Justice and Home Affairs Committee, 11 Jan 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 11, 2000

Official Report 326KB pdf

---

Petition (Carbeth Hutters)

We move to item 5 on the agenda, which is petition PE14 by Carbeth Hutters Association. We need to have a brief discussion about how we want to proceed. People will have received among their papers a note from the clerk, which gives a summary of what we have done so far, the evidence that we have taken and one or two other matters.

For those who have not yet read the note, I point out that the estate has suggested that committee members might want to visit Carbeth before reaching a final view and has offered to host such a visit. For the record, the timetable for meetings between now and Easter is very heavy and it is difficult to see how we could arrange such a visit as a committee. However, if individual members are interested, the estate may be prepared to host visitors informally rather than formally. I would encourage those who are particularly interested to approach the matter from that perspective.

We must now decide on the next stage. We must report on what we have done with the petition so far and on our recommendations. The clerk effectively has outlined two options. The more wide-ranging option is to produce a fairly substantive report on the merits of the case. We would then have to make a decision about whether we want to proceed with our recommendations on the proposals put forward by the Carbeth hutters by way of a committee bill. That has severe timetabling implications for the committee, but is certainly a possible way forward.

The second option is to produce a shorter report, which would pull together the issues that have been raised with us and would summarise the evidence, in effect drawing the committee's work to the attention of the Executive, but passing it over to the minister to consider what he wants to offer as a way forward. The Executive could either issue a stand-alone Executive bill or include the provision in the forthcoming land reform bill.

The clerks need to know which of those things we want to do, as the work load is different for each of them. The first option is a much bigger undertaking. The second option can be more easily encompassed in a short space of time. My own feeling is that we should choose the second option, simply because the matter could possibly be incorporated into the land reform bill. I think that all committee members would want to keep that live at this stage. However, I would appreciate members' views.

I do not think that we can do otherwise than choose the second option. I am not sure what we would say or what, as a committee, we could do if we chose the first option. We took evidence on a specific issue as it affects the hutters at Carbeth. We have not addressed the fact—and it is something that we would have to investigate—that there are similar situations in other parts of Scotland; not on the same scale, but involving people in similar circumstances. We should return to the whole issue and discuss it in much greater detail, as what we would be doing for the hutters could have dramatic repercussions on other people.

At the moment, I am not sure about the ins and outs of the situation. There are points to be heard from the other side of the argument. My initial sympathies lay solely with the hutters. However, having taken evidence, I now understand that the picture is much more complicated than was first imagined. I do not think that we have any alternative to choosing the second option, leaving it to the Executive to decide whether it wants to redress the situation in the forthcoming legislation.

Certainly, for the reasons that you outlined, Scott, option 1 would involve a longer and much more complex process for both the clerks and the committee. Option 2 is the briefer option, which has the advantage, from the Carbeth hutters' point of view, of pointing the Executive and Parliament in the direction of the land reform bill as a means of dealing with this situation.

I agree entirely with what Scott Barrie said. However, it is a reflection on the work load of this committee that one of Scott Barrie's reasons for our not dealing with the issue properly is the fact that we do not have the time to analyse the evidence and arrive at proper conclusions.

We could choose to do so. I remind members that this is not the Westminster Parliament. When we get to the summer recess, the business of this Parliament does not fall as the business does at Westminster. It is possible for us to choose option 1, knowing that a much longer time scale would be involved and that the business would extend into next year. We sometimes think that we are like Westminster, but our work does not fall as it does there.

I hear what Phil Gallie is saying. What I was saying was not based solely on the fact that we might not have sufficient time. There are other reasons for which we should choose the second option.

Phil, did you want to come back on that?

Yes. I fully appreciate what you said, convener, about extending the time scale. However, there is a range of issues that we have said that we will pick up in April, and their consideration will also have to be extended.

With respect, Phil, that overstates the case slightly. We will discuss a range of issues at the first meeting after the Easter recess. How many of them we will add to our work load is another story entirely.

Is it possible that, if the Executive did not want to introduce a stand-alone bill, or did not want to include the issue in the forthcoming land reform bill, we could revert to option 1 at a later date?

We can do whatever we choose to do. Some of Scott Barrie's comments were right. A lot of us were of one view when we started to hear evidence. However, as the evidence was produced, some of us began to wonder whether we had jumped the gun in taking that view of the situation. The clerks might draw together the evidence that we have heard and produce for us a summary of that, which would be part of the report anyway. We would not be asking the clerks to do anything unnecessary. It would be useful for all committee members to see that summary before we return to discussion of our future handling of the issue. I agree with Scott Barrie that some of us were beginning to puzzle over our views.

I endorse what has been said, for all sorts of reasons. Quite a bit of contradictory evidence was produced, which this committee will not get to the bottom of. That would require more resources.

I have constituents who are Carbeth hutters. I am supportive of them, and believe that they are doing the right thing. However, there are some details that I would like to have clarified. For example, is the situation unique? It is important to know that before we legislate, as that could affect the direction that we take. The issue may not end up within Jim Wallace's remit, but within that of another minister. We need the Executive's resources to sort out the wood from the trees. Nevertheless, Maureen Macmillan is right: the issue may return to this committee eventually, and this is an important filter for it to go through. I support that view.

I have been to Carbeth twice. Once I went to meet my constituents. The other time I accompanied Sylvia Jackson to a meeting, as the issue concerns her constituency and she did not want to go alone. It is clear that the two sides are entrenched, and it is a difficult situation. We have established that there is much hostility. However, the prospect of future legislation resolving the situation for them might help to reduce the hostilities. That prospect might help in the negotiations that are taking place between the two sides, which I hope will be positive. That is undoubtedly the right option to choose.

Picking up on Scott Barrie's point, I do not see the timing aspect as posing a particularly significant problem. Pauline McNeill asked whether this was a unique situation. I think that it is a unique situation. It cannot be duplicated anywhere, because of the scenery, the surroundings and all the rest of it. That may be why the two sides have become so entrenched. The possibility of future legislation is the route down which we ought to go, on which basis I would plump for option 2.

I shall ask the clerks to begin on option 2, but also to let the committee have a summary of the evidence that we have heard and the questions that we have asked, when that is available. It would be useful if we could hold the report at that stage, so that we could have a quick look at it. We may then identify specific issues and questions that we would like the Scottish Parliament information centre to consider before we make a final decision about what we will do. That might be the best way in which to proceed, so that we do not feel that the matter has got away from us.

Are members happy with that action at this stage?

Members indicated agreement.

I am not quite sure when we will reconsider the report, but we now have experience of dealing with reports and know that we can get through them relatively quickly.

That concludes the item on the Carbeth hutters. We will now move into private session, as was agreed at the previous meeting. I ask non-committee members to leave the committee room.

Meeting continued in private until 13:18.