Official Report 230KB pdf
Perth (Pilotage Powers) Order 2006<br />(SSI 2006/49)
Item 2 is consideration of items of subordinate legislation, the first of which is the Perth (Pilotage Powers) Order 2006 (SSI 2006/49). No member has commented on the order, the Subordinate Legislation Committee has made no comment on the order and no motion to annul has been lodged. Are members content that we have nothing to report on the order?
Members indicated agreement.
Council Tax (Electronic Communications) (Scotland) Order 2006 (SSI 2006/67)
No points have been raised by members or by the Subordinate Legislation Committee in relation to the Council Tax (Electronic Communications) (Scotland) Order 2006 (SSI 2006/67) and no motion to annul has been lodged. Are members content that we have nothing to report on the order?
Members indicated agreement.
Non-Domestic Rating<br />(Electronic Communications) (Scotland) Order 2006 (Draft)
The Deputy Minister for Finance, Public Service Reform and Parliamentary Business has joined us for consideration of two draft orders that deal with different matters, so we will have separate formal debates on them. We will consider first the draft Non-Domestic Rating (Electronic Communications) (Scotland) Order 2006.
Thank you, convener. The draft Non-Domestic Rating (Electronic Communications) (Scotland) Order 2006 will enable local authorities to issue bills for business rates electronically, rather than on paper, to people who wish it. The order provides that bills can be issued either by e-mail to the individual, or by making the bill available on a website. This will bring the position in Scotland into line with that south of the border.
Thank you, minister. We will start with a question from Sylvia Jackson and then go to Tommy Sheridan.
I have two very quick questions. You said that electronic bills will be issued if it is agreed. What is the procedure for agreement? What will happen when a business gets a new owner?
The system is an opt-in system. The local authority must be willing to use the new technology and the business must be willing to receive the bill electronically. If there is a change of business owner, I imagine that the new owner will have to re-register and state to the local authority that they are willing to receive their bill electronically in the future. Nikola Plunkett can describe the technical measures that will be needed for a business to register that it wishes to receive the bills electronically.
It will be for the local authorities to set up those mechanisms. As it is presented today, the draft order does not outline how that should happen because we believe that it should be left to local authorities to determine.
I am sorry; I did not hear you very clearly. Did you say that it will be for the local authority to decide how that will be done?
That is correct.
Can you go on to the question about a new owner?
The agreement will be between the local authority and the ratepayer, so if a property passes to a new owner, the new owner will have to agree to receive their bill electronically.
When you consulted them, did local authorities suggest how they envisaged that that would happen?
No; we did not receive responses of that type. We received a small number of responses to the consultation and they were all neutral or made no comment.
My first question is almost exactly the same as Sylvia Jackson's. I envisage disagreement in the future over whether someone has paid their bill if they have agreed to receive their bills in electronic form. You are suggesting that it will be entirely a matter for local authorities to deal with. Is there no pro forma that the Executive could suggest that would make it clear that someone had registered on a specific date at a specific time to receive bills in that way? Are you saying that it is a matter for local authorities alone?
We have not suggested a pro forma.
I understand that some local authorities are currently using a system that allows businesses to receive their bills electronically.
West Lothian Council has looked at the proof of concept of doing that where it is billing companies with which it has that agreement. The problem is that there is no legal basis, should there be a dispute about the payment of bills. That is why the draft Scottish statutory instrument is before the committee today. That council is, however, gaining efficiency savings in terms of the administrative process. The provision works both ways: it works for the service provider and the local authority and for the client, who has less of an administrative burden.
My questions come from a positive point of view, because the order is to be welcomed. However, as you say, we are trying to establish a legal basis for future disputes over non-payment or disputed payments and I am worried that, in the course of such disputes, there will not be a clear indication of what represents registration or opting in. The minister said that it will be an opt-in scheme, but what will constitute opting in? Will that be recorded so that there will be no way that someone can say, further down the line, "We never received our bill"?
I imagine that local authorities will have to ensure that there is a proper registration process and that businesses that register with them are fully aware that, once they have opted in to the system and been registered, in any dispute over payment, both sides have been properly notified that that is how the businesses have asked for their bills to be sent out. The draft statutory instrument seeks to confer on the electronic communication that will send out bills legal authority that it currently does not have.
I am trying to prod the position a wee bit because we have a situation with summary warrants for council tax whereby there is no legal obligation to prove that an individual has not paid a bill. There is simply a presentation to a sheriff for a warrant to be granted, and all that the local authority has to prove is that it sent out the bill. Can you assure me that a similar problem will not arise here in relation to recovery actions? Will there have to be proof that a business has registered?
Yes. The system should work exactly as the system for a paper bill works. The draft SSI will not introduce any new appeal mechanism, nor will it change anything that already exists for a paper bill. If someone says that they did not receive their initial bill by e-mail, exactly the same procedure will be followed as if they had said that they did not receive their initial bill on paper.
Okay. I suppose that the difference is that proof would also be needed that that person or company had said that they wanted to receive the bill electronically. It is the registration part that I am concerned about.
I will try to clarify the issue that Tommy Sheridan raises. The use of electronic communications is subject to certain conditions' being met. One of those conditions is that the notice can be accessed by the business and is legible to the same extent as if it had been sent in the usual paper format. That perhaps gives some reassurance.
Where in the draft order is it mentioned that both parties must agree that the bill is to be issued electronically? You made it clear in your opening remarks that that would have to be the case.
That is covered in two provisions. The first is in article 2, which will insert a new provision into the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, on serving of notices. New section 192(8) of the 1973 act will provide that the address must be "notified to the authority". We take that notification to be the point at which a business agrees to notices' being served electronically. In other words, the point at which someone sends notification to the authority represents the agreement. There is a separate provision on agreement in new section 192(9), under which a notice may be published on a website when the authority notifies the person of the means of accessing the information
I want to be clear. Are you saying that new subsection (8) of section 192 of the 1973 act will say that there must be agreement and that the agreement will be given when notification is given?
Yes.
Tommy Sheridan mentioned the appeals process. How would someone take up an issue if an error was made but the council insisted that it was in the right? Would the Scottish public services ombudsman deal with such problems?
If a ratepayer was adamant that the local authority had never sent them a bill, they would first try to resolve the matter by approaching the local authority. If agreement could not be reached, the ratepayer could approach the Scottish public services ombudsman because there would—I assume—be an issue of maladministration.
I want to raise a minor technical matter. The draft SSI will require the consent of a minister in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. I presume that that is just to do with the Electronic Communications Act 2000 and the requirement that Scottish ministers act
Sorry, where does the draft SSI refer to the secretary of state?
The SSI refers to a minister of state in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
The explanatory notes say:
The requirements of section 8 of the 2000 act are that the consent of the secretary of state must be given. In legal terms, that means that any secretary of state can give consent. In practice, the ODPM deals with such orders, so it was agreed that the ODPM would give consent.
Thank you for that simple explanation.
In article 2, new section 192(14) of the 1973 act mentions Christmas eve. Why? That is not a public holiday in Scotland.
That is just a standard formulation, which we have used in other orders of this type, to make clear what is considered to be not a working day. The formulation gives legal certainty about such days, when people might not be working.
That brings us to the end of questions, so we move to the debate on the order. Minister, do you want to make further comments before you move motion S2M-3991, in your name?
I have nothing to add to my opening comments.
Motion agreed to.
Valuation and Rating (Exempted Classes) (Scotland) Order 2006 (Draft)
We move on to consider the draft Valuation and Rating (Exempted Classes) (Scotland) Order 2006. The minister is being joined by another official, Norman MacLeod. Again, I invite the minister to describe the purpose of the order before we move to technical questions on it.
The draft Valuation and Rating (Exempted Classes) (Scotland) Order 2006 makes provision for the exemption from rating of offshore electricity generators. The first offshore wind farm in Scotland is expected to be fully operational in the next year or so, so the time is right to introduce the legislation, which is currently most relevant to wind farms, but will also exempt from business rates wave and tidal power electricity generators.
I welcome the order, but wonder what consultations have been held with the Crown Estate on the proposals, given that it will continue to levy a fee on offshore wind producers in the future. Have you encouraged it to take the same positive attitude that the Scottish Executive has taken?
As Bruce Crawford well knows, the Crown Estate is reserved, but we certainly hope that it will look sympathetically on Scotland's ambitions to develop offshore renewable technology and lead the world in that technology. I am not aware of its having proposed to make any charge or levy changes in respect of offshore generators.
As members have no further questions, I invite the minister to move motion S2M-4021.
Motion moved,
That the Local Government and Transport Committee recommends that the draft Valuation and Rating (Exempted Classes) (Scotland) Order 2006, be approved.—[George Lyon.]
Motion agreed to.
I thank the minister, Nikola Plunkett, Norman MacLeod, all members and members of the public and the press for attending the meeting.
Meeting closed at 15:53.