Justice 1 Committee, 12 Nov 2002
Meeting date: Tuesday, November 12, 2002
Official Report
235KB pdf
Petition
Carbeth Hutters (PE14)
Agenda item 7 is on petition PE14.
I should again declare an interest that does not directly relate to the Carbeth hutters. I am an unpaid director of a family company that has a number of properties that either have or have had ground rents.
On the petition, I think that the recommendation in paragraph 11 of J1/02/38/9 is fine.
Before we proceed, I refer members to that paper and to the options in paragraphs 10 and 11. I would like members' views; Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has just given his view, although I am not sure what proposal he is content to accept.
Paragraph 11 is fine.
Right. Our course of action is that we will ask how many responses were received and whether an analysis of responses was carried out. We will also ask what issues were raised in the responses, whether there was support for legislation to protect hutters in Scotland and what action has been taken since the consultation period ended.
Does anyone have any other suggestions?
I am happy to go along with the recommendations in paragraph 11. It is ridiculous that the issue has died. A lot of work was put into it, a consultation document was produced with recommendations—I remember filling in my suggestions—and the whole topic appears to have vanished.
I have a copy of the original report from the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, and I think that it is important to put on record again what it says in paragraph 24:
"With the exception of one committee member, Phil Gallie, we therefore support the introduction of statutory measures to give hutters increased security of tenure so that they may not be deprived of their property without due cause and explanation."
I will also read out an answer from Jim Wallace to a written question, which he gave on 24 April, because it links to how the matter has dragged on. My question was:
"To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S1W-23288 by Mr Jim Wallace on 20 March 2002, when it will report to (a) the Justice Committees and (b) the Parliament on its conclusions from its consultation exercise on Huts and Hutters and the report on the Carbeth Hutters by the former Justice and Home Affairs Committee."
I received a holding answer on 4 April and a substantive answer on 24 April, which was:
"I am aware that constructive discussions are taking place at local level to resolve the difficulties at Carbeth which prompted the committee's report. All of us who are keen to see a fair and amicable settlement to this issue will hope for a positive outcome to the current discussions. I would not, however, wish to intervene in private negotiations, nor would it be appropriate to do so.
I expect within the next few weeks to announce conclusions on the committee's report and the subsequent consultation. It is already clear however that there would be substantial drawbacks to any attempt to legislate in this area. Some of these were recognised by the committee itself. Such legislation would be contrary to fundamental principles of Scots law, in particular that leased land under a short lease reverts to the landlord at expiry of the lease and that property built on leased land belongs to the landlord. Moreover, legislation could not be retrospective or applicable to hutters only, and its promotion might precipitate changes to the ownership and management of comparable estates in Scotland which would be profoundly damaging to the interests of hutters."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 24 April 2002; p 485.]
I apologise to members that that was not in their papers. It is the most recent answer that we have had on the Carbeth hutters. As far as I understand, we have not yet had a full conclusion, but the hints in the answer are not good. I read that by way of information and against the background of a long time ago when the committee was keen to see some legislation. Ministers cannot keep saying, "I will do this shortly." That answer was in April.
Do we want to refer to the parliamentary answer and to point to the fact that there has still not been any other formal response?
Members indicated agreement.