General Commissioners of Income Tax (Expenses) (Scotland) Regulations 2003 (Draft)
I welcome Jim Wallace, the Deputy First Minister and Minister for Justice, and his officials. Members have a background note on the affirmative instrument that is next on the agenda. I invite the minister to speak to motion S1M-3930.
I will explain the background before I go into the detail of the regulations.
You have just answered the question I was about to ask—this is a precaution.
I get the firm impression that this is a bit of tidying-up that relates to history. Since the regulations derive from the 1970 act, they clearly precede the resumption of the Scottish Parliament by many years. Does the instrument relate to all the commissioners' work? In other words, does it concern the income tax system in general, rather than being restricted to that part of it which falls within the purview of the Scottish Parliament?
Mr Stevenson is correct. Although the instrument relates to the 1970 legislation, an amendment was made to the 1970 legislation by the Access to Justice Act 1999. The power to commence the provisions in the 1999 act lies primarily with the Lord Chancellor. However, given that the Scottish ministers appoint the general commissioners in Scotland, it was decided to seek executive devolution of the commencement function. The role of the commissioners is as a tribunal that hears appeals against decisions that are made by the Inland Revenue on a variety of tax-related matters. Therefore, their role goes well beyond decisions that relate purely to the tax-varying powers of the Scottish Parliament.
The minister will know that I have no objection at all to ministers in this Parliament taking on additional powers. However, in this case, it appears that the powers that we are taking on are in relation to the misuse of a responsibility that lies not with us but with others. The Scottish ministers' responsibilities related purely to the appointment of the individuals, but the exercise of those individuals' functions is over an area that is absolutely nothing to do with the Scottish Parliament. It is curious that we should pick up the tab for matters that are related to income tax, but which are not the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament.
Indeed, the Scottish Parliament does not have powers relating to taxation other than the powers of variation. However, the matter is not strictly to do with income tax; rather, it is to do with the manner in which the commissioners who are appointed by the Scottish ministers perform their duties as a tribunal. In that respect, therefore, there is a difference. On that basis, we seek to commence the provisions to bring us into line with other parts of the UK.
In other words, you hold that the matter relates to what is very broadly a part of our justice system, and to a court that is interpreting and administering law in general—as indeed the civil and criminal courts more usually do.
I use the word "tribunal" rather than "court". You used the phrase "pick up the tab". No tab has ever been picked up, as far as we are aware, but there might always be a first time.
That gave us a helpful understanding of the matter. The commissioners are appointed by you—
They are appointed by the Scottish ministers.
In effect, their decisions are the cause of legal proceedings for which expenses will be paid—
Expenses will be paid for legal proceedings due to poor performance other than acting in bad faith or anything that might lead to criminal conviction.
I await with bated breath the impact of the legislation.
I hope that the regulations will never be put to the test. However, the request came from the general commissioners themselves, who felt that they needed the additional protection.
Thank you.
Motion moved,
That the Justice 2 Committee, in consideration of the draft General Commissioners of Income Tax (Expenses) (Scotland) Regulations 2003, recommends that the Regulations be approved.—[Mr Jim Wallace.]
Motion agreed to.
Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Prescription of Offices and Positions) (Scotland) Amendment (No 2) Order 2003 (SSI 2003/50)
Let us move on to item 4. I refer members to the letter from the Deputy Minister for Justice, Hugh Henry. The order was considered by the committee on 18 February, and several points were raised. Supplementary information was supplied by the Executive on one of those points, regarding the level of officers who will have the power. The agenda item allows members to return to the order and to satisfy themselves that the letter contains the answer that they were looking for. Before we begin, however, I point out that the Minister for Justice is not here to speak to the order.
As helpful as the Deputy Minister for Justice's letter undoubtedly is in relation to the discussion that we had, it does not—unless I have failed to read it properly—address the point that I raised with the deputy minister in that discussion. My point was that the order, as I read it, will allow an inspector to renew an authorisation. As I said previously, I have no objection to that, but the minister appeared to think that that was not the policy intention. The letter does not address the discrepancy between the wording of the order and the policy intention on renewals.
Members will recall that, at the previous meeting, we dealt with two affirmative instruments and one negative instrument, all of which relate to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act 2000. I wrote to Hugh Henry on the committee's behalf on a matter that related to the negative instrument.
Perhaps I am confused.
The matter is confusing. The committee and the report from the Subordinate Legislation Committee, which is where the issue began, raised the specific point about which officers of lower rank are covered by the order that we are considering. The letter that we have received from the deputy minister clarifies that point. If there are other points about the two affirmative instruments we can, for tidiness, write to the Executive about them.
I am content with the order and I do not feel compelled to push the matter. However, at the previous meeting, we were left in a somewhat unsatisfactory state because the minister could not persuade himself that I was wrong—I think that that is the correct way of describing the situation. My interpretation of the order appeared to be at odds with the policy objective. In any event, I am content and I do not feel the need to push the matter. In the interests of not confusing the minister or members any further, I am happy to let the matter lie.
It would be eminently sensible to have a note—such as that which the convener suggested—when the instruments go before Parliament; the matter has not been dealt with terribly happily. Although I am satisfied that there is absolutely no intention of malfeasance on the part of the Executive—far from it—there are lessons to be learned about making such matters clearer.
We have learned lessons about the committee's requirements in dealing with complicated instruments that are produced a long time after the original legislation. In such cases, we require more discussion and explanatory notes, although I hope that we will put that right in this case. When Parliament votes on the instruments, it should have a note from the committee that makes the instruments easier to understand.