Official Report 271KB pdf
Building Regulations<br />(Thermostatic Mixing Valves) (PE786)
Good morning, colleagues, and welcome to the 18th meeting in 2004 of the Public Petitions Committee. Apologies have been received from Sandra White and Rosie Kane. I hope that the other members who are not yet with us but who have not sent apologies will turn up shortly. We have a busy agenda and, rather than delay further the start of the meeting, I propose that we start.
On behalf of the Scottish Burned Children's Club, I thank the committee for hearing our petition today. On my right is Mr Kenneth Stewart, a consultant paediatric plastic surgeon from the Royal hospital for sick children in Edinburgh. To my left is Mr Darren Ferguson. At only six months old, Darren sustained a bath water scald injury. In a few minutes' time, he will tell the committee a little of his journey.
Ladies and gentlemen, I have undergone 59 major operations, numerous minor operations and laser surgery. When I was a youngster and I was due to undergo an operation, I found it difficult to concentrate on school work before the op. When I am in pre-op, I am always anxious because I know that no matter how skilful my surgeons are, I will always be in pain when I awake—that is guaranteed. When I go to sleep, I know that I will be in pain when I awake.
Thank you. I will take questions from the committee to explore the issue further.
This is a highly persuasive case and we have heard some powerful testimony this morning. I have two questions. My first is to Ken Stewart, because having an appreciation of the scale of the difficulty would be helpful, as would hearing what he feels is the most appropriate way forward for the Parliament. My second question is to Alan Masterton. The former Transport and the Environment Committee took evidence on the Building (Scotland) Act 2003. Did you raise the issue with the committee at that stage? If you did, what was the response? Obviously that was a legislative vehicle that would have been ideally suited to addressing the petition.
No. To be honest, we have been involved in the campaign only for the past year. We were really on the fringes of things last year but, having read everything that there is to read on the subject, we could not understand the hold-up.
I had the information and statistics division collate the data for Scotland for the past five years. There were approximately 1,700 presentations to accident and emergency departments of children under 14 with burns. Of those cases, 121 related to tap water or bath water scalds; that is 7 per cent.
In your view, are TMVs the answer?
TMVs will not prevent scalds from hot drinks, such as hot cups of tea and coffee, but they will prevent 20 per cent of hospital admissions. We are not suggesting that they should be universally applied in every household, but we are asking for a progressive approach to be taken, and for them to be applied to new builds, so that ultimately every house will have them. That would prevent 20 per cent of children's hospital admissions, representing some of the severest thermal injuries.
I have a couple of follow-up points related to Jackie Baillie's points. Are you aware of the valves being used anywhere else in the world?
Yes. They were originally created for use in institutions that were the precursor to the national health service. They go back to the days of steam, when calorifiers produced steam in laundries. Steam was used to heat water, but the water was being heated to boiling point, and it could not be used in the kitchens and laundry rooms. Initially, TMVs were called blenders, and were introduced to bring the water that was super heated by the steam to a temperature that they could cope with. In England and Wales, there are regulations to have them fitted in old folk's residential care homes. The vast majority of the general public is unaware that TMVs are available, as they are not marketed to them, so many plumbers' merchants do not carry them, because there is no demand. That was one of the problems in the Wakefield experiment. When people find out about TMVs, they think that they produce cool or tepid baths, so there is initial resistance, but once they are fitted and people see that you can have a hot bath without having a scalding bath, they gain wide acceptance. You cannot disagree with the figures, especially in the Wakefield report. In the 200 homes in which TMVs were fitted, there was not one, single hot water scald injury in two years.
My other questions are on the practicalities. I seek clarification on what you are asking for: you are suggesting that the Scottish building regulations that will come into force in May next year should demand that every new house built after then should fit TMVs.
That is correct. We are not asking for the policy to be retrospective; we are saying that it would be a damn good start if, as of May next year, a condition of the granting of any new building application or application for a renovation should be to install such a valve. A gradual approach should be taken. We honestly believe that once people get used to having TMVs in their homes, the news will spread and people will see the benefits. I hope that, through time, every home will have one.
Darren Ferguson states in his letter that his understanding is that it will cost about £80 for a TMV to protect a normal home. Would that include the cost of adapting an existing home water supply?
No. The question is a bit like asking how long a piece of string is. I have the entire set-up in front of me. Currently, the valve costs £80. If a residential home bought 50 valves, they would cost £80 each. Economies of scale mean that the manufacturers reckon that they can bring the cost down to the region of £50 and maintain their profit margin. It would probably cost another £100 to convert an existing property, as it would be necessary to modify the existing plumbing.
I have a final question. You might not be able to answer this question, but do you know what it would be necessary to do to introduce a requirement to install such valves to the building regulations from 2005? I see that guidance has been issued subsequent to the passing of the act. What steps would need to be taken between now and May 2005 to have the fitting of such valves included in the regulations?
I cannot say what the legislative process would be.
I understand.
There is no doubt that you have highlighted a serious problem. The remedy is simple, if it is accepted. I am sure that any reasonable individual who was considering the regulations would not fail to support what you have suggested.
Yes. The company recently fitted one to Darren Ferguson's home. Because of the legionella threat, the valve can only be fitted within 2m of the outflow, but it can be fitted strategically in the bathroom, so that it can feed the sink and the bath; as long as the outflow is within 2m, one valve can take care of both.
Is it correct that the valve comes with a preset temperature setting that cannot be interfered with?
It can be interfered with to suit the environment—the blue bit at the bottom of the valve is used to alter the setting. In Wakefield, where there are lots of old properties with cast-iron baths and single glazing, it was found that the temperature that was delivered from the valve had to be towards the upper limit at the point of outflow to maintain a bath temperature of about 42°C, which is a hot bath. In Scotland, especially in new-build properties with plastic baths, double glazing and insulation, the delivery temperature could probably be screwed down. The engineer or plumber sets the temperature at the time of fitting. Once the temperature is set, the cap goes back on and a special security key is needed to get into the valve to adjust the temperature.
That is really just a copy of shower units, which have a temperature control.
No, they are not the same, because the valves do everything internally. I referred to them as simple, but they have a fairly sophisticated temperature-control mechanism in the centre that does everything automatically—nothing has to be varied.
Thank you. The case you have made this morning deserves serious consideration and I am supportive of it.
I apologise for arriving after you started, Mr Masterton. Like my colleagues, I find your case compelling. You say that you envisage valves being installed in every new-build property, but given what you have said this morning, is there a case for it to be compulsory for valves to be fitted retrospectively in all care homes and hospitals?
I agree whole-heartedly, but we are realists and we would hate to lose the opportunity to get the valves into bathrooms by asking for too much. I do not mean to be disrespectful, but the fewer committees that the proposal has to go to, the better. More and more problems will be created if we ask for more and more. Of course, it would be superb to put the valves into care homes, because the elderly are another section of society that is susceptible to horrific burns. The incidence of death from such burns is high among the elderly because of toxic shock. The suggestion would have untold benefit.
You are absolutely right. Some years ago, exactly the same happened to an old lady in a care home in Fife. Last week, I was in a hotel where the water was absolutely scalding. None of us has mentioned hotels, but they should also have a duty to install such valves.
It is estimated that in 92 per cent of Scottish homes, hotels and institutions, the hot water is at a temperature that would scald a child in less than three seconds.
Many scalds happen to children of families who are living in temporary accommodation. Significant legislation exists on multiple-occupancy homes and it could be argued that the valves should be made compulsory in rented accommodation. Accidents often happen when families move into temporary accommodation, because the usual safety mechanisms that families inevitably build up suddenly disappear. Such families are a very vulnerable group.
We have heard a convincing argument, but to whom should we send the petition to progress it?
I would like to say a number of things before I make recommendations. Unfortunately, there has been a missed opportunity with the Building (Scotland) Act 2003. That said, we must clarify whether the matter is for primary or secondary legislation. The opportunity has not been entirely missed if it is for secondary legislation.
I apologise to Michael Matheson. I indicated that I would call him to speak before we discussed recommendations, but I forgot to come back to him.
Perhaps I can assist the committee with a couple of points of clarification about the Building (Scotland) Act 2003 and how it operates. From my experience of dealing with fire sprinklers, provisions on which will be introduced into that act next year, I understand that the legislation acts in effect as a framework into which new building regulations can be inserted. If ministers were inclined to pursue the introduction of thermostatic mixing valves through regulations, they would publish draft regulations, consult on them and then insert them into the act through a statutory instrument. Therefore, the matter is for regulation rather than primary legislation.
The specific valve that Horne Engineering Ltd produces is available in Scotland now and exceeds the standard of the valve that has been considered for the English and Welsh legislation.
I, too, am concerned about what the petitioner says and am convinced of its value. I also sat on the then Transport and the Environment Committee when the Building (Scotland) Act 2003 was considered. You will be aware that guidance was published on 1 November, following that legislation.
It is worth pointing out that the information that the clerks have is that the guidance does not refer specifically to TMVs, so that would have to be clarified with the Scottish Executive.
Given that other such valves are apparently on the market, the Executive may have wished not to be specific.
There is nothing on the market that performs as that valve does.
My concern is that we should move on the matter as quickly as possible. I am aware of what Mr Masterton has said about not wanting to be pushed from pillar to post. We do not want further delays and May 2005 is a possible deadline for achieving something.
I do not think that the regulations are formally reviewed every year—they are reviewed if there is a requirement for change. A working group was established this year, which has responsibility for informing ministers of possible updates to the regulations as and when necessary.
If necessary, I write about petitions directly to ministers rather than to officials. If we have a general query for the Executive, it would go to the officials in the relevant department. It has sometimes been necessary for me to write directly to the minister. In that letter, I can ask for a speedy response. Would that satisfy you?
I think that it would.
I would be happy to do that.
I am happy with that and with other suggestions. Another suggestion is that we write to the Thermostatic Mixing Valve Manufacturers Association and to the Scottish and Northern Ireland Plumbing Employers Federation. In my own home, I have a boiler that I can alter simply to adjust the settings to the appropriate water temperature. I believe that all boilers for the past 20 years have been able to do that, with both gas and electric thermostats. It might be helpful to get a view from those organisations on that.
Boiler temperature must be maintained above 60°C to dispel the possibility of legionella. That means that whatever happens, the boiler cannot do the job that the valve does. The heat source must heat the water to a temperature in excess of 60°C and the water must be carried through the pipes at a temperature of 60°C. The valve must be fitted within 2m of delivery, which is the pipe length that the federations regard as being safe if the water temperature is to be less than 60°C without risk of legionella.
Do we agree to write to the appropriate people, as members suggested?
Mr Masterton, members of the committee appear to be well convinced by your presentation. We will pursue the matter and get back to you when we receive the responses that we seek. Thank you for your time.
Thank you.
Council Tax (PE787)
The next petition is PE787, from Alastair Murdoch, on behalf of Scottish Action Against Council Tax. The petition calls on Parliament to introduce legislation that would provide for the replacement of council tax by a system that is more closely related to the ability to pay. Alastair Murdoch is here to give a brief statement in support of his petition. He is accompanied by Archie White and Andrew Todd. I welcome the witnesses, who may take a few minutes to make an oral presentation, after which we will discuss the issues that they raise.
We thank the convener and members for their invitation to appear before the committee. It is no exaggeration to say that the council tax is as unpopular as the poll tax was. Opposition to the tax comes from all sections of the community and includes people who are in employment as well as pensioners. There is opposition from across the political spectrum, including from people who might support the Labour or Conservative parties on some issues.
The first flaw that I highlight is the basis for the assessment of council tax—the value of property—which is the same in principle as the basis for the long-discredited rates system. That assessment cannot be related to the level of usage of local services. The fact that the tax is levied only on householders means that the burden is not fairly shared and we feel strongly that all those who use services should contribute in accordance with their ability to pay. Let us face it; it is people, not houses, who use services.
We believe that property taxes are not appropriate for regular payments such as council tax. The value of a person's home does not provide them with a regular income from which they can pay their council tax, and the value of their home might bear no relation to their income—as you would know if you lived in a single end in Partick.
Thank you, gentlemen. Do members wish to ask questions?
I have just one question, because the arguments have been well rehearsed over the piece. Are you saying that whatever replaces the council tax should be related only to income? Should not people's assets be considered?
We have said that an individual's personal circumstances should be part of the assessment.
To be absolutely clear, does that include property?
No, it does not, in the same way that national income tax does not take account of property unless income is derived from it.
I will speak personally as I cannot speak for the others, but I am not opposed to a tax on property. However, I do not believe that property is a suitable base for council taxes. If you want to tax property, why not put a capital gains tax on the profits from house sales or ratchet up stamp duty? I mentioned Partick because it is quite close to me; in Partick, there are long-term residents who live in single ends, which now sell for £140,000. They might not be too badly off at the moment, because the most recent revaluation was in 1992 or 1993, but if a revaluation was done now their houses would shoot a long way up the bands. People can release income from their property by downsizing, but why should they have to leave their family home? They can release income by remortgaging, or if they hold enough they can take out an equity release plan, but those things are not regarded as sensible financial planning. They are last resorts.
If I may, I will return to the theme that Jackie Baillie raised. Let us say that my house is worth £400,000 and, as a pensioner, I am living on the most modest of pensions—the state pension only. Let us also say that I live near a family that is living in a former council house or any sort of low-priced property—let us say that it is valued in the region of £70,000. Do you not think that, even if their income was treble my income, I should also pay council tax? Surely I should do so for a variety of reasons, including on equalities grounds? As Jackie Baillie rightly pointed out, pensioners such as those in my example that have an asset: I could opt to stay in my house or downsize and release some of my capital.
My answer to that is to ask the question, "What is the purpose of the council tax?" I understand that its purpose is to pay for about 25 per cent of local services, the rest being met by government grant. I think therefore that the example is not relevant to the issue under debate. Other issues may be involved, but I do not accept your point in the context of the funding of local services.
What I was trying to say was that my total wealth would be so much more than anybody else's wealth. My total assets and means would mean that my ability to pay would be greater than was the case for the family in the much more modest home. What if the house was not my only home? I might have another home elsewhere that was valued at—let us say—£100,000. We have to look at the total picture. The debate is not just about cash resources but about the totality of a person's wealth, which includes their property assets.
I see the point that the member is making. However, the same argument could be applied to income tax, but no one is suggesting that that should be the case.
I have a couple of points to raise. You have made a submission to the independent review of local government finance.
Not yet.
But you are going to do so.
Yes.
Given that that process is on-going, it would seem that it is the most appropriate place for the issue to be debated.
In that particular respect, the poll tax did not take account of a person's ability to pay, with the exception of the very poorest people in society. We are not arguing against the fact that everyone is theoretically liable to pay the poll tax.
Basically you are saying that only people in paid employment would pay for the services. Is that correct?
No. I am saying that, in theory, everyone who uses the services should pay according to their means. If someone's personal circumstances do not allow them to pay in practice, the tax should be automatically adjusted to account for that, as is the case with income tax and so forth.
I appreciate the clarification. Your answer leads me to my second point. You have suggested three possibilities that you believe merit consideration. I will come to the first one later, but the remaining two suggestions are for a national tax that would be collected through the pay-as-you-earn system and for an income tax that would be collected by the Inland Revenue.
I am not currently working, but I pay income tax. I have a retirement pension.
I take the point, but if someone is not paying income tax they are not in the system. Those people would have to be added to the system.
If someone is not paying income tax at all, that implies that they do not have any income or they do not have a taxable income.
I will clarify that point. A number of people who earn substantial amounts of money would pay corporation tax or some other form of tax through their company, rather than personally through PAYE. It is conceivable that wealthy people would fall outwith your requirement for them to pay through PAYE.
That was not our intention. We are not tax experts; we are taxpayers. Everybody who can pay should pay. We used the example of income tax, because it is the system that we are most used to. I agree with the point about corporation tax, although I do not know the detail of how we would address that. On Lord Watson's point about pensioners, if someone is getting a pension of £200,000 a year, which some people are, they should certainly pay.
One thing we are certainly agreed on is that, like the petitioners, none of us is a tax expert, but those points have to be taken into consideration.
Indeed.
My final point is about your first suggestion of funding local government expenditure entirely from central Government grants. You give the figure of 75 per cent of funding coming from central Government, but I think it is 85 per cent, with 15 per cent coming from council tax, which does not necessarily change the thrust of your argument. If your suggestion were implemented, local authority services would be paid for by a flat-rate tax throughout Scotland, so wherever someone lives in Scotland, they would pay the same. You will be aware of the vast differences that there are in council tax payments at the moment. You are in effect arguing for a flat rate.
Not necessarily. Local authorities would have budgets, as they do at the moment. As far as I understand the tax system, it is sufficient. You can criticise computer programming if you like, but I do not think it is rocket science to adjust for local authorities' budgets and to address anomalies that might occur through the means we suggest. After all, local authorities set the tax at the moment.
I will give you an example on that point. Mike Watson talked about just one of the options that we suggest, which has been suggested by the UK-wide is it fair campaign, which has produced a substantial paper on the suggestion. The campaign has produced its costings with professional help and has reached conclusions that give UK-wide, rather than just Scottish, figures. The campaign concluded that the amount that is currently raised by council tax could be increased by leaving the lower rate of income tax at 10 per cent, raising the standard rate from 22 per cent to 24 per cent, raising the higher rate from 40 per cent to 44 per cent and increasing VAT by 17.5 per cent to 19 per cent. The more someone earned, the more they would pay.
If suggestion (A) is not saying that there should be a flat-rate tax, it is in essence exactly the same as suggestion (C)—I cannot see any difference between the two. You are talking about some form of local income tax, collected by the Inland Revenue. If suggestion (A) is not asking for a flat-rate tax throughout Scotland, the tax would be differential depending on the local authority and would, in effect, also be collected by the Inland Revenue, so there is no difference between suggestions (A) and (C).
The difference is that under suggestion (A) the tax would be raised by the national Government; the local authorities would have no say in what rates of tax were set.
I am sorry, but that contradicts what Mr Todd has just said.
I said that local authorities setting the tax rate was a possibility, if we wanted to make them accountable in that respect. We are not saying exactly how the system should be implemented; we are saying that the present system is wrong, bad and illogical and that a better system needs to be found. We are suggesting that the rate should be set according to people's ability to pay, which is what general taxation is based on. Dealing with the nitty-gritty is another matter, but I do not think that adjusting council tax to get the Inland Revenue to raise the money for council services is rocket science.
I have a point of clarification. Are you saying that, regardless of what system is considered, the council tax must go because it is illogical?
Yes, the existing council tax system must go.
But your fundamental premise is that ability to pay should be assessed.
Exactly.
Is it not conceivable that you could retain the council tax system but adjust the assessment of ability to pay?
In what respect?
At the moment, if someone is assessed as unable to pay council tax, the council tax benefit system kicks in and the tax is paid for them. Adjusting the level at which those benefits kicked in would mean that more people who were unable to pay would fall into the category that you want to be covered. The fundamental adjustment would be made in relation to the ability to pay.
The current council tax benefit—let us call it the safety net—caters for a third or perhaps 40 per cent of council tax payers. The fact that the safety net is so big indicates that there is something basically wrong with the system. If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that that safety net should be extended.
My specific question is whether your petition is saying that any adjustments in assessing ability to pay cannot be based on the council tax. In other words, the assessment of someone's ability to pay could be based on income tax or any other tax, but not council tax.
The council tax ceases to be progressive in relation to ability to pay when the safety net terminates. Other contributions are not in the least bit progressive and are not related to ability to pay.
I suspect that we could discuss this matter all morning but, with all due respect to the petitioners, I do not think that we would achieve much.
Do members agree that Jackie Baillie has suggested a useful solution to the question of how to proceed with the petition?
I thank the witnesses for bringing the petition forward for discussion this morning.
National Anthem (PE788)
Our next petition is PE788, by George Reid, who calls on the Scottish Parliament to legislate for the introduction of a national anthem for Scotland. I welcome to the meeting Mr Reid, who is accompanied by Chris Ballance MSP, and invite him to make a brief statement to the committee in support of the petition.
Thank you, convener. I will not require three minutes.
I put on the record the fact that the previous petition, PE660, called not for legislation but for the Scottish Executive to take the necessary steps to organise a competition to compose an official anthem. As I understand it, given that there did not appear to be any dubiety regarding the admissibility of PE660, the committee did not get legal advice as to whether the Parliament could legislate in the area. I say that for clarification. As Mr Reid said, he has established that legislation can be introduced here, hence this is a new petition, which asks for something different.
Does Mr Reid have any suggestions as to how The Scotsman's poll might be broadened to include other proposals?
I am not sure. Scotland has many gifted poets and musicians. Surely there is a way of sponsoring a competition that would invite contributions to be considered by a panel, for example, which could then advise the Parliament. I see no difficulty in composing a suitable anthem.
Does Chris Ballance wish to contribute?
Yes, thank you.
As a former member of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, I inform Chris Ballance that the petition to which he refers does not set a precedent for any other. It is important to put that on the record.
Because it is part of our cultural identity, of being Scottish and of being in Scotland. A national anthem would also be an excellent extra identifier and emblem for Scotland when we sell Scotland abroad. It would help us to create the brand—I hate that term, so I would put it in inverted commas—of Scotland abroad. As well as serving as an extra identifier for Scotland, a national anthem would help to create the identity of Scotland for each individual who lives in the country.
Are you saying that the Scottish Parliament can legislate to create a culture? We may be dancing on the head of pin, but I believe that although Parliament can legislate in areas of culture it cannot legislate to create a culture. Are you saying that by giving Scotland a national anthem through legislation a culture would develop that is different from the one that has developed to date?
No. The role of Parliament is to try to establish what public opinion is and, on that basis, to endorse a song. It does not have to do so through legislative means. I would like the Enterprise and Culture Committee to hold a short inquiry—I emphasise the word "short"—which would produce a suggestion based on what appeared generally to be the most wanted and accepted option.
I recommend that we write to the Scottish Executive and ask for its opinion. I have received no representations on the subject in my mailbag, or in e-mails or telephone calls. That does not mean that that will not now happen, but we must take seriously the point that Jackie Baillie makes. Politics is always about the language of priorities. If this is a priority for the people of Scotland, I am sure that they will let us know. In the meantime, we should find out the view of the Scottish Executive.
There has been a huge amount of media coverage of the issue and there is considerable media interest in it.
Is it a case of the media trying to make the news or of their reporting the news? Politicians must constantly bear that question in mind. We know what the media are up to: they like to fabricate stories. Sometimes they like to report the facts, but we take what they say with a modicum of salt.
Chris Ballance appears to be suggesting something different from Mr Reid, who is asking specifically for legislation to be introduced.
I am unfamiliar with the processes through which Parliament takes decisions. I am not necessarily asking for legislation. In the case of the colour of the flag, the Parliament proceeded by means of recommendation. There are other ways of getting things done, apart from legislation.
We take great care to consider what petitions call for, because if we asked something of the Executive, or some other body, that a petition did not ask for, we could get into dangerous waters. Certainly, I try to ensure that we stick to what petitions ask for. The petition that is before us asks for
I plead guilty: those words were sent to me to revive my original petition. I signed the petition, but perhaps I should have examined the words more carefully. I repeat that legislation is not necessarily the path that needs to be followed.
To short-circuit the process, you could ask Chris Ballance, who is sitting beside you, to introduce a member's bill. Legislation could be introduced without going to the Scottish Executive.
I accept the yellow card.
The petition could be remitted to the Enterprise and Culture Committee, regardless of whether the opening sentence says "legislate", "endorse" or whatever.
Sorry, but the issue is not so simple because the Public Petitions Committee does not work in that way. If a petition asks for legislation, we must go to the body that comments on legislation. On receipt of a response from the Executive, we might well send the petition to the Enterprise and Culture Committee. The petition specifically asks for legislation, and it is normal for the committee to seek the Executive's response to such requests.
I agree that, before we attempt to change existing legislation, we should ensure that the Parliament has the competence to interfere with the national anthem. The sentiments that Mr Reid has expressed are that the anthem should reflect the country, its people and its Government. The current anthem, "God Save the Queen", has existed for generations but it is directed at one individual and does not relate to the populace at large. It may not be the most appropriate anthem, although it has been accepted traditionally.
We have never said that the petition is inadmissible. The position has been checked. The first petition on the issue, PE660, which asked for a competition, came before the committee because it was admissible. The present petition, which asks for legislation on the matter, has come before the committee because it is admissible. There is no doubt whatever that the Parliament can investigate the issue; we are trying to discuss what to do with the petition.
I revert to the original suggestion—I think that it was Helen Eadie's—that we should send the petition to the Executive. Given the points about cultural identity and assistance with marketing and tourism, let us ask the Executive whether it is minded to do something on the issue. That should be our first port of call.
Are members content with that suggestion?
Mr Reid, we will get back to you when the Executive replies to us.
Local Government Finance Act 1992 (Council Tax Discounts) (PE784)
Petition PE784, which was lodged by Damian Pavillard, calls on the Parliament to take the necessary steps to ensure that a local authority can no longer require an individual to repay in full or in part the value of any discount received on their council tax bill when it discovers that the award was not warranted, and to ensure that those measures are effective from the date that the Local Government Finance Act 1992 and relevant statutory instruments came into force. The 1992 act sets out the rules on eligibility to pay council tax and would need to be amended, as would related regulations, to meet the terms of PE784. The Executive's independent review of local government finance is considering a range of issues including the possible reform of the council tax and Tommy Sheridan has recently introduced a member's bill on the matter: the Council Tax Abolition and Service Tax Introduction (Scotland) Bill. Do members have suggestions about how to deal with PE784?
I want to raise a general issue before we get into the meat of the petition. I am having difficulty reconciling our discussion of the petition with the recommendation under agenda item 3 that a proposed petition from Mr James Duff is inadmissible on the ground that it appears to be based on a personal dispute. I understand that argument in relation Mr Duff's proposed petition, but, if anything, PE784 appears to be even more based on a personal dispute than Mr Duff's proposed petition. Both also make general recommendations, but members know that the committee cannot deal with personal matters and I see no difference between PE784 and Mr Duff's proposed petition, because both clearly arise from individual circumstances.
PE784 and Mr Duff's proposed petition arise from personal experiences but there are differences between them, which I ask the clerk to clarify.
All proposals for petitions are considered on their individual merits. When a petition is proposed we consider the action that the petitioner has taken to progress the issue and whether there is a general public interest issue. Clearly, a number of petitions arise from individual cases that raise issues with which petitioners become involved. We must assess whether the aim of the petition is to rectify a specific issue or to address a general issue that the specific case uncovered in relation to legislation or guidance, for example. The petitioner who lodged PE784 raised the issue that his petition addresses with a member of the Scottish Parliament, a member of Parliament, the director of Age Concern Scotland and the Scottish Human Rights Centre. The essential difference between PE784 and Mr Duff's proposed petition is that although the issue in PE784 arose from the petitioner's individual case, the petitioner appears to have pursued the general issue at a number of levels. I do not know whether the committee wants to consider Mr Duff's proposed petition now, but Mr Duff has lodged numerous petitions—around nine or 10—all of which appear to relate to the same dispute. I think that the first seven petitions that Mr Duff lodged were considered by the committee, and the committee is now being asked to consider his eighth, ninth or 10th proposal. In our consideration, they all appear to relate to the same legal dispute.
I should clarify that I am not suggesting that we should accept Mr Duff's proposed petition—I do not think that we should. However, I think that, on the same basis, we should not consider PE784. I am particularly concerned about the demand for backdating in the petition, which seems to be very much a personal issue.
The admissibility of the petition is obviously a matter for the committee. The clerks' role is to advise. PE784 is on the agenda because we advised the convener that it was admissible. You will appreciate that such matters are not an exact science.
I appreciate that clarification and I will not pursue the matter.
It is a matter of judgment, which is why I asked the clerk to clarify the situation. However, as I said, there is a specific difference between PE784 and Mr Duff's proposed petition, in that the latter is a continuation of petitions that we have already considered, whereas PE784 is a new petition that raises a general issue—that is par for the course for the petitions that we deal with.
I accept that definition.
I suggest that we refer PE784 to the Local Government and Transport Committee, which is considering Tommy Sheridan's bill at stage 1, and to the independent review that ministers have set up.
I intimate Alex Fergusson's apologies. The petitioner is one of his constituents and Mr Fergusson had intended to be here today to speak to PE784. However, he has had to attend a hospital appointment. Notwithstanding that, he has intimated to me that he thinks that the petition raises a general point that must be addressed. The petitioner apparently has a deeply felt sense of injustice and Mr Fergusson thinks that others may be in a similar situation, in as much as the petitioner complied with all the local authority's requirements. The petitioner objects to the fact that, having done so, he is being asked to pay retrospectively something that, hitherto, he had been told he would not be required to pay. The general point that the petition seeks to address is whether that is a reasonable thing for the local authority to request. I concur with Helen Eadie's suggestion, and we should also write to the Executive to find out its view of the issue that the petition raises.
I am generally unhappy with the petition, partly for the reasons that I gave earlier. I am also unhappy about two particular aspects of it. First, the petition seeks retrospective action, but my understanding is that legislation cannot be applied retrospectively. An act comes into force on a particular day and does not apply retrospectively. Therefore, we should not suggest to the Executive that it should consider that aspect of the petition.
I do not think that there is anything in general that rules out retrospective legislation—it is a judgment call. If someone introduces new legislation and they want to make it retrospective, that is a matter for the legislation at that time. My concern about the petition is that, if we write to the Executive, we should do so for information only. A review is taking place and if any outcome of that has an impact on the petition, it will be considered as a matter of course, because it would have raised an issue that the review team had considered. Moreover, a bill is coming before the Local Government and Transport Committee that will look at council tax and related issues, so it would be good for that committee to look at the petition for information.
I withdraw my suggestion that we send the petition to the Executive. I am happy for the petition to be sent for information both to the Local Government and Transport Committee as part of its stage 1 consideration of Tommy Sheridan's member's bill, and to the independent review of local government finance.
Are members happy with that?
Council Tax Discounts (PE785)
Petition PE785, which is also from Damian Pavillard, calls on the Parliament to take the necessary steps to ensure that individuals who regard the removal of any discount received under a council tax bill to be unfair or unjustified are given the right to appeal to an independent tribunal that will have the power to consider retrospective cases.
It appears that PE784 and PE785 are linked and that Mr Pavillard has not appealed the decision to his local valuation appeal committee. It occurs to me that, technically, he might have run out of time to make such an appeal, but that would have been the right course for him to pursue. Notwithstanding that, it might be worth while, given the circumstances, for him to make an appeal to the valuation appeal committee to see whether it would consider addressing his problem.
The petition is about the creation of a right of appeal, but that right already exists. Mr Pavillard might not have been aware of his right of appeal—perhaps we should make him aware of it.
That is essentially what I am saying. I totally agree with you in that regard.
Are members happy for us to write back to the petitioner and advise him of his rights?
Is it agreed that we should close the petition, as there is nothing further that we can do in respect of it?
We will take a five-minute break.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
Next
Current Petitions