Justice and Home Affairs Committee, 16 Feb 2000

Meeting date: Wednesday, February 16, 2000

Official Report 193KB pdf

---

Carbeth Hutters

Item 3 on the agenda is the consideration of the evidence taken on petition PE14 from the Carbeth Hutters Association. The paper sets out the main issues arising from the evidence. We should consider it, and then agree our conclusion. If members recall, we agreed at our first meeting this year on 11 January that our committee report should not attempt to draw conclusions about the substance of the dispute, but should aim to draw the Executive's attention to the issues raised, and make more widely available the evidence that the committee has received. However, we can invite ministers to consider ways in which the hutters might be given greater security of tenure and/or some protection from arbitrary rent increases.

A bill relating to land reform is going through this Parliament—the Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc (Scotland) Bill—and there is to be another land reform bill, which I understand will include a crofting right to buy, as well as a community right to buy. So there are legislative opportunities in this Parliament to do something.

We will now look at the note from the clerk, and discuss it, keeping in mind that we have already agreed that we will not attempt to draw conclusions about the substance of the dispute. I think that we were all agreed that we had heard such totally contradictory evidence that it was difficult for us to come to the kind of conclusion that might otherwise have been possible. Are there any comments? Michael Matheson is in a difficult position, because he was not on the committee when we heard the evidence.

When I was looking through the evidence, it struck me that we never considered a comparison of the situation with respect to residential caravan owners and sites or holiday caravan sites. I wonder whether somewhere along the line it might be worth making that comparison.

I have some sympathy with that, but is it not the case that the issue boils down to the fact that the huts were not portable? If they were portable, the comparison that Phil Gallie has suggested could be made. From the early evidence that we took, I remember that the huts were a semi-permanent arrangement and that one could not move them except by destroying them. They are also in a slightly anomalous position, as this is by far the biggest such site. That is what gave us such difficulty when we were considering the evidence.

The huts are unique and cannot be compared to caravans any more than they can be compared to crofts. They are not people's principal place of residence. Something unique and specific is needed to deal with this situation, in the same way as something unique and specific was needed for crofts.

Anyone who sees the caravans on a holiday static caravan site is sometimes left wondering whether they are caravans. A great deal of money is often invested in building the caravan into the site. From my time as a councillor, I remember occasions when it seemed that the owner of a site was trying, after a minor tiff, to move on from the site someone who had bought a caravan and built it into the site with the owner's blessing. The holiday static caravan regulations might be useful to people such as the Carbeth hutters.

That would involve reopening the issue and taking further evidence. I am not saying that that is impossible, but those are the implications of what Phil Gallie is suggesting.

Perhaps the clerk could investigate the issue and build a comment into the report, if he finds something useful.

The clerk is indicating that that is possible.

I see the connections with holiday static caravans and crofts, but the historic background to and social evolution of the huts makes it clear that they are something separate. I would like them to have their own niche in legislation, just as we have specific legislation dealing with crofting and other kinds of tenancy or ownership. The huts are a historical phenomenon. I do not think that any new huts or hutters estates are evolving, although there are some in England.

Planning law prevents that.

We are talking about residences that, like crofts, have a specific historical evolution and require a particular legislative framework.

Basically, you are suggesting a Carbeth hutters (legal protection) (Scotland) act.

I am suggesting legislation for hutters in general, as the Carbeth hutters are not the only ones.

We do not want to get into taking further evidence. The background to this case is important. The point is that land was trusted to working people; in that sense, the huts cannot be compared to holiday homes. The intention was to make provision for holiday homes, but the land was set aside for people who could not otherwise afford to go on holiday. The Carbeth estate is a beautiful piece of scenic land, so there is a link with the land issue. If the huts did not exist, people who live in the city would not be able to enjoy that land.

It is a pity that the trust that was intended to protect the Carbeth hutters has not done so. I sympathise with the hutters and would like to find a way of protecting them. The evidence indicates that, rightly or wrongly, there is now a commercial development on the estate. The huts that we are talking about do not have running water or electricity and are very small and basic. There are new huts on the estate that seem to be developing along more commercial lines, which is a matter for the landowner.

This case boils down to two issues. The first is that the rent can be set arbitrarily, so that although the hutters have entered into the lease voluntarily, the landlords can do what they like. Secondly, the 40-day period for eviction seems unbalanced. Those are the things that we must try to legislate for, if we can. The answer probably lies in some kind of arbitration and rent controls. One way or another, I would like us to proceed with protective legislation. I take on board the fact that in its evidence the Executive indicated that that would be difficult, but it did not say that it was impossible.

That is right. Are there any further comments? We need to make progress on this item. We cannot leave it in limbo.

This is a classic case of what the land reform bill is supposed to address in the Highlands—people who live on the land being at the mercy of a landlord. If the landlord is good, everything is fine, but if the landlord is replaced by a Marumba or a Schellenberg, everything falls apart. The same sort of thing has been happening in the case of the hutters. However, the situation is not the same because people do not live permanently in their huts. We need to come up with a new piece of legislation to deal with that.

We are agreed that we would like the Executive to consider specific legislation that would provide protection for hutters and avoid their being put in the position in which the Carbeth hutters appear at the moment to find themselves. However, we recognise that there are some real difficulties in achieving that and invite the Executive to respond by indicating how it might go about setting up the kind of regulatory body that it claims is the only thing that can work in this area.

We need to move the issue on. We agree that the hutters need some kind of protection, although we accept that they are an anomaly and that none of the obvious existing protections can be applied to them easily. There may be an analogy with crofting, because although historically crofts were principal residences, arguably that is no longer the case. Phil Gallie has also suggested a comparison with caravans, which are not always as mobile as the word caravan suggests. Although we have not taken evidence in that area, the clerk might like to investigate it. Do we agree that there ought to be some protection?

I agree that we want the Executive to proceed with this, despite all the difficulties. We should ask it to consider three issues. The first is the annual lease and the principle of tacit relocation. The second is rent controls. The Executive says that there is no specialist information available in Scotland that would enable it to compare the hutters' rents with those of others, but there must be other mechanisms for deciding whether a rent is reasonable. The third issue is the 40-day notice of eviction. Those are the three areas in which we will have to legislate, if we are going to legislate at all. Without that, there is no security of tenure.

That is helpful. Phil, you are looking slightly puzzled.

I am just slightly puzzled, because I do not like the idea of setting up separate bits of legislation to deal with a whole range of specific issues. I can think of one example that could be compared to this. Back in my old Galloway Hydros days, we had a number of lochs for which people had fishing rights that dated back very many years. Those people had invested money, put in boathouses and used the facilities there, but we could probably have terminated any rights that they had to fish at the drop of a hat. That is just one example; but I am a bit concerned that there is a whole range of other examples out there that I have not thought about. I am wondering about the difference between those people and the Carbeth hutters.

If any changes could be built into existing legislation—and I come back to the static caravan legislation—I would be quite happy. I hear Pauline McNeill's comments, and I understand what she says, but I feel that what she wants could be incorporated in existing laws rather than a new law having to be drawn up to deal with just one case.

There is the possibility of incorporating it in the land reform bill.

Yes, that is what I have said: the Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc (Scotland) Bill and the land reform bill offer the opportunity of incorporating this issue in legislation that is already going through.

But in my view, it belongs more with static caravan legislation.

I appreciate what Phil is saying.

So do I.

But ultimately, Phil, I think that you will just have to accept that sometimes we will come up against complete anomalies. Whether we like it or not, this may be one of them.

I do accept that, convener, but I am worried about how many anomalies lie along the way.

Yes, but fishing rights are a different matter.

But there are boathouses.

Oh, do not start on boathouses, please.

All right. I think that we have covered enough for the clerk to get on with. Clearly, we will come back to this issue. If we are thinking of recommending that this be incorporated in one of the bigger pieces of legislation, we will have to watch the timing carefully.