Petition
The next item concerns the Tayside valuation joint board. The petition is from Ian Cantwell, and is concerned not so much with the valuation of his property but the way in which it was conducted. Members will remember that he was not on his farm at the time of the assessment and that the two assessors climbed over the fence and started to take measurements.
On page 3, there are three suggestions for resolving the matter; it is up to members to decide which we choose. I ask you to consider paragraph 15, about the way in which the assessors conducted their business. There seems to be a system whereby, if someone's property is valued at such-and-such an amount, they can appeal and that appeal can be moved through to the various groupings. However, there does not seem to be a system for complaining about the conduct of an assessor.
Members will read that Ian Cantwell made a complaint and received an apology. However, he continued to pursue the matter on the basis that there should be something other than an apology.
I leave it open to members to decide which of the three suggestions you would accept or indeed whether there is anything else that you wish to do.
I suggest that we delay any decision until the committee can consider a detailed report.
So that would be the third suggestion.
There are wider implications.
Paragraph 15 seems to be contradictory. The first sentence says that
"there does not appear to be any individual or body to whom complaints can be taken about the conduct of Assessors."
Two sentences later, the paragraph reads:
"the Assessor is answerable to his employers"—
which I take to be the joint boards—
"on matters such as . . . alleged misconduct".
There seems to be a contradiction between the two. Mr Hancock, who wrote that, is not here to explain, but it seems peculiar.
Yes, it does.
I know that the assessors are keen on their independence and that people cannot lean on them. That is important, but if chaps are climbing over hedges when they should not and are trespassing, that has nothing to do with their independence and might well come within the remit of the joint board that ostensibly looks after the assessors. It would give that board something to do.
That section is badly written. However, the second paragraph on page 1 states:
"On receipt of the complaint it was accepted that the staff in question had no authority to do this. The Assessor's Office and the Depute Assessor (on behalf of the Assessor)"—
who, I guess, climbed over the fence—
"apologised immediately and on a number of occasions since."
They have obviously taken up the complaint.
As we are talking about apologies, I would like to make one to the assessor's office. I have already written to that office, but as I said something in error in public, I feel that I should apologise in public. I raised the specific issue of people jumping fences and not going through the due process of law. I said that that was wrong and that the assessor's office should apologise for that, but that office has, apparently, done so. I was not aware of that.
I would like to talk in general about the recommendations in the paper and not about this specific case. Those who are employed by the assessor's office are public servants and, although they do not come under the jurisdiction of local government, they are housed in local government premises and perform a service for local government. All such bodies should be accountable and we—as individuals, business owners or big companies—should not need to resort to a process of law to gain additional information or for policing.
The public sector ombudsman would be the ideal means of dealing with such a problem. Although the office of the assessor is not a local government office, it is in that area and the ombudsman is at the right level to deal with it. It is not enough to leave it to a senior person in a department to police it and to be the final arbitrator in disputes. That role should be filled by somebody from outwith the department.
I have read the report and I am not convinced that there is a major issue for the committee to address. It seems that what is before us is an individual complaint. The complainer has received an apology and the office of the assessor has accepted that its staff were in the wrong. In addition to that, the valuation for the year has been deleted and the complaint has been resolved by the assessor. If the issue is the conduct of an individual and whether that individual should have been disciplined, that is not something that the ombudsman would be likely to get involved in. If the issue is valuations, there is an appeal system.
No major issue arises that would result in the committee wanting to amend legislation. I recommend that there is insufficient reason for amending the current legislation and that we maintain the status quo.
I am caught between agreeing with Kenny Gibson and agreeing with Bristow Muldoon. Bristow is right up to a point, because Mr Cantwell's complaint has, to all intents and purposes, been dealt with. It could, therefore, be argued that the system operated to his satisfaction because the problem was resolved. Why, therefore, should the system be changed?
There might equally be something going on that requires further examination. I tend, in that case, to agree with Kenny Gibson that the third option is the best. We might need to have a more detailed examination of the issue to see whether there are wider implications. In the case of this individual, the problem seems to have been resolved, but there might be a bigger issue that needs more detailed analysis.
We should separate the issues.
The appeals system is thorough. To be frank, I have been through it a number of times, in different business premises. It is cheap, cheerful and quite user-friendly. In the past, householders could appeal against their rates, but nowadays only businesses may appeal rates—there is no argument about that. However, the appeals system part of the process is not regulated. We have just debated standards for councillors, and we would all like MSPs to be included in those standards.
I am quite worried that, because people are under pressure to assess properties, they think that they can jump over fences and do things that no one else can do, with no threat of retribution. It is clear that an apology was made for that action in this case, but, on the other hand, just a little bit more should be done to reassure the public that there is someone above the head of department concerned to whom they can go. Just one extra yard is needed—just a little reassurance.
If Michael McMahon and Kenny Gibson are suggesting that we should revisit the issue in order to find out more information, I would support that approach.
We must clarify what we mean by requesting a fuller investigation. Although people may persuade me otherwise, I do not think that it would be appropriate to go into the specific case of this petitioner. However, if we are talking about the extent to which the public sector and public employees are answerable for their actions, that is a separate matter from valuation decisions and is part of the debate about the police policing themselves—many other professional bodies also police themselves. There is a broad question about where people can go if they are dissatisfied. For example, if a council employee speaks to a member of the public in a particular way, that member of the public will often approach their councillor or their MSP. We might want to clarify where people can go, if they still feel dissatisfied.
If we were to consider conducting a fuller investigation, I would be far keener to investigate the way in which the assessment procedures work and how user-friendly they are in general, rather than investigate this particular case. However, I am conscious that we are dealing with a petition.
The committee must be clear about what the investigation will look into, if it wants to have a fuller investigation, as well as acknowledging the much broader question, which perhaps we should explore in tandem with the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Bill. We could consider putting in place structures that go beyond the straightforward management of the work force that is in place at present.
The Executive would be willing to carry out a report, which we could consider, or we could carry out a report. The issue seems to have broadened out. I take Johann Lamont's point—I do not think that we can go into more detail on this particular petition than we have done on others. There has been a satisfactory outcome for the petitioner, but perhaps we should examine the procedure.
If we agreed that we should go with the third suggestion, we would then have to make three decisions. Should we carry out a report; should we ask the Executive to carry out a report, which we could consider; and/or do we try to broaden out the investigation? However, I am not sure what the Executive would say about broadening out the investigation, as it has said that it would be happy to investigate the matter and come back to us with a report.
Is the Executive talking about the specific experience of Mr Cantwell?
No—it is talking about the general principles. It is not talking about the policing or about any of the other issues that the discussion has widened out to consider.
To my knowledge, the assessor is in a unique position. However, there appears to be some ambiguity in the report on whether, in the circumstances of misconduct, the assessor is open to disciplinary action or whatever by the relevant council committee. We must clarify that point, because if he or she is not under a committee's control in that sense, perhaps an amendment to the legislation or to a regulation is required. If we look at it in that way, we might make some progress. Personally, I think that we should go down that route, rather than go down the ombudsman route.
Kenny Gibson has proposed that we go for the third option, which is to obtain a report. Do members think that the Executive should do that report, which we should consider? We do not have much time, and I think that the Executive should do a report.
Yes.
But will we understand it? [Laughter.] I hope that the official reporters will not pick that up.
We need the report to be easy on the algebra.
That would be helpful.
Are we agreed that we will go with the third option, and ask the Executive to come back to us with a report?
Members indicated agreement.
I remain less than convinced about the issue. However, there is obviously a consensus in the committee, so I will go along with that.
You might be right.
I do not think that we need the official reporters for the next item—they may go for lunch.
Meeting continued in private until 12:37.