulted in low quality structures, likely leaving inhabitants more easily susceptible to cold and illness. The Sub-Committee did not agree with the idea of omitting roof insulation.^[176] In later meetings of the Sub-Committee severe flooding was reported at the site, and so the plans were eventually abandoned.^[177]

The sites offered to Gypsy/Traveller families in Ross and Cromarty also include discussions of the relocation of existing huts, such as in November 1956 when the County Council’s Special Sub-Committee on Problem Families recommended:

“That the Council purchase huts at Fearn Aerodrome and at a Camp at Fannich sufficient in number to provide ten dwellings to be erected on the land at Katewell, Evanton, and at Carnaclasair, Muir of Ord, and if necessary on other plots of land to be acquired, for occupation by problem families at rent.^[178]”

In addition to the above examples we found evidence in the archives of housing at Black Ditch, Invergordon where there is mention of compulsory purchase of sites for housing in 1958,^[179] at the Old Schoolhouse, Mulbuie, where there is discussion of purchase for Scottish Gypsy/Traveller housing in 1955 before it was purchased in 1956;^[180] both of these sites were paid for by the Ross & Cromarty County Council Department for Health. Tain Airfield was also brought up as a potential site in 1956.^[181] There was also discussion of ‘problem family’ housing in New Street, Alness in the early-1960s^[182] and evidence of Traveller families being moved into newly erected council houses in 1962/63 in Perrins Road, Alness.^[183] Taken together the above examples demonstrate a policy of housing Gypsy/Traveller families in Ross and Cromarty in substandard housing.^[184]

Segregation and Assimilation

In Ross and Cromarty, as in other local authority areas, Gypsy/Traveller families were often kept apart from others, residing in accommodation on sites purposely consisting of between one to four houses. Many times, these sites were also located outside of villages, effectively segregating them from the wider population. There was discussion, for example, in 1959 of the prospective use of an existing hut near Tor Achilty (near Muir of Ord) but the Housing Officer at the time noted that they had failed to persuade problem families to move there as “they maintained the site was isolated from a school and services”.^[185]

From the archival evidence that we examined, one reason for the levels of isolation, segregation and separation that existed were the levels of opposition that non-Gypsy/Travellers in Ross and Cromarty felt towards having Gypsy/Traveller families living in their proximity.^[186] For example, the factor reported that he faced opposition to the proposal for two houses at Mulbuie and for the use of an old house at Ord Muir. Regarding a potential site at Muir of Ord, the Council minutes noted that:

“Mrs Fraser-Mackenzie state of affairs in the immediate vicinity of her property at Muir of Ord and enquired if anything could be done to enforce the removal of the undesirable families to improve present conditions.^[187]”

Opposition to Gypsy/Traveller families was also reported in the newspapers of the time, with the Shetland Times reporting on Friday 4 April 1958 that Ross and Cromarty County Council:

“had carried out an experiment to try and rehabilitate some of the tinker families who have been living in deplorable conditions. Three timber huts had been purchased from a closed down Hydro-Board construction camp but there was great difficulty in obtaining sites for their erection - later overcome. There was strong opposition from the nearby village to the use of one of the sites, but the objections were eventually met by siting the huts so far away from the village and from each other as possible.^[188]”

There was also opposition to a proposed site near Tore,^[189] whilst in May 1960 a member of the Mainland Problem Families Sub-Committee^[190] expressed doubt as to the advisability of erecting ‘problem family’ houses in that part of Alness that was a desirable residential area and suggested they might be placed at the west end of the village instead.^[191]

Assimilationist attitudes were recurring throughout the examination of Ross and Cromarty. One example of this was in 1945 at Rosskeen on the Black Isle.^[192] Although the minutes could be read as a discussion of the local authority simply trying to provide a housing solution, these discussions were also accompanied by commentary with mention of ‘settling’ Gypsy/Travellers. Thus, in a meeting of a special Sub-Committee appointed by the Health Committee of the County Council of the County of Ross and Cromarty, the minutes noted:

“A difficulty was experienced from time to time in that owners of land were reluctant to give permission to such families to establish their dwellings. If this difficulty could be overcome, the families might tend to settle down, establish permanent habitation and in due course become absorbed in the general population.^[193]”

There was further discussion of ‘settling’ in this newspaper coverage of a meeting of the Ross and Cromarty Health Committee, which decided:

“to experiment in solving the difficulties of tinker and other problem families, by buying five wood sectional huts, at £120 each, and converting them into ten houses with minimum facilities – a sink, water, WC. If the experiment is successful on the selected sites at Evanton and Muir of Ord, the scheme may be extended and introduced in Lewis… The Committee proposed that the huts should be erected on a site at Carnashclair [Carnaclasair], Muir of Ord, and on a ten acre piece of land which it is hoped to purchase at Katewell, Evanton. The idea… was to train the tinkers to live in a house, instead of in sheds, old buses, and under canvas. This would give them a better chance in life. A sub-committee report on the scheme said a tendency had been noted on the part of certain tinker families to depart from the nomadic way of life and to live in dwellings of a permanent nature. It was felt that eth [sic] setting up of permanent sites might result in this tendency continuing.^[194]”

Altogether the evidence that was discovered for Ross and Cromarty was extensive, providing possibly one of the clearest pictures of the ways in which local authorities enacted policy vis-a-vis Gypsy/Travellers living in their jurisdiction.

Case Study: Bobbin Mill, Pitlochry

Bobbin Mill, Pitlochry was instigated on 6 May, 1946 when the Secretary of State for Scotland granted approval for the scheme.^[195] The site came into operation in 1947 and was the first of this type of substandard accommodation to be rolled out to Gypsy/^[196] As far as this report goes, this is the only TE site from the first housing category that is still physically remaining and is a site that yields the clearest evidence about what took place there. The poor quality of materials used in the construction of such sites, like Bobbin Mill, was a key contributing factor to the fact that little physical evidence of these sites remains. These housing sites, ultimately, were not built to last.

Like other sites in this category of ‘built’ housing, the accommodation at Bobbin Mill was always known to be substandard. For Bobbin Mill, this meant the provision of Nissen huts. There had been discussion of an unofficial campsite that existed at Bobbin Mill during World War II, noting that it was in very poor condition, with the Council appearing in 1944 to take that very poor condition as a mandate for creating an official housing site.^[197] What was created there was always substandard. Described as a 4-hut model, it was one hut, sub-divided into four one-bedroom accommodations. A note of a meeting of a Special Sub-Committee appointed to consider the ‘tinker’ problem in Perthshire highlighted that the Sub-Committee had:^[198]

“expressed the view that where houses for tinkers were provided by the Housing Committee such housing sites should likewise be limited to providing accommodation for not more than four families.”

It was acknowledged to not meet the standards of Perthshire Council by the Department of Health Standards in 1946, but this was ignored going forward.^[199] Several letters in Perth and Kinross Archives also noted that Gypsy/Traveller families tried to get access to council housing in Pitlochry, however the Council argued that “the provision of standard council houses for tinkers might prejudice the success of the experiment”.^[200] There is further evidence of the ongoing sub-standard nature of the site in a 1965 letter on the condition of the ‘TE’ site at Bobbin Mill which noted that there were four huts with running water but no electricity.^[201] Children were sent to live elsewhere when space became limited. Specifically:

“[s]ome of the children are boarded out when the family becomes too big and at times Kippen House has taken some of these.^[202]”

Kippen House was a children’s home run by the local authority between 1950 and 1974. This is a very significant piece of evidence, not only for the Bobbin Mill site but potentially for the examination of child welfare practices used by social workers vis-a-vis Gypsy/Traveller families in Scotland, and elsewhere.^[203]

Despite the poor conditions highlighted above it was noted that the site was “working well”.^[204] This is even though over-crowding at the site was a reason to put children living there into care. Eventually this site was augmented by the tenant’s own caravans to ease overcrowding.^[205] As Shamus McPhee – a Nacken researcher and activist, and resident of Bobbin Mill – notes, “the gross dereliction of care that followed, signalled that control and containment were very much the primary motives”, while “the full and catastrophic consequences of these experiments are still being felt by those within the Gypsy Traveller community in Scotland.”^[206]

‘Un-built’ sites designated for the use of Gypsy/Travellers in Scotland

The next category identified through our examination of the archival evidence was sites designated for the use of Gypsy/Travellers in Scotland, but with no provision of ‘built’ housing, nor facilities, and many times located far away from local amenities. Local authority discussions of sub-standard camping sites for Scottish Gypsy/Traveller communities also spoke of assimilation. We also use the term ‘substandard’ to allude to sites where there was a lack of service and/or amenities (e.g. drinking water, sanitary facilities, waste disposal, etc.) on or beside the site, and sites where their isolated nature made it difficult to access services and amenities, sometimes even including schools, thereby making life untenable for inhabitants. Local authorities often tied provision of such sites to child welfare policies and the need for Gypsy/Traveller children in Scotland to have access to education and to meet the threshold of 200 attendances per school year, as required by the Children Act 1908. In this regard, Balnaguard near Pitlochry was discussed as a potential site in 1935,^[207] as was Inveralmond near Perth, where there were extensive discussions around opening a site there. However, this never took place in the end due to flooding concerns.^[208] Perhaps the strongest indictment of a sub-standard site can be seen in the discussion of a proposed site at Broxie, in Perthshire. It was noted that the site was low-lying, bordered by a river and railway which posed a danger to children, and had an electric pylon in the middle. One individual writing to the council argued that “the only good thing about this site is that it is out of sight. Is this not a fine example of pushing the dirt under the carpet?”, going on to argue that Travellers “deserve better than this “apartheid” treatment”.^[209] Though proposals for the Broxie site were abandoned in 1968, they later received the Council’s support in 1978.^[210]

As noted earlier, government legislation made it increasingly difficult for Gypsy/Travellers in Scotland to find encampment sites. The presence of Gypsy/Travellers in a local community was often seen as a nuisance and there were few Council run sites. This lack of stopping places has been highlighted by other researchers as a time when there was a “drive to sedentarise nomadic populations in isolated places”.^[211] It is also important to highlight here that there is a much wider body of research that sees the provision of sites in isolated areas as a solution for non-Gypsy/Traveller communities and local authorities to ‘deal’ with a problem, rather than about meeting the needs of Gypsy/Traveller communities in Scotland.^[212]

Our research highlighted a post-1969 watershed in terms of local authority site provision that worked in tandem with the Scotland-wide Policy of Toleration and Non-Harassment (PTNH) of Gypsy/Travellers that lasted between 1977 and 2001. This saw the opening of sites across Scotland, including: Merkland Bridge on Arran, which opened in September 1982;^[213] Kirklee Road in Bellshill, Motherwell, which opened in April 1982;^[214] Dunchologan outside Lochgilphead, which opened in December 1978;^[215] and Double Dykes in Perth, which opened in 1982.^[216] This policy was designed to create a national system of sites provided by local authorities within Scotland on which Gypsy/Travellers could stop.^[217] The Advisory Committee would be in charge of coming up with pitch targets for how many sites would need to be developed in each region to meet the national goal, and local Authorities would receive financial and logistical support and approval from the national government to implement pitches.^[218] The rhetoric around these sites was noticeably different, and while there was an expressed idea such official sites would allow Gypsy/Travellers in Scotland to practice their way of life in a more regulated and supported way,^[219] our research reveals this new system was a continuation of discrimination.

It would be misleading to suggest that this increase in site provision signalled a complete change in local authority attitudes, but wider research suggests that this may not be the case, and that such site provision continued a pattern of discriminatory behaviour.^[220] The introduction of the PTNH gave police authorities significantly increased powers to evict Gypsy/Travellers from ‘unauthorised’ sites and re-settle them on council-run campsites. There is also anecdotal evidence that they continued to forcibly move them to another council area.^[221] Following the achievement of pitch targets in a council area, the PTNH could be lifted.^[222] As such, the PTNH must be understood as a state-established mechanism to incentivise site provision amongst local authorities to better manage the Gypsy/Traveller population. A secondary effect of the PTNH was a rise in discontent amongst the settled population, who felt that excessive leniency was being shown towards ‘illegal’ encampments which further prompted councils to increase site provision so that they would be able to lift the toleration policy.^[223] Conversely, Strathclyde Regional Council (which encompasses in part or whole of twelve of the present thirty-two Council areas) considered those districts with a pitch target of zero to have met their pitch target, allowing them to repeal the PTNH in their area.^[224] We would also highlight a frequently stated opinion that giving up travelling would be a good thing providing “a permanent improvement with sites under control where they can live and where their children can go to school so that they may learn a different way of life.”^[225]

This issue of segregation was picked up in the example of one discussion between the Secretary of State for Scotland and a local authority in the 1980s. The Secretary of State rejected Dundee Council’s application for a permanent site at Panmurefield because of “the site’s perceived proximity to housing and recreation areas” as “travellers would have to walk through a suburban housing area” to “access local facilities”.^[226] The view of the Advisory Committee was that a permanent “[s]ite should ideally be located ½-2 miles from the edge of the nearest built up area and if closer there should be an appropriate physical barrier in place” and that the “[s]ite should ideally already possess mixed deciduous/coniferous tree/shrub screening or otherwise masked by local contours.”^[227] In a similar vein, distance from urban areas and recognised attempts at segregation were a source of Traveller resistance to housing efforts in the Highlands. One examples of this took place when efforts to relocate Travellers at an Inverness campsite were unsuccessful because the families indicated they “would not accept a school and schoolhouse which might have been made available to them, because if [sic] was some miles from the town.”^[228] Finally, in addition to segregation from the general public, recommendations were made at the council level to isolate Scottish Gypsy/Traveller families from each other, noting that “a small group of one or two families of tinkers is much more likely to be accepted in and absorbed into the local community.”^[229]

As other researchers have noted, “local authorities were thus presented with the perfect mechanism to control and spatially segregate Gypsies and Travellers.”^[230] It is also worth noting that the question of local authority site provision for Gypsy/Traveller communities in Scotland, and its sub-standard nature remains a point of contention even up to the present day.^[231]

Use of former military sites for emergency housing

The third category we identified through our research was the provision of emergency housing by utilising former military sites, usually located in urban areas, for Gypsy/Travellers in Scotland to live together with other communities. Such housing was sub-standard and often resulted in the ‘ghettoization’ of under-privileged groups. The housing shortages mentioned previously led to a much higher incidence of squatting. It was an important part of the research process to separate out sites where an acute housing shortage led to squatting by non-Gypsy/Traveller individuals and families - as well as, potentially, Gypsy/Traveller individuals and families - from sites where local authorities provided this form of housing to Gypsy/Travellers in Scotland.

In terms of emergency housing,^[232] this research discovered that in Stornoway, Nissen huts were placed in front of Lews Castle to be used as emergency housing. In 1945-46 there were 166 people here, although we have not yet been able to find evidence that anyone in the camp was from a Gypsy/Traveller family.^[233] Emergency housing was also provided in the 1950s at RAF Dalcross, a former RAF station where Inverness airport is now sited;^[234] at Annat Military Camp in Fort William, where there is also mention of squatters in 1956;^[235] at Ferry Brae Military Camp in Beauly, which was discussed in terms of emergency housing in 1957;^[236] at Raigmore Army Barracks in Inverness, which was variously as official emergency housing or for squatting;^[237] and at Bunchrew Military Camp in Inverness, which was not only used for emergency housing but where there is also discussion of Gypsy/Traveller families occupying huts there in the 1950s and then subsequently facing eviction from them in 1957.^[238] In discussing the presence of ‘squatters’ it is reasonably likely that a proportion of these were Gypsy/Traveller families especially given that the presence of Gypsy/Traveller 'problem families' did not start to be recorded until later.^[239]

Additionally, Castlehill Barracks in Aberdeen had been used by the army until 1935 and was re-purposed to be used as emergency housing for the general population in the 1940s and 1950s before finally being demolished in 1965.^[240] There was also Thimble Row in Perth, a row of houses that came to be known as the ‘Tinker’s Quarter’, where many of the families of Gypsy/Traveller servicemen were relocated during World War II.^[241] Evidence from the 1918 Departmental Committee on Tinkers showed that all but two of the Gypsy/Traveller families re-settled at Thimble Row had male relatives serving in the military, noting that the Separation Allowance they received provided further incentive to settle.^[242] In addition, we also saw an earlier example of Scottish Gypsy/Traveller families living in slum housing because of the necessity of sending their children to school for the required 200 attendances. Dorothea Maitland gives evidence of this in correspondence sent to the Duchess of Atholl, when she notes that: ^[243]

“In winter 1931-32, seventeen tinkers were living in a one roomed slum house because they had failed to find any ground where they could camp for the children’s schooling. Fearing trouble, they fled from the country into Dundee slums and I failed to find either houses where they could rest.”

We were not able to uncover evidence of this slum housing in other areas during the research period and so recognise that this warrants further investigation.

Chapter Summary

In many ways, the evidence presented in this chapter is the core of this report. The housing policies implemented by local authorities sit at the heart of the lived experiences of Gypsy/Travellers in Scotland and the ways in which the emerging themes of this research manifested. Within the archives, evidence was found of a combination of built sites with designated infrastructure, unbuilt sites - typically campgrounds - and urban sites that ‘ghettoised’ Scottish Gypsy/Travellers. The post-war circumstances of both World Wars were used to justify the poor housing conditions afforded to Gypsy/Traveller families, including mention in the 1918 report that the end of WWI and the prevailing poor conditions for both Gypsy/Traveller families in Scotland and ex-servicepeople presented “an opportunity of settling a class who camped out all year round^[244]. Following the publication of the Gentleman and Swift report in 1971, Gypsy/Traveller housing in Scotland was reframed as a welfare issue which led to the emergence of policies such as the PTNH that restricted travel and may have encouraged the forced sedentarisation of Travellers to continue to the end of the 20th Century.