Justice 1 Committee, 31 Mar 2004

Meeting date: Wednesday, March 31, 2004

Official Report 180KB pdf

---

Security of Tenure and Rights of Access

Item 3 is on security of tenure and rights of access. A background paper covering closed petition PE14, from the Carbeth Hutters Association, and related subsequent correspondence has been supplied. Members will recall that the committee discussed the matter a few months ago, that we took quite a strong view on the matter and that we wrote to the Executive, providing a copy of the relevant Official Report, outlining the committee's views and concerns. Members will note that we have received a reply from the Executive, outlining its position. In summary, it seems that, although the Executive is sympathetic about the issues that we have raised, it does not really see a way forward by way of legislating to protect hutters in Scotland. The question is whether the committee feels that further work could be done or wishes to accept the Executive's response.

I note the Executive's response, but I wonder whether there is scope for the committee to procure some expert advice on the matter and to consider what other options might be available. The Executive has given us its view, which is that it does not believe that legislation is the route to go down. However, I do not feel that I have sufficient information before me to decide whether we should just accept the Executive's view. I would like to know whether there is a possibility of procuring expert opinion from an academic in the field, who might be able to advise us as to the other options that might exist, should the Executive not be prepared to consider new legislation.

I agree with what Michael Matheson has said. I do not think that we should drop the matter—or draw a line under it, as the Executive puts it in its letter. I would not be happy to leave the matter as it stands at the moment, and I think that getting expert independent advice would be very useful.

I am concerned about the part of the Executive's letter that suggests letting the negotiations at Carbeth go ahead so that the issues can be resolved locally. The problem does not exist only at Carbeth; it applies, as we know, to other locations—Lochgoilhead being a case in point—and I think that there is another case in Dumfries and Galloway. To focus only on Carbeth is rather to miss the point; there is a wider problem. We should continue to examine the matter, and we should keep it open. I would welcome some expert independent advice and would wish to find out whether an expert's view was in line with that of the Executive, or whether they would take a contrary view.

I do not have any real problem with seeking independent expert advice, so that we can get a view that helps us when we consider the difficulties that the Executive has outlined. There is no doubt that they are real difficulties—I do not think that anybody would gainsay that. It might be an idea to have a fresh eye looking over the whole issue, so that we can ascertain whether there are any ways in which we may be of assistance and whether the problems that the Executive has outlined may be overcome in any way. I think that that would be a reasonable thing to do.

That is helpful. I draw to members' attention the fact that a note was left for us by the Carbeth Hutters Association, before we came into the chamber for this morning's meeting. As convener, I have taken a decision on the matter. I felt that the committee has been getting information in dribs and drabs over the past month or so, and I do not like papers appearing two minutes before the meeting. I must be consistent in that regard. However, I will circulate to members a note from Bill McQueen, who is the vice-chairman of the Carbeth Hutters Association.

Michael Matheson is probably in the same position as I am, as we have both been involved with the issue for a long time. I have been to Carbeth—that was one of the first things that I did after I was elected. I have always been persuaded that there is a unique situation at Carbeth, where land was gifted to people from Clydebank. The people built huts on the land, most of which have no running water or electricity and therefore might have a slightly different market value from that of chalets. We investigated the matter and I accept the Executive's position that people freely entered into leases and that to tamper with that arrangement would upset other aspects of the law. However, it seems grossly unfair on someone who has signed a lease for land that costs £500 a year and who has been going there for 10 years that the landlord can come along and say, "This year I have decided to charge £4,000."

I accept that it might not be easy to rectify the law in a way that does not upset other aspects of it, but I detect that there is a will in the committee to try to resolve the problem, even at this stage, and I support what members have said about taking independent advice.

It has been suggested that we take a fresh look at the possibilities—that is a good suggestion. We could ask the Law Society of Scotland or the Faculty of Advocates to cast an eye over the situation, or we could appoint an adviser to investigate the possibilities—or we could do both.

I suggest that we appoint an adviser who is a legal expert in the field to provide us with further information. I am conscious that it might be some time before the Law Society of Scotland or the Faculty of Advocates is in a position to provide us with a detailed briefing on the matter.

It would be helpful to hear the views of the Law Society of Scotland or the Faculty of Advocates so that we can balance those against the expert adviser's opinion. We should consider not just the situation at Carbeth but the wider issue, and those bodies would take a wider view.

It might well be that we are not able to secure an adviser, but we could certainly investigate the possibility.

Perhaps we could investigate both options to ascertain the most practical approach—or we could adopt both approaches.

On the basis of what members have said, we will consider the options that are available and come back to the committee. It is clear that we want to keep the matter going to see whether we can find a resolution to the problem.