Justice and Home Affairs Committee, 06 Oct 1999

Meeting date: Wednesday, October 6, 1999

Official Report 169KB pdf

---

Petition

We now move to item 1 on the agenda, petition PE14 from the Carbeth Hutters Association on land reform legislation. I hope that members have read the petition and the helpful note that has been issued by the clerk outlining some of the options. It is fair to say that there is likely to be general sympathy around this table for the Carbeth hutters as to the position in which they now find themselves. I know that all of us will want to do whatever we can to assist their case.

As I have outlined, the time that is available to this committee imposes some constraints. Very briefly, I would like members to consider the options that are open to us. Effectively, there are two. First, we could initiate a committee bill on this matter. Secondly, we could hear the views of a representative of the hutters association, the landlord—if he is prepared to give evidence—and the Scottish Executive. We could then refer the matter to the Executive and ask ministers to consider including it either in the land reform bill which is to come before Parliament or, if possible, in the Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc (Scotland) Bill. I am not entirely sure which would be appropriate.

Before we move to a substantive discussion, Fergus may want to say one or two words, as he has some background in this issue.

Thank you for inviting me to speak. I should declare that my legal practice is handling litigation on this matter, although my sister is doing all the hard work. After a temporary interruption, normal service is being resumed.

I am also a prospective trustee of the Carbeth trust, the aim of which is to purchase the Carbeth estate as a co-operative for the interests of the Carbeth hutters. The vice-convener of the Scottish Landowners Federation, Robert Balfour, and Len McGuire, the husband of Anne McGuire, are also trustees, so the trust has quite a broad-based composition. I thoroughly endorse Roseanna's remark that there is cross-party and non-party support for providing the Carbeth hutters with more security.

I hope that this committee will be able to take the issue forward in the way that it considers appropriate. However, I recognise that there are issues of time and resources. It is for the committee to decide on those.

The legal issue at stake here—providing security of tenure—entails coming up with a definition of a hut, to differentiate it from holiday homes, caravans and mobile homes. That is quite an easy task for draftsmen to accomplish. At issue also is whether there should be additional measures to provide control against excessive—or what might be seen as excessive—rises in service charge. That was the straw that broke the camel's back and led to the dispute, given that the charges were exacted for nothing more than the use of a water tap.

Without taking up too much of the committee's valuable time, I feel that the best conclusion would be for the Executive to take the issue forward. No shortage of representations have been made to the Executive. Indeed, I first wrote to the First Minister in his former capacity in 1996. He replied, stating that it would be for the Scottish Parliament to take the issue forward. I hope that the First Minister will take up the suggestion that he made when he was Secretary of State for Scotland in 1996 and that the Carbeth hutters can be protected by the Executive taking action. It would be useful for the Carbeth hutters—and, indeed, the landlord—to have a hearing with a member of the Executive, which would set the Parliament in good esteem.

In fairness, we ought to amend your remark, as it is unlikely that the First Minister made his remarks in 1996 as secretary of state. You must mean shadow secretary of state, if it was in 1996.

I want to register a point. I have nothing against Fergus, but I find it rather strange that the committee is taking information—even though it is valuable and I recognise the knowledge and experience that lies behind it—from Fergus, who is coming at this matter, to some extent, from a professional position. He is professionally involved. There is something wrong with that. I recognise that he is an MSP, but is not there a conflict of interest—perhaps it is only in my mind—when MSPs have other forms of work? It seems wrong that Fergus is presenting this case. If his sister had been here to do it—if we could have interviewed her—I would have no difficulty with this situation at all, but under these circumstances, the issue appears to cut across the principles of the Scottish Parliament.

I hear what you are saying, Phil, but Fergus is a member of the Scottish Parliament. He was formerly an active participant, but he has declared an interest. Having heard it, we are all well aware that Fergus's views on this are not—if you like—unbiased or anything other than the views of somebody who decided some time ago to support the Carbeth hutters. Fergus is no longer actively involved in the legal case. He is here as a member of the Parliament, giving his views, which clearly have not changed despite the fact that, having been a lawyer, he was involved in the case. He is now no longer a practising solicitor and is not involved. He asked to come to the meeting and there was, in my view, no real reason to refuse to hear him. As long as he has declared the interest, which he has, everything is perfectly in order.

Is Fergus still the boss of the company that is dealing with the matter? Is he still in control of the company or does he simply have an association with it, and therefore nothing whatever to do with the case?

Perhaps Fergus can outline what his relationship now is with Ewing & Co.

I began my remarks by declaring an interest.

I accept that.

The interest that I have is the interest that I declared in the register of members' interests, which has not changed. I am a partner of Ewing & Co, in the same way that members of Phil's party, such as Annabel Goldie and David McLetchie, are partners in their firms. All of us have views and a history of taking a stance on issues, which we bring to the Parliament and which, I feel, informs the work that we do. Provided that we declare an interest, as I have done this morning, it is quite proper that we should continue to pursue such matters.

I have no involvement with any of the litigation that is going on because, as I also declared, that is not being dealt with by me. I hope that the committee feels that I have made a proper declaration of my interests. I must admit that I am slightly surprised that the matter is being raised in this way, but it appears that that is politics.

I know that Phil wants in again, but there are other people who want to contribute to this discussion. I remind members that Fergus Ewing is not here to give evidence, but to make a political statement on behalf of the Carbeth hutters, which he has made quite clear.

I take objection to what Phil has just said, not because Fergus is in the same political party as me, but because he made an open declaration at the start. His recommendation, which we have before us, that we should take evidence, not only from the Carbeth hutters, but from the Scottish Landowners Federation and the Executive, is very worthwhile. We want to be seen to be objective and to have a full explanation before us, which is what Fergus said. I hope that we will have a short inquiry into the merits of the case with those parties.

I do not think that people should take exception to Phil raising that point. I do not think that he raised it to be objectionable. If he was going to raise it as a concern in relation to today's committee meeting, he should have raised it after Fergus Ewing made his declaration of interest and before he actually spoke.

There would be a problem—that is up to the Parliament's legal people—only if Fergus was seeking to influence the committee and had a pecuniary interest in the outcome of the case, which his firm is handling. If that were so, I would be very concerned. That had not occurred to me—although it did to Phil—and perhaps we should have tried to ascertain that before Fergus made his statement.

Roseanna—

Just a moment, Phil, there are other members who wish to speak.

I want to declare my own interest in the matter. I first became aware of the Carbeth hutters when I worked for Shelter. I have a continuing interest in housing and issues of security of tenure. Like Fergus, I became involved with the Carbeth hutters some time ago, through a professional association. It is a continuing association and I have continuing sympathy for their plight.

It seems to me that the case of the Carbeth hutters is one of those causes célèbres that has been around Scottish politics for a long time. They have had expressions of support from all political parties. The hutters have an expectation that the Scottish Parliament will do something to help them through their difficulties and to help other groups in a similar position.

It is up to the Executive to deal with the matter. It must find some mechanism—whether through the Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc (Scotland) Bill, or in another land reform bill—to do so. I do not think that it is unreasonable of the Carbeth hutters to look to the Parliament for some protection. We should hold a short inquiry and ask them to come along and give evidence. We can then make a recommendation to the Executive as a matter of urgency. Those people need the kind of protection that we have always said the Scottish Parliament would provide.

I, too, have been involved with the Carbeth hutters and I support their cause. I am currently arranging to go and visit the huts, so that I can get a better understanding of the situation. I suggest that we take evidence, as other members have said, from both the Carbeth hutters and the Scottish Landowners Federation. What I am not clear about is the kind of legislation that the hutters want, or how that could fit into the Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc (Scotland) Bill—it is not a simple matter of feudal law. At some stage—I am not sure how it will be possible, considering our heavy work load—we should take evidence from the different parties.

I mentioned the Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc (Scotland) Bill as part of a small exercise in kite flying, because that bill is being introduced to Parliament today. The Carbeth hutters were thinking more in terms of the land reform bill, which is unlikely to be introduced until January or February. I was thinking more in terms of time scales. I thought that if there was some way the Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc (Scotland) Bill could be amended to address the problem, that would deal with the issue of time. If we choose to write to the minister or the Executive, we can inquire as to the best way of proceeding with the matter to maximum effect. Time is of the essence. We need to do things quickly, but we must also do them effectively.

Phil wants to make a further point and then we will make a decision about how to proceed.

I have no difficulty at all with taking things forward in the way that has been described by others, but I have difficulty with Fergus's position. I recognise that he made an honourable declaration. My comments are not aimed at Fergus in particular; there is a point of principle. Fergus works for, or is involved with, a firm that will perhaps make some profit out of this case. On that basis, there is a conflict of interests between his role as an MSP and his role as an active solicitor.

Not only Fergus, but other members of the Scottish Parliament, could have dual roles. If they are involved in other work, they should declare their interest and refrain from participating in the related issues. It is my understanding that that would not be the case on a council and I apologise to Fergus for having raised the matter. This is the first time that it has been apparent to me that there could be a conflict. All I wanted to point out, convener, is that this is a point of principle.

I have just one brief comment. I think that Phil is quite entitled to state his point of principle, and it is a valid one. In the light of recent news, we are all a bit wary about such things. However, I propose that on this occasion, because the declaration has been made up front and because Fergus has had a long-standing involvement with the case, we should take it in the spirit in which it was intended—that he is interested in the issue as a politician. Nevertheless, Phil's point is valid and the minutes should reflect that.

I accept that.

I want to get back to the issue at hand—how we can assist the hutters. Having read the papers, I think that the remedy is not too difficult. It might be a question of extending rent control. Is there an existing statute that could be amended to extend the control of ground rent? A simple amendment to an existing statute might be an effective method of proceeding and would at least give us another option to consider.

If we take the option of writing to the Executive, one of the things that we can explicitly ask is that it should consider other pieces of legislation that might be amended sooner, rather than wait for the land reform bill. Thank you, Euan. Time is of the essence and it would be useful if what you suggest is possible.

The onus ought to be on the Executive. I suggest that the committee proceed by taking up the second option set out in the note from the clerk—the one that has been proposed by Pauline McNeill. Given the time scale and difficulties with the business of the committee, I suggest that we go ahead at this stage and organise some of the evidence taking before we get a reply from the Executive. We should proceed on the basis that we will want to take evidence from a number of interested parties, notwithstanding what the Executive replies. Unless anyone has an objection, I will proceed on that basis.

We should hear evidence from a representative of the hutters and from the landlord himself or one of his agents.

How about the Scottish Landowners Federation?

If you read the information carefully, Christine, you will notice that the Scottish Landowners Federation supports the Carbeth hutters, so I doubt the landlord would find much succour from that quarter.

We should also hear evidence from somebody from the Scottish Executive, whose response to our letter could form part of the evidence. The note indicates that we should write to the Scottish Executive after we have heard the evidence. However, in view of Euan Robson's helpful intervention, I think that a letter to the Executive from the committee about this meeting might be useful in ascertaining exactly how we might deal with the matter in practice. The Scottish Executive is in the best position to advise us on pieces of legislation that have the potential to be amended.

If everybody is agreed, that is the basis on which we will proceed and we will try and arrange for witnesses to come to the first meeting after the recess or as soon thereafter as possible. We will probably timetable half an hour for each set of witnesses so that the evidence taking will take about an hour and a half, which would be about half of our meeting.

Fergus wants to excuse himself now.

I thank the committee for listening to me. I have been made to feel slightly welcome.

I would like to add—since Fergus looked at me just then—that, as far as I am concerned, he is welcome to stay and join in any part of our discussion. The particular issue that I raised was a point of principle and my comments were not directed at Fergus personally.

We are all friends now.