Carbeth Hutters
The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-1228, in the name of Gordon Jackson, on behalf of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee on consideration of a report on petition PE14 from the Carbeth Hutters Association.
Looking around me, I can see that members consider that a debate on the Carbeth hutters is unlikely to set their pulses racing. In excitement, it might seem to rank alongside the ubiquitous shellfish with the bad memories. However, it is a matter of real importance.
Members might think that the MSP for Glasgow Govan would not know the first thing about this issue, but they would be wrong. I had hardly arrived in the constituency before I knew a great deal about it. Some of the people most affected by this apparently rural matter live in the heart of the city, and some of the most active members of the Carbeth Hutters Association live in central Govan.
In order that members may understand why that is, it is appropriate that I explain the background. Carbeth estate is located north of Glasgow, in the Drymen area. Individuals have leased or rented plots of ground, on which they have built what are essentially holiday homes. These are permanent and immovable structures, the so-called Carbeth huts. The tenants do not own the land and have built immovable structures—houses or huts—on land that is owned by someone else. A tenant can sell the hut to any other person, but the new tenant, even if that person is approved by the landlord, is in exactly the same position: of having built an immovable structure on someone else's property.
I would not recommend doing that; it is never a wise thing to do. However, the huts were built in a particular historical context. In the 1920s, the owner of the land was extremely sympathetic to the whole idea. If one examines the records, it is clear that he saw this as a social good—a facility for urban dwellers to enjoy the countryside. He wanted the hutters to be "looked after".
The years passed. Even though either the tenant or the landlord has the right to terminate the lease with 40 days' notice, the situation continued unchanged for many years, until the present estate owners increased the rent by a substantial amount. In response, the hutters—or at least a number of them—refused to pay the new rent. In response to that, the estate exercised its right to terminate their lease and took legal steps to evict the non-paying tenants. That case has been and, to my knowledge, still is going through the court. This was, and is, a very heated dispute. As is often the case with such disputes, it has generated more heat than light. Extremely serious allegations have been made on both sides.
The hutters claim that a sort of rural Rachmanism is going on. In their view, the rent increase is totally unreasonable and the estate simply wants them off the land. These are, in their language, the Carbeth clearances. If they are pushed off the land, they will lose their property—their summer home—which will become the property of the landowner. Because, by and large, the law is on his side, it should be changed.
The representatives of the estate say the opposite. They say that the rent is a reasonable increase, as the estate must be commercially viable, and that the increases are fair and appropriate in order to provide needed improvements and facilities. In the estate's view, the hutters simply want their holiday for nothing. They should pay the fair rent or they should leave. The estate's representatives tell us that if a tenant is evicted and the property is sold, the estate will return any profit to the tenant. That, they tell us, is the sign of their good faith. They argue that the law does not need to be changed and is perfectly clear and fair. They want to be conciliatory and, in any event, the change that has been proposed is unworkable in this situation.
I hope that that is a fair summary of the positions of the two sides in this dispute.
The member has spoken about tenants and tenancies. The difficulty is that these are not tenants or proprietors, but people without a contract of lease in the usual sense. We are not talking about rents; it is service charges. Is that correct?
I do not want to get too technical. People are tenants in the sense that they lease the property; they pay a ground rent. It is argued that a service charge is in the proposed increase, but the legal problem is that they are leaseholders, or tenants, of the land and they have built property on someone else's land. That gives rise to the problem. I have given both sides of that argument.
Against that background, we as a committee make several comments. First, and importantly, this is not an issue about the so-called Carbeth hutters. There are two sides to that dispute. The role of this Parliament is not to adjudicate on that matter. The committee did not feel able to take a view on whether the proposed rent is reasonable. We took no position on that.
It is the broader principle that is important, not just Carbeth or other sites of hutted property. A landowner can rent or lease a piece of ground. He can allow a house, a bungalow perhaps, to be built on it with the implied suggestion that it will not harm a tenant. It can be implied that the tenant will continue to enjoy possession of their property, including what they have built. However, as time passes, the landlord—or perhaps the successor—can force the tenant off the land. The landlord could for example, in this case, in the absence of any rent review procedure, increase the rent to, say, £2 million a week. Off the tenant would go, as he or she could not pay that. The landlord, in effect, confiscates the house.
We have therefore made some suggestions. We raise the possibility, and in general terms support the idea, of security of tenure in this type of situation. That was not our unanimous view. Phil Gallie, who is not in the chamber today, is on record in the report as dissenting from that.
One suggestion we received is that where a permanent structure has existed on the rented property for, say, four years or more, there should be security of tenure. Our suggestion is that the tenant in this situation should have protection of security, as happens in other rental situations.
We also suggest that a proposed rent increase should go to an independent rent tribunal if no agreement is reached. That would allow a fair rent to be fixed, bearing in mind the need for improvements and commercial viability. It would prevent extortionate rents being charged in order to make a tenant's position untenable. We say that as a general principle, without prejudice to what the motives are in this specific case.
We recognise, and we say so, that those suggestions are tentative and partially unformed. We realise that legal changes on this matter are not without difficulty. We face up to that in our report. For example, the four-year period that was suggested by some people may be arbitrary and it might not be the right answer.
We recognise that the independent rent review is not without some difficulty in this situation. However, we wonder about the argument from the Carbeth estate that an independent rent review would be impossible in this kind of situation. Other expert advice suggests otherwise and we might think that it would solve the problem from the estate's point of view. If all that the estate wants is for a fair and reasonable rent to be fixed, why not have an independent tribunal in place to fix it?
All that we want to do at this stage—and I hope that I have the mind of the committee on this—is to ask the Executive to consider this matter. We have made suggestions, and we would like the Executive to respond to those. This issue is not without difficulty. I am doing no despite to Angus MacKay in saying that the last time that we heard from the Executive it did not have much of a view on this matter. We want it to think about the issue. It may be a case for legislation. There is a problem, which our report highlights, and we are asking the Executive to tackle it.
As always, I will finish by thanking not only the members of the committee, but the staff who have given us tremendous help in what for us was a very technical area, about which most of us knew nothing. We thank them for their help.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the content and recommendations of the 3rd Report, 2000, of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee on petition PE14 from the Carbeth Hutters' Association.
That was useful background to what happened in the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, but it would be helpful to take a step back to the Public Petitions Committee, which I was on when this issue was presented to it, and to look at the public petition from the Carbeth hutters, which was brought to the committee on 21 September last year. It asked:
"that the Scottish Parliament, as part of the first Land Reform Bill, brings in legislation which will ensure that people who have owned property on rented land for at least four years, where that property cannot be removed without being destroyed, have secure tenancies and access to rent control, to ensure that rents cannot be arbitrarily increased above inflation without reason, and that such owners cannot be deprived of their property without fair cause."
That is what was addressed in the evidence that we heard in committee.
This issue is important, because the Parliament has taken it from the Public Petitions Committee to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, which has heard evidence in great detail on three occasions and has received written submissions as well as oral evidence. Now this issue—which is at the heart of people's accessibility to this Parliament—has moved on to the parliamentary chamber. Sometimes it does us good for people to bypass politicians and to have a direct input into parliamentary procedures and legislation.
I have concerns about what happens next. So far so good, but this issue came to the Parliament in September last year. In the report from the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, which came out in November, we say on page 3:
"In summary, we believe that the transparency of an independent system of rent control and arbitration would benefit responsible landlords and their tenants and consequently we support the introduction of such a system."
That is what the Carbeth hutters were asking for.
On page 5 of our report we say:
"We would be grateful for the considered views of the Executive on this issue and, in particular, its opinion on whether its forthcoming Land Reform Bill offers a suitable opportunity to address this issue."
We are still waiting.
On 6 July a Scottish Executive official wrote to my colleague Mr Fergus Ewing and said:
"Mr MacKay has explained that the Executive intends to consult on both the principle and details of possible legislative proposals in this area. Any decision on legislation would only be taken after responses to the consultation had been considered."
The Executive also issued a press release along the same lines on the same day.
Since then, we have had the document "‘Huts' and ‘Hutters' in Scotland". I will address some of the issues in it. It is not a report following on from the work of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, but a separate background report. My colleague Fergus Ewing is not taking part in this debate because he has an interest in the matter, but in his letter of 11 September to Angus MacKay he drew the minister's attention to the fact that he had had a meeting with the trustees of the Carbeth Charitable Trust, who also are members of the Carbeth Hutters Association, and who drew his attention to substantial defects in "‘Huts' and ‘Hutters' in Scotland".
Paragraph 4.12, when talking about access to sites, states:
"On the other, Carbeth, the site owner takes a very proactive approach to creation and maintenance of access roads and thinning or planting of trees as part of a long term development programme to benefit both the hut occupiers and his land holding as a whole."
That is disputed by the hutters. That is not how they describe the roads that they have to go on. It appears from Fergus Ewing's letter that they were not fully consulted. I understand that questionnaires were given out, but not all hutters got them.
Paragraph 17 of appendix A of "‘Huts' and ‘Hutters' in Scotland" states:
"It was recognised that any information available from occupiers was likely to be a mix of fact, recall and, possibly, supposition, particularly over past history of use, not just by current occupiers but, even more, when a tenancy/licence changed hands, whether by purchase or by handing down by inheritance, some huts being thought to have been owned by a number of generations of the same family".
It seems that the views of the hutters are already prejudged in that document, which gives me concern. We ought to be able to say that the process so far has been open and democratic, but the Executive document does not appear to fulfil that test.
We are concerned by the tone of "‘Huts' and ‘Hutters' in Scotland", because of the issues that I have raised and for other reasons. We are concerned that the consultation that the Justice and Home Affairs Committee was told about is not yet under way. We are also concerned that this worthy public petition has, to some extent, been posted missing in certain respects.
I hope that what the minister has to say will give us some indication that the Executive is taking the matter seriously in considering land reform, and I ask him to give us a timetable of when he will report back to the committee. I also want him to say whether he will meet the Carbeth hutters to respond to their views on the Executive document.
It is some time now since the Justice and Home Affairs Committee first took evidence on the public petition that gave rise to the report that we are considering today. One could think of this debate in terms of freedom, but from two different perspectives: the freedom to enjoy spectacular scenery when the weather is fine and before the midge season; and the freedom to develop a family asset for future generations to enjoy.
On many occasions, constituents have contacted members of Parliament asking for assistance to overcome a bigger, richer or more articulate adversary in disputes that are similar to that between David and Goliath. That is what set this ball rolling. The Carbeth Hutters Association, which represents a small minority of the residents on the land, feels that its members have been wronged and aggrieved. They feel that—although I hesitate to use a phrase that has cult status on television—a Big Brother style of land ownership has been in operation on the land where they have built their property. Rightly or wrongly, that is their perception.
The evidence provided to the committee was insufficient for us to judge whether Carbeth rents are reasonable. I certainly found it difficult to make a judgment, there being, as far as we could establish, nothing to make a comparison with. How does one judge the value of a vista? How does one make a comparison between a rare tradition of hutting in a unique setting and, for example, investing in a time-share property? We are not comparing eggs with eggs, so we have to make a much broader judgment.
I feel that the evidence given by the estate and the representatives of the petitioners gave rise to more questions than answers—a most unsatisfactory situation. In an instance such as this, the onus of responsibility to prove the case surely lay on the well-financed and well-represented estate. It is clear that any responsible landlord must have the ability in law to raise rent agreements substantially when circumstances warrant such an increase. The examples of such circumstances given to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee are where massive investment in infrastructure is required or where costs have increased significantly.
A system of arbitration was proposed to ensure that rent control is achieved by linking rent increases to improved provision of services for hutters. The committee's conclusion was that such an independent system would benefit both responsible landlords and their tenants, and that this Parliament should therefore support such a system.
Although I am still happy to continue to back that position, and hope that it can achieve the best result for all concerned, I have some reservations. Years of experience of life and on the bench have taught me that a fair number of Scots enjoy rebelling against authority; I have been known to rebel myself. On that basis, it is entirely possible that groups of hutters could combine to frustrate landlords from imposing increased rents without due cause. And what constitutes a due cause? A belief that such plans are unnecessary. As I said, the debate raises more questions than answers.
Increased security of tenure for hutters is a minefield of potential pitfalls for the Parliament to navigate and should be given the fullest possible scrutiny in the event of the Executive introducing legislative proposals, either in the form of a bill specific to this debate or as part of other legislation. That will create a very busy work load, certainly for the Justice and Home Affairs Committee.
At Carbeth, every tenant has a lease that states clearly the landlord's expectations, together with the termination details and settlement clauses. In short, no tenant should be penalised financially under the arrangements that are set out by the Carbeth estate, because the net profit from the sale, after the deduction of costs and arrears, is paid to the departing tenant. Unlike the early days of time-share or floating time sales, no attempt appears to have been made to misrepresent the case. I believe that to be an honourable position.
For the second time today, I am indebted to Gordon Jackson for mentioning my colleague Phil Gallie's position on such issues. Phil Gallie opposed the Justice and Home Affairs Committee's recommendation that we should ask the Executive to consider whether it might legislate to give hutters increased security of tenure. While I sympathise with and support the committee's recommendation, I appreciate that Phil Gallie, who is unable for obvious reasons to be present today, has concerns that we could all accept as reasonable. I repeat that there are more questions than answers.
The structures, built on the landlord's land by hutters, are much more than just holiday homes. I recognise the existence of the emotional attachment between hutter and hut, to which Carbeth tenants testified. However, I am concerned that we do not tie ourselves in knots and penalise landlords unjustly, because they too make a valuable contribution to the communities in which they operate. If we prevent landlords from operating effectively, their businesses, like any other, could fail and everyone would lose. Clearly, that is not what the Carbeth hutters want—all they want is the opportunity to enjoy their retreat as and when they please.
At this stage, there is no foolproof, commonsense solution to every aspect of the problem that was identified by the hutters. The evidence is too thin. Perhaps the Executive's research will shed light on the issue; I certainly hope so. In the meantime, I am sure that a period of quiet contemplation—and enjoyment of one of nature's gifts—would be greatly appreciated by those concerned.
As a member of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, I subscribe to the committee report and its recommendations. It is fair to say that the more evidence we heard on the matter, the more complex we understood the various issues to be. As Gordon Jackson said, we came to the proper conclusion that we could not make a judgment about the specific dispute between the landowner and the Carbeth Hutters Association, so we drew out the general principles and considered them.
We understood that there are other hut sites like Carbeth elsewhere in Scotland, but we did not find out how many and where. As paragraph 5 of our report says, we asked the Executive to investigate that and the minister may be able to advise us, in due course, of the extent of hutting elsewhere in Scotland, if that research has been completed.
The key questions were whether there is a requirement for a statutory system of rent control and arbitration for huts, and whether legislation for increased security of tenure should be introduced. In general, our answer to both questions was yes, but how to go about meeting those requirements was not readily apparent. Personally, I think that stand-alone legislation would be required, rather than extra sections being tacked on to a land reform bill, which I do not think would be appropriate.
First, we would need to define the properties or huts that were to be covered. I am not clear that we know quite how to do that. I presume that a system of rent control and arbitration, and an appeal procedure, could be developed from other statutory examples, so perhaps that component of any bill would not be too difficult to develop. However, I am not at all clear how we would develop security of tenure in the specific circumstances of Carbeth.
Paragraph 23 of the committee report sets out the committee's reasoning on why it believed that the law should be developed to protect those who purchase or build "a complete fixed structure" on rented land. However, if one tries to inject security of tenure into that, what other circumstances would be implied in what one was attempting to do? The objective is clear—there should be some form of security of tenure—but achieving that might be particularly difficult.
First and foremost, before the Parliament proceeds, it must understand the extent of the problem across Scotland—as I rather think that the situation does not apply only to Carbeth—and, as a result, whether it is important to introduce legislation for the general problems that have been identified at Carbeth. Although I support the committee's recommendations, it will be difficult to achieve them and it would be helpful to know the extent of the problem before the Parliament can make progress.
I welcome today's opportunity for a debate on the situation at Carbeth and the case for legislation to give greater protection for hutters. Although the events at Carbeth have generated good and substantial press copy, we need to stand back and take a calmer and more careful look at the issues involved.
The Scottish Executive—and before it the Scottish Office—has closely monitored developments at Carbeth. I am concerned by the increasingly rancorous nature of the dispute between the Carbeth hutters and the landowner and am very disappointed that, despite the efforts of many people, the parties have not been able to find a way to resolve their differences.
Some time ago, Scottish Office ministers asked officials to review the existing legislation to see if this could help to resolve the position. A number of possibilities were explored. For example, encouragement was given to Stirling Council to consider conservation area status for the Carbeth site, and I understand that that proposal is now being developed. However, conservation area status alone will not resolve the basic issue of site rents, which is the cause of the dispute at Carbeth. Furthermore, it was clear that the situation at Carbeth could not be easily dealt with through other legislative remedies such as measures related to housing tenancies or mobile homes.
Individuals and organisations raised the specific case of the Carbeth hutters as a land reform issue in their responses to the Land Policy Reform Group's first consultation. In its second consultation paper, the Land Reform Policy Group specifically sought views on the need for greater protection for those with property built on leased land. More than 120 responses commented on that suggestion, and although the views expressed varied considerably in strength of feeling, the responses were divided roughly equally among those in favour of legislation; those opposed to legislation; those who were undecided on the merits of legislation; and those who thought the question related to something other than the Carbeth issue.
Because of the rather inconclusive nature of that response, the group's third paper "Recommendations for Action", issued in January 1999, recommended that there should be further investigation of the issues. As part of that investigation and to inform any decisions, the Scottish Office commissioned research from an independent researcher to provide more information on the extent of hutting and hut sites in Scotland. That research was completed and published earlier this year, and I will return to its findings later.
The Executive has tried to assist the Justice and Home Affairs Committee with its inquiries and our officials have given evidence and information that I hope was helpful. Furthermore, we have noted that the committee restricted its inquiries to the situation at Carbeth and took evidence from the key parties involved in that dispute. However, if any prospective legislation is to avoid hybridity, it will clearly need to relate to all hutters and hut sites in Scotland and could not simply focus on Carbeth. I am glad that the committee has recognised this in its report.
Having taken evidence on the position at Carbeth, the Justice and Home Affairs Committee concluded that accurately defining the interests of hutters was complex. From the evidence that the committee received, it was not able to take a view on whether the rent charges of the Carbeth estate are reasonable. However, the committee agreed that, in principle, legislation was required to achieve two objectives: to create an independent system for determining the rent and to provide security of tenure. It also suggested that this legislation might form part of the proposed land reform bill.
We studied the committee report carefully before responding and, like the committee, we also consider that the position throughout Scotland must be taken into account. The research findings seem to indicate that, in respect of the size of the site and the level of the rents, the position at Carbeth is fairly distinct from other hut sites elsewhere in Scotland. We asked the researcher to establish the number of hutters in Scotland; where they were; who they were in general terms; and the ownership of the sites on which the huts were built. As a result, 27 sites were identified on which there were numbers of huts, in addition to individual huts on isolated sites.
We now believe that there are in the region of 650 huts in Scotland, on sites from the Angus coast to the Solway coast, with a number of inland sites near the major conurbations. Approximately 80 per cent of hutters do not own the land on which their hut is situated. One site is council owned; the others are owned mainly by agricultural estates, farmers or other individuals. Most sites have fewer than 30 huts and operate in fairly informal ways, with rents averaging £5 a week. The majority of hutters are middle-aged to elderly people. Almost three in four huts have been acquired through purchase by the occupier, but some are still occupied by the original hutters.
Generally, huts do not have mains water, sewerage and electricity, and access from the nearest road is by farm track or occasionally through a field. Carbeth is the earliest site. Most started in the 1930s and, with the exception of one site where the landowner made land and materials available to families affected by the bombing of Clydebank, were the result of direct approaches to the landowner to build a hut on the land for holiday and weekend use.
Huts are liable for non-domestic rates, so the researcher sent a questionnaire to all hutters whose names and addresses could be identified from the valuation records.
As I was pressed for time I was not able to say so, but I understand that the position is that the assessors roll was out of date and many people were unfortunately omitted from the survey.
Over 450 anonymised response forms were sent out and more than a third—over 150—were returned. It may not have included every single person but it probably reflected a fairly broad view. There was no imbalance, because although we think there are 37 landowners concerned, 20 were identified and 15 were interviewed. It was not the case that all site owners had an opportunity to make an input when all hutters did not.
As a result of that methodology, in our view the research reflects the views of all the hutters who responded to the questionnaire. It is clear from the summary of the research that it is the informality of the hutting life that appeals to the majority of hutters.
Although notices to quit had been used to get rid of specific tenants on sites other than Carbeth, the research did not identify any comparable problems of conflict between hutters and site owners.
On legislation, we understand and sympathise with the points made by the committee but, as it recognised, any legislation is bound to be relatively complex and there is always the question of priorities for legislative time. It is worth noting that the committee did not feel able to make specific recommendations on the way in which legislative protection should be provided. We think it makes sense to consult in more detail on both the case for legislation and the nature of the provisions that might be required.
We are currently drafting a consultation paper on the principle of legislation that will be issued before Christmas. The paper will explain the background to the current situation and set out the detailed provisions that might be required to achieve the committee's objectives. It also suggests other possible measures that might be necessary if full statutory protection is to be provided.
Our initial view is that if the case for legislation is established, then we will need to create a form of statutory protection that is specific to hutters and hut sites. That would require a satisfactory definition of the category of property to be brought within the scope of legislation. We would then have to consider the mechanism by which hutters could appeal against rent levels and other charges set by site owners. Before we could do that, the principle or principles on which site rents should be set would need to be established. We would also need to arrive at a specification of grounds for eviction backed up by some form of appeals mechanism to deal with disputes.
In addition, we would need to consider other matters which go beyond the issues of rent levels and security of tenure, such as the assignation of leases to third parties, the compensation paid to hutters when they give up their leases and the rights of access to the hut site. As I said, a lot of work remains to be done.
The committee asked whether our forthcoming land reform bill offers a suitable opportunity to introduce provisions to assist hutters in Scotland. If we decide, in the light of our promised consultation on possible measures, that legislation is the best way forward, timing will have to be considered carefully. Given that consultation, I see no way that provisions on hutters could be drafted in time for inclusion in our draft land reform bill, which is due to be issued next February.
The Executive has given the commitment that a community right to buy, a crofting community right to buy and a right of responsible access will become law in the course of this Parliament. I am not prepared to put that commitment in jeopardy. Once the planned consultation is complete, we will report back to the Parliament on whether we think that legislation is the right way forward. If legislation is agreed on, we will consider the possible legislative options.
Does the minister have anything to say on the possibility of retrospective legislation?
No—partly because I do not want to anticipate what will be contained in the consultation document and the responses to the consultation exercise. That issue is still live, and is a matter of concern for all the parties that are involved.
In conclusion, I emphasise that the Executive has not come to any firm view on the case for legislation. Taking into account the responses to the consultation, we will need to decide whether legislation in this area should be a priority for the next few years, given the many competing alternatives.
The minister said that the consultation document would be out before Christmas. Can he give us a date for the end of the consultation process?
I cannot give an end date for that process. However, I reassure Alasdair Morgan that we will seek to carry out the consultation as swiftly as possible, bearing in mind the requirement to give all interested parties a fair amount of time in which to issue comprehensive submissions in response to it.
When we consider the responses to the consultation and the conclusions that will be reached, we will also need to take account of issues such as retrospectivity and compliance with the European convention on human rights, which is another factor. We believe that the consultees in this exercise will have an important role to play in informing the shaping or drafting of any future decisions, should we decide to proceed with them.
I acknowledge that this matter is far from concluded but, as the committee and the wider debate have shown, the path ahead is neither simple nor straightforward.
We now move to the open debate, in which four members currently want to speak.
The poor Carbeth hutters sought the simple life, but some types of landlord and, unfortunately, lawyers have taken it upon themselves to make life incredibly complicated. I remember having been involved in the early days of the campaign, long before this Parliament started up, when the Labour Government gave a solemn promise that, once the Scottish Parliament was in place, there would be speedy action and legislation specifically to protect the Carbeth hutters.
I do not regard this as a complicated matter—perhaps because I am not a lawyer. If, as the minister says, 80 per cent of hutters in Scotland do not own the land that their huts are on, perhaps there cannot be an umbrella law. Perhaps we need simple legislation to protect the Carbeth hutters, who are in an unusual position, as no other landlord is acting in this way.
Dorothy-Grace Elder says that there is a need for legislation in the specific case of the Carbeth hutters. Which Carbeth hutters is she talking about—those who are on rent strike or those who are quite happy with their lot?
I do not know whether it can be specified which is which. I see the Conservative view coming through.
Support for the hutters was overwhelming throughout Scotland and came from all sections of society. When I was involved with the campaign, my mailbag was far larger than it was during the general election. One of the supporters was the Duke of Buccleuch, who is said to be Europe's biggest private landowner. He wrote to the hutters and to me, condemning utterly what he called the type of feudalism that was being practised at Carbeth. He also kindly sent the hutters a donation. When a man such as the duke intervenes in a humane way, Conservative members should have second thoughts. Indeed, I changed the habit of a lifetime and approached the Scottish Landowners Federation to ask whether it could intervene. It used its good offices to try to make the landlord see reason—he was not a member of the federation.
People have been talking today as if we were discussing time-share yuppie folks. I remind those people that time-share properties usually have flush toilets. The hutters are without flush toilets and have no electricity or proper roads. We should remember that we are talking about not only large rent increases, but the imposition of between £300 and £400 a year service charges. What services, when there are no flush toilets and no electricity?
I will remind the chamber of the precious heritage that the Carbeth hutters represent. Such small communities, where poor folks could escape the cities, were set up in various parts of Europe from the 18th century—Rousseau created one outside Paris. The Carbeth huts were established after the first world war, reflecting the longing of men weary of the trenches to escape from the slums to the countryside. My family has letters from relatives who fought in that war; those letters tell how the men of Glasgow and the Highland Light Infantry spoke of taking to the hills after the war was over. One of the letters, written by one of my great-uncles when he was in the trenches in Flanders, says that
"some of the Glasgow men alongside us have never been near flowers before and there are plenty of flowers here. They are great fighting men but it is touching to see them press the poppies into their bibles because they come from terrible parts of Glasgow where no flowers grow. They talk about longing to get out of the city if any of us survive this war."
The writer of that letter did not survive and many of those Glasgow men lie buried under those poppies. Some, however, became the first Carbeth hutters. The landlord then was benevolent; he is the forebear of today's chap and I think that he would be ashamed at what members of his family are doing—although it is said that few businesses or ideologies ever survive the third generation.
I urge the minister to do the best that he can to help the hutters as they are pursued through the courts. Eighty eviction notices have been issued for a community that is made up of just 150 huts, and 17 cases have been pursued already. Hutters say that they have to pay the landlord's legal bills, which could top more than £20,000 by the end of this year. One pensioner of 72 has had his finances wiped out by the legal actions caused by that landlord.
There is a chilling aura of vindictiveness about the way in which the hutters have been treated. They do not deserve that. Three of the five people on the hutters association committee have had their huts destroyed in mysterious fires—in one case, a dog was burned alive. Is this the way in which the Scottish Parliament wants a beautiful dream of ordinary people to end? I think not. I urge the minister to think again and to speed up.
I welcome Gordon Jackson's balanced account of the Carbeth issue. I am interested and involved in the matter as the Carbeth estate is in the Stirling constituency.
Angus MacKay talked about the discussions with Stirling Council. As he said, those discussions on conservation area status are on-going. Since the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, I have received representations from Mr Barns-Graham, the owner, and from the Carbeth Hutters Association. After the Carbeth hutters handed in their petition to the Scottish Parliament, the matter was taken up by the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, as has been explained. I attended some of the committee's evidence-taking sessions and I agreed totally with the conclusion reached by the majority of committee members to support statutory measures to give hutters increased security of tenure and access to rent control and arbitration. However, the Justice and Home Affairs Committee made the point in its report that care would be needed when drafting legislation not to affect other groups adversely.
While the work of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee was continuing, the Scottish Executive commissioned research to examine the extent and nature of hutting in Scotland. The research report gives a descriptive overview of hutters throughout Scotland, but details of the hutters' views are restricted because of the methodology used. Christine Grahame made good points about that.
Will the member give way?
I will carry on, as I do not think that I will be able to finish my speech if I give way.
For example, although information from the owners was collected through semi-structured interviews, data from the hutters were gathered via a fairly brief questionnaire, which was mainly confined to pre-coded questions.
As the Scottish Executive concluded in its response to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee report, the research showed that other hut sites do not have the same problems as Carbeth. Those problems centre on security of tenure, difficulties with landlords and rent.
Where does that leave the Carbeth issue? The Executive's response mentions other issues that relate to the legislative process. The legislation would have to be ECHR compliant, but should it be retrospective—as was said earlier—and would it be in the long-term interests of hutters?
That last point raises an important issue: who is the legislation for? Is it for the Carbeth hutters, or is it for hutters more generally? The research report tends to suggest that it would be for the former, or perhaps for the more general cases where hutters own their huts on rented or leased land. The Executive's response takes on board that question and suggests that a definition of the category of properties affected be considered in the proposed consultation.
Although the Executive response refers to the pressures of the present legislative programme, I am aware, as was the previous speaker, of the many court cases produced by the Carbeth dispute and the resulting financial hardship. There have been 80 eviction notices and 17 court cases, but legal aid was made available only in the last case. If there is good reason for a consultation exercise, it should be conducted speedily so that hardships can be minimised in future. We badly need a resolution to the Carbeth issue.
Before moving on to a few matters of detail, I will reflect on the original impulses for hutting in the 1920s and 1930s.
Sustainable access to the land is a right. That right informed people in the 1920s and 1930s and it informs them now. More than that, it is a human need. People in cities, who are surrounded by concrete and glass, need to understand nature, to hear birdsong and to see a starlit sky.
The Black Environment Network—which is nothing to do with the black economy—found, in research conducted in Sheffield two years ago, that there were 12-year-olds who had never walked on grass and people who had not seen a cow for 20 years. That was in Britain. Such total lack of contact with the environment is a cause of spiritual poverty in our cities.
The hutting culture is an accepted way for people across southern Scotland to fulfil aspirations to get out of that bind. Figures suggest that there may be thousands of people who own huts, as well as other people who, through them, have access to huts. There are huts in the Borders, Fife, Angus and Dumfries and Galloway: simple, self-built, wooden dwellings, which have generally little or no adverse effect on their surroundings. Those huts must be protected.
Carbeth is not the only hutting community, but it is the biggest that still exists. We are at make-or-break point for hutting in Scotland. If Carbeth goes, there is every possibility that the other hutting communities will also go.
The hutters have filed into court one by one looking for justice, but they have yet to find it. All that they have received so far from the Executive is a sense of vagueness and delay. We ask the minister today whether he will come up with a definite timetable—we did not hear about one in his opening speech. All that the hutters have received from the courts is a bill for upwards of £20,000. As has been said, one hutter, an old-age pensioner, has been more or less bankrupted by the legal process. He took his case to the European Court of Human Rights—the minister may be aware of the case of Bill McQueen v UK, which is currently passing through its first stages.
The Human Rights Act 1998 has now come into force and it is the duty of this Parliament and of the Executive to ensure that legislation complies with it. Is the minister aware of the opinion of Professor Peter Scott, professor of law at Glasgow Caledonian University, that, under the act, this Parliament has a duty to curb existing human rights abuses and to introduce legislation to reform the law where it contravenes the European convention on human rights? It is the opinion of that leading legal academic that something needs to be done in favour of the hutters; it is also his opinion that, in failing to act as speedily as possible to protect the Carbeth hutters, the Executive and the Parliament may be in dereliction of a duty to protect human rights. Will the minister promise today to progress this matter as quickly as is humanly possible?
I undertook today to publish a consultation document before Christmas—within the next 60 to 70 days. I also indicated, in response to Mr Morgan's question, that the consultation process will only be as long as it needs to be to accommodate the requirements of fairness and allow people to make a detailed response. Short of that, how can I speed up the process between now—announcing a consultation document—and asking for responses to it? That process has to be gone through before we can have a debate about whether legislation is required and, if so, what that legislation should be.
I absolutely take that point. However, the minister indicated that other legislation to be introduced over the next year—especially the legislation on land reform, which is to come before the Justice and Home Affairs Committee—must come first, which could delay any legislation to do with hutters.
In conclusion, the Justice and Home Affairs Committee has done excellent work on this issue and deserves congratulations.
Petition PE14 is a success story. It demonstrates that it is possible to petition this Parliament effectively and that the committee structure can act to get the Executive to act, as I believe it will.
I thank the Executive for carrying out its research, which is commendable. If it was not for that research, we would not know that there are other hutters out there. The fact that it is the Carbeth hutters who have a dispute with their landlord now does not mean that other hutters will not be involved in similar disputes. That is why we must find a way to legislate on this issue—not just for Carbeth, but for hutters throughout Scotland.
I visited Carbeth because I have constituents who are based there. I have been up to the estate and to some of the huts. I have been made a cup of tea by Tommy Kirkwood, although I would not say that the site is exactly my cup of tea, given that it has no running water or electricity. I am a city girl, and it was a bit alien to me.
However, an ideological point has to be made, although it was probably better made by Robin Harper. The Carbeth estate boasts breathtaking scenery, and if it were not for the family of Allan Barns-Graham, who originally bequeathed the use of the land to ordinary working people who had to live every day with the smog and pollution of the inner cities, those people would never have known the beauty of the open countryside. That is what is at stake if we do not do something to protect the hutting tradition.
With Sylvia Jackson, I went on a second visit to the Carbeth estate. We were invited by the landowner, Allan Barns-Graham, to hear his version of events. There is clearly conflicting information in the evidence from both sides. I must give cognisance to the fact that, as Dorothy-Grace Elder said, the Scottish Landowners Federation is whole-heartedly behind the Carbeth hutters. It is important to note what Robert Balfour, a vice-convener of the Scottish Landowners Federation, had to say. He said that the federation
"concluded that the original commitment that the Barns-Graham family had made—to provide for a social need by allowing the people of Govan to get into the countryside and build holiday accommodation—had been reneged on by the present owner, and that the level of rent and other burdens that he had imposed was unreasonable."—[Official Report, Justice and Home Affairs Committee, 23 November 1999; c 428.]
We can draw an analogy from existing law. The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, known as UCTA, protects people even when they enter into contracts freely, by ensuring that they still have some rights that cannot be taken away. We could apply that principle to the hutters. The lease contains draconian measures. The landlord can give 40 days' notice for any reason, and he need not give any reasons for evicting people. That cannot be right.
We have heard about the trouble at Carbeth, which must be resolved. There have been 80 eviction notices. Bill McQueen, a pensioner of 72, is now bankrupt. I have seen some of the huts that have been burned down. They are a matter of serious investigation.
Hutting is a traditional practice in Scotland. It is not on the increase and, to ensure that it does not decrease, we must take urgent action, because we should preserve the tradition. I do not think that Carbeth is unique.
Where should we go with legislation? If the Parliament is to legislate, it must do so for the right reasons. We must ensure that the legislation is consistent. There are two options: arbitration or rent controls. The upside to arbitration is that an independent arbiter takes the decision. The downside is that both parties must accept that decision. I agree with Euan Robson's argument that a land reform bill is not the place for such provisions, because they are meant to ensure fairness and equity and they do not fit neatly with the purpose of land reform legislation. Provisions to protect hutters should sit on their own.
I am not surprised that there is so much support for the Carbeth hutters. I came to the Parliament to argue for justice and for just laws—I will continue to do that. If the Parliament cannot find a way to protect the hutting tradition in Scotland, we have to question why we are here.
I became interested in this issue when, as regional MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife, I was asked to visit Carbeth by the owner of the estate, Allan Barns-Graham.
Sadly, most of what I have heard today typifies one side of a polarised argument. I would like to give members the other side. Dorothy-Grace Elder is not in the chamber, unfortunately—maybe she is having a cup of tea—but she seemed to suggest that Allan Barns-Graham is some sort of ogre or hyphenated, upper-class, landowning brute, who is seeking to remove the hutters from his land. I have visited the huts and the land that they are on about five times and I can see little evidence to back up that suggestion.
I have heard Mr Gordon Jackson's considered view of the matter and I have heard the minister explain how we can reach some sort of conclusion on this. However, I believe that we must not only hear both sides but come to some conclusions on the evidence. For instance, there is great talk—Dorothy-Grace Elder mentioned this—of the Carbeth estate having made the huts available to help people returning from the war. Why is it then that there were only five huts by 1927? The truth seems to be that hutting became the practice because people used to camp on the land. There were problems with that, however, so there was a gradual introduction of more permanent accommodation, for which land rent was paid.
The evidence seems to show that the rental that was charged eventually became what one would normally call a peppercorn rent. On taking over the management of the estate, through inheritance, Allan Barns-Graham could have walked away—he was already a successful businessman—or tried to make a go of it. In order to make a go of it, he had to raise the rent to a level at which income could help to fund both the debt on the land and the borrowing for investment to improve the lot of the hutters. If the estate was to be successful, not only would existing hutters want to remain on the land, but income would have to be used to expand the site to accommodate more people. That Mr Barns-Graham wanted to make a go of it was evidenced by the fact that he bought additional land with further huts.
It appears to me that Mr Monteith is giving supplementary evidence on behalf of Mr Allan Barns-Graham. If Mr Monteith considers the evidence that the Justice and Home Affairs Committee took, he will see that we heard from hutters who were not in dispute and from representatives of the Carbeth estate. Our approach was rounded. We took all views into account; we did not listen to just one side of the story. Moreover, Mr Monteith thinks that we restricted our report to the Carbeth estate. However, although we were dealing with a petition about the situation at Carbeth, we were aware of other hutters elsewhere.
I thought that Christine Grahame had thicker skin. I was not suggesting that the committee did not seek evidence from all parties; I was thinking about the general debate and, in particular, about some of the contributions to it—not least Dorothy-Grace Elder's. It can happen that, almost like some poor "Panorama" programme, evidence is gathered to justify conclusions, rather than to be analysed. I would contend that this Carbeth dispute is, in effect, the Grunwick of land reform. People wish to get something out of it; it has become a cause célèbre. If any legislation were to be passed as a result of what has happened at Carbeth, it would probably be bad legislation that would have a detrimental effect on other hutters throughout Scotland.
As has been pointed out, huts have been burned down, but huts have been burned down on both sides of the argument. Wardens' huts have been burned down, but what are wardens? Wardens are hutters—hutters who enforce some regulations within the estate. It is clear to me that the Executive is trying to take account of all sides and to weigh up the evidence. I think that the minister has struck the right balance. If legislation is needed, let it be based on the facts; let it be based on the impact on all hutters and not just those in Carbeth; and let it not reduce the availability of huts for hutters or the willingness of landowners to make their land available. Otherwise, the legislation will be nothing but a Pyrrhic victory for the Carbeth hutters and those who support them.
I am not a member of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee but I am a member of the Public Petitions Committee, which first received the petition from the Carbeth hutters. I would like to thank the Justice and Home Affairs Committee for going all the way with this one and for instigating this debate.
We have heard from various parties about the history of the hutters movement, not only in Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom; someone mentioned the hutters movements in France as well. We have heard concerns about what happened to hutters after the war. Robin Harper pointed out that the community at Carbeth is the biggest hutter community in Scotland. Those hutters are due a just hearing from this Parliament. I hope that, at the end of our deliberations, the result will also be just.
I do not think that the Executive's response to the Carbeth hutters' petition has been mentioned yet, but I have read it. We all know that, as Sylvia Jackson said, new legislation must be compatible with the European convention on human rights. The minister talked about the consultation period, but Sylvia Jackson and Christine Grahame pointed out—although Brian Monteith may not agree with this—that there did not seem to be as much consultation with the hutters as there was with the landlords. That should be clarified in a further report—or just now, if the minister wishes.
As I said, the consultancy conducting the research for the Executive tried to contact 450 hutters—forms were sent to 450 hutters to give them the opportunity to respond anonymously. The researcher also tried to contact 20 site owners. Fifteen took the opportunity to meet the researcher.
I know that concerns have been raised, for example by the Carbeth Hutters Association, which has requested a meeting with me. I do not think that such a meeting would be appropriate at this time, but I have suggested that representatives of the association meet my officials as soon as possible to express their concerns about the research. It may be that, once the consultation process is under way or concluded, we will reconsider the appropriateness of ministerial or other meetings.
I am glad that there will be a meeting with the Carbeth hutters. The minister will note from the figures that there is a big gap between the numbers of landowners and hutters responding to the research. Perhaps as a percentage more hutters than landowners responded.
We have heard much of the history of the hutters and what they have been through. As Gordon Jackson and Pauline McNeill said, it is not just the Carbeth hutters who are affected, but I think that the Carbeth hutters are a special case. The Carbeth site was set up in the 1920s to enable inner-city dwellers who did not have much money to get out of the smoke and grime of Glasgow and into the country. Ever since, the hutters have taken advantage of that opportunity.
Brian Monteith might disagree with me, but I think that the circumstances of this case and the suffering of the people who are involved make the Carbeth hutters a special case. Most of these people are working class and come from the cities. Generations have followed a tradition that has continued for more than 50 years. Families have been brought up there and have enjoyed the freedom of spending a weekend or a week there. They have paid for their huts and done an enormous amount of work on them. They own their huts and are very proud of them, but now they are being chased off the ground.
The minister has clarified what is happening with the consultation period. He said that, although the consultation document will be produced at Christmas, there will not be time to include measures in the land reform bill, which will be introduced in February. However, we have still not been told when he will comment on the consultation with a view to introducing legislation.
We will publish the consultation document before Christmas—we will try to do so as soon as possible. We will then make it clear what the consultation period will be. I think that today I have twice undertaken to keep that period as short as possible to allow a speedy return.
The difficulty is that the land reform bill will be a major piece of legislation, which will combine three significant strands. It would not be appropriate to risk further delay to that bill to accommodate the drafting of potential legislation on this subject. I do not say that that is technically impossible, but I think that it would be undesirable, as it would present an unjustifiable risk to land reform legislation.
I thank the minister for that intervention, although I do not agree with him. I think that measures on this subject should be introduced into the land reform bill in February. If legislation cannot be drafted, is there anything else that the Parliament can do in the meantime to alleviate the plight of the hutters? Perhaps a moratorium is too much to ask for. The hutters face court injunctions, mass evictions and massive rent increases.
Robin Harper mentioned the ECHR. I am almost sure that the hutters have a good case to take to the European Court of Human Rights. I pay tribute to the tenacity of the hutters.
It is indicative of the intricacies of the work of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee that, on my first day as the committee convener, I have been involved in both leasehold casualties and the issue of the Carbeth hutters.
I welcome the response of most members to the committee's recommendations. I am not quite sure whether the Conservatives agree with the recommendations—if so, they got there by a rather circuitous route.
In its response to the committee report, the Scottish Executive said that
"the research has not identified any comparable problem with . . . other hut sites."
The research that the Executive alludes to is the document that various members have mentioned, which, of course, was not available to the committee during its deliberations. However, the committee recognised the fact that such disputes are rare. The committee report said:
"The fact that the land being offered for rent is on a hut site of long standing is likely to encourage individuals to accept terms of lease which they would not in other circumstances. In summary, hutters sign the Missives of Let in the expectation, built on historical precedent, that the landlord will not exercise his rights without due cause . . . The difficulty is that this assumption, which has underpinned the operation of hutting for decades, has no statutory basis – it relies almost exclusively on the good will of the landlord."
The research document makes the same point.
The committee sought to make no judgment on the specific causes of the Carbeth dispute or to apportion blame. However, it is clear that when the good will that is referred to broke down, the system had no mechanism or safety catch to allow the situation to be resolved. The point is not whether the landlord was oppressive or whether the hutters wanted something for nothing; the point is whether improvements to the legislative framework would prevent a recurrence of such a situation elsewhere in Scotland.
Having seen the problem, the committee recognised that the solution was not necessarily straightforward. Given that fact, and given the pressures on committee time and the lack of research back-up, it is not surprising that, as the Executive notes,
"the Committee did not set out detailed proposals."
The committee was concerned about being too prescriptive. Members had knowledge of a wide variety of hutting establishments—outlined in the research documents—and of the nature of other situations, such as static caravans that might inadvertently be caught up in some legislative change that was not intended for them. The committee's concern is justified by the Scottish Executive's research document, which outlines the variety of applicable circumstances in different parts of Scotland.
The committee made two recommendations: rent control and arbitration, and increased security of tenure. The Executive has agreed to consult on those proposals. I understand why that cannot be an overnight exercise. However, it cannot be a process with no end point. It would benefit all parties in any future dispute if we were to reach a conclusion as soon as possible.
I understand why the proposals may not necessarily fit into the large land reform bill. However, I was a wee bit concerned when the Deputy Minister for Justice said that he did not want to promise to include those proposals in the bill because that might endanger the prospects of achieving land reform in the course of this Parliament. Barring accidents, this Parliament will not finish until May 2003. I hope that the minister's statement is no indication that the problem will not be resolved before May 2003. If the Scottish Parliament can do one thing, it can move quickly on such matters, which, if we were still run from Westminster, would not even see the light of day.