Public Petitions Committee

Meeting date: Thursday, June 15, 2017

Official Report 599KB pdf

---

New Petitions

---

Council Tax Bands (PE1649)

I welcome everyone to the 12th meeting in 2017 of the Public Petitions Committee. I remind everyone to turn their phones and other devices to silent.

The first item is new petitions, and our first new petition is PE1649, by Jennifer Lawrie, on council tax bands. Members have a copy of the petition, a Scottish Parliament information centre briefing and a note by the clerk. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to revalue all council tax bands in line with changes to the property market since 1991.

The SPICe briefing explains how the current system operates, and that the issues raised by the petition have recently been reviewed by the commission on local tax reform and by the Local Government and Communities Committee. I will not repeat everything that is covered in the SPICe briefing, but it is worth highlighting the fact that the commission heard evidence suggesting that, if revaluation had taken place in 2014, 57 per cent of properties in Scotland would have changed their council tax band. The Scottish Assessors Association also informed the commission that

“a revaluation exercise to a revised system of property valuation bands could be achieved at a cost of £5.5 million to £7 million and take two to three years.”

The SPICe briefing explains that the commission and the Local Government and Communities Committee both came to the conclusion that that policy change would be costly and challenging to implement. Do members have any comments or suggestions to make?

I can certainly see why the petitioner has submitted the petition. However, having looked at the other reports, I see that it would be logistically and administratively challenging, as well as quite costly, and there would undoubtedly be some shocks for householders. You have to be careful what you wish for at times. That said, I think that we should write to the Scottish Government and to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to seek their views on the petition.

I agree.

I hesitated about writing to the Scottish Government, because it has made its position quite clear, but it would be worth getting COSLA’s view. I am happy to go along with the suggestion that we should write to the Government, although I think that we know what the answer will be.

We will get the current position reiterated, but we should definitely write to COSLA.

You could argue about whether to have the council tax, or whether there could be a different form of local government finance. Even though it would be costly to change, as long as we have got it, it seems unjust that somebody who happens to be in a property that would have been deemed to have a certain value in 1991 should still be taxed in that particular band. Some properties will have improved and some will have deteriorated, but they have all stuck in the same band. Some people may get a bit of a shock in one direction, but others may benefit in the other direction. I am not advocating it, but I question why revaluation has been put into the “too hard” box, not simply because it is expensive but because people who are currently benefiting unfairly from the system would have to pay more. The point that the petitioner is making is that council tax bands do not relate to the values of properties now.

You could ask why we should go to the expense of that huge administrative task if the long-term view is that the council tax should be replaced, in which case revaluation would not be needed anyway. It is a difficult question.

We are having the debate. We should get the views of the Government and of COSLA before we even start looking at this.

We can agree to write to the Scottish Government and to COSLA. I would be interested to find out whether there are other organisations that are campaigning on the issue and may have a view.

In writing to the Scottish Government and COSLA, we should make it clear that we understand the issue of cost and risk to people but there is a fundamental sense of injustice here. After all, there are areas where property values have gone up and other areas where they have gone down, and people’s council tax depends on where their property happened to be in 1991. I think that the petitioner has identified a problem; that seems fair, but finding a solution to it might be a bit more difficult.

If the committee agrees, we will write to the Scottish Government and to COSLA, asking for their views on the petition. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Postgraduate Degree Funding (Eligibility) (PE1650)

PE1650, by Rebecca Jeynes, is on the Student Awards Agency Scotland’s postgraduate eligibility criteria. Members have a copy of the petition, a SPICe briefing and a note by the clerk.

The petition relates to the funding eligibility criteria for postgraduate students in Scotland, with the petitioner expressing concern that individuals who have studied an undergraduate degree in Scotland but who are ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom are not eligible for funding. In particular, she has highlighted a funding gap with regard to the postgraduate diploma in legal practice, which forms part of the route to qualifying as a Scottish solicitor.

Do members have any questions or comments?

The petition is quite interesting, given the discussions that we are about to have about working in the Scottish legal system, which is obviously different from the system in England. We should certainly consider writing to the Scottish Government and perhaps some of the student bodies to highlight the issue and get their opinion. It certainly seems to me that, if you are looking to do a postgraduate course in order to get into the Scottish legal system, you will be working in our country, and it is worth asking the Government and student bodies about that.

I agree. We could certainly seek their views.

I am not sure about the extent to which there is funding for postgraduate courses, full stop. By funding, does the petitioner simply mean access to student loans? We will all have anecdotal evidence of people in our families having to pay for postgraduate courses themselves. I am just not sure about the funding. Would a person who was deemed to be living in Scotland have access to funding for this diploma and, if so, what would the funding be? Another interesting issue is that funding for such a course will not be available elsewhere in the United Kingdom, because it is specifically about Scots law and for people who will be working in Scotland.

I think that we are agreed that we will write to the Scottish Government, the National Union of Students Scotland, the Student Awards Agency Scotland and Universities Scotland, seeking their views on the petition and perhaps a clarification of which courses attract support or, if not support, then the right to access a loan. It would be really useful to know that, because I know that in some professions, such as teaching, some local authorities will provide funding for postgraduate diplomas. It would be interesting to find out what that landscape looks like, how such decisions are made and whether there are examples of bodies funding people coming to Scotland from elsewhere in the United Kingdom to do postgraduate courses. I guess that the petition highlights what for me is the big anomaly that, of all European Union students, the only ones who do not get access to free tuition in Scotland are those from England and Wales.

If members have no other suggestions, does the committee agree to write to the Scottish Government, the National Union of Students Scotland, the Student Awards Agency Scotland and Universities Scotland, asking for their views on the petition and the interesting issues that it highlights?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Abusive and Threatening Communication (PE1652)

PE1652, by Irene Baillie, is on abusive and threatening communication. Members have a copy of the petition, a SPICe briefing and a note by the clerk.

The petition is concerned with the operation of the existing law on abusive and threatening communication and the extent to which it is enforceable, particularly in cases involving text messaging. The petitioner takes the view that the law needs to be reviewed, and the SPICe briefing advises that the relevant law is contained in the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012.

Do members have any comments or suggestions?

I would like to understand whether there are differences in the law between Scotland and the rest of the UK. I would have thought that threatening behaviour through text is the same as any other threatening behaviour and that the person could be prosecuted. I would like to understand the position. We should perhaps write to Police Scotland or the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to ask them to clarify the position.

There seems to be an issue about the impact of having to get corroboration that the text was actually sent by the person who owns the phone. I suppose that that is why the argument is put forward that there should be strict liability and that the person should therefore be responsible because it is their phone. However, I am aware from speaking to young people that from time to time they use other people’s phones to send messages or whatever.

One of the questions that I have written down is that we should consider asking the Scottish Government what action has been taken on the corroboration aspect, which follows on from the point about the Cabinet Secretary for Justice’s decision in April 2015 to postpone a proposal to abolish corroboration. We need to be specific about that.

I clarify that the issue is part of the hate crime review that was launched at the beginning of the year.

Corroboration has been mentioned. Is the idea that in this case the law should be similar to when, if someone’s car is caught speeding, they are liable unless they can prove that somebody else was driving?

I think that that is the argument that the petitioner is making. It would be interesting to know the views of those who are involved in the criminal justice system on the consequences of such an approach. We are not minimising in any way the impact of being at the receiving end of abusive and threatening communication yet not being able to get a prosecution because there is a need for corroboration. When someone can use such communication in a systematic way in a course of hostility towards you, it must be very difficult if, although it is recognised that it is happening, it cannot be proved. It would be interesting to ask the organisations that we write to whether strict liability would work. Would addressing the issue through changes to the legislation on corroboration make sense? Fundamentally, as Rona Mackay says, if this is a hate crime, how do we police it if we are not going to do it in the way that has been suggested?

The cabinet secretary said that the corroboration aspect would be part of a wider package of measures that was to be reviewed in the next session of Parliament, so it is obviously on the radar. It would be good to get clarification of where we are on that.

It is proposed that we write to the Scottish Government, Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. It would probably be good to write to some of the women’s organisations that support people who are dealing with abuse and violence. We should write to women’s organisations and organisations that deal with victims, especially since there is now recognition in the legislation that is coming through from the Government that not only physical violence but coercive control and so on are part of the issue. Should we write to anyone else?

We have got to the point that we understand that abusive and threatening communication is a crime and that it is a course of action that is directed against someone, but the issue is securing a prosecution and what steps should be taken to address that.

Exactly.

Do we agree to write to the Scottish Government, Police Scotland, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, women’s organisations and victims organisations to seek their views on the petition and, specifically, issues around the hate crime review, corroboration and the potential for the use of strict liability?

Members indicated agreement.