Scottish Tax Tribunals (Time Limits and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2015 (SSI 2015/184)
You will all have received a copy of a letter from Nigel Don MSP, the convener of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, in which he draws our attention to the concerns of his committee. For example, he says:
“The setting of a limit for requesting permission to appeal to the Upper Tax Tribunal or the Court of Session is a matter of considerable importance.”
He goes on to say:
“the Committee was particularly concerned about the implications of shortening time limits for permission to appeal and how this would impact on the rights of those wishing to make an appeal.”
I am happy to take comments from members. I know that the deputy convener, who is a member of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, wishes to say something.
The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee felt quite strongly about the regulations. As the Government accepts, it is a matter of some importance about people’s right to appeal.
As it says in the letter, it is broadly accepted that, if timescales were relaxed, it would give a person more rights. That is not really a problem—no one will object to that. The concern was more about allowing the tribunals to shorten the time limits that people would have to appeal. In fact, it was suggested that, if there was no restriction on that, they could shorten it from 30 days to five minutes. Obviously, that is an extreme example, but that would seriously infringe on the rights of the person who could be making the appeal. The convener of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee wrote to you, convener, because the whole committee felt quite strongly that that was really pushing things too much.
It was quite a good letter from Nigel Don. It certainly led me to look seriously at the issue.
My view is that there is probably a drafting error in the regulations. The Government is right. It is at the tribunals’ discretion whether they relax the rules a bit, but it is pretty unusual to allow them to shorten the statutory timescales that are laid out to protect those who are involved in a case. The regulations say that the tribunals may
“extend or shorten the time for complying with any rule, practice direction or direction”
or the time limit for permission to appeal. I wonder whether the Government did not really mean to shorten the time limit for appeal. It would strike me as odd. As the deputy convener said, five minutes would be an extreme example, but even if it were cut by a couple of weeks, that could put pressure on someone who wanted to appeal or take advice before doing so.
It is a negative instrument so, as I understand it, there are two options. One is that individual members can lodge a motion to annul with the chamber desk and Parliament will consider that. However, one other option or suggestion might be that our convener writes to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution and Economy on the matter. We have not specifically taken evidence on the matter so there is not that much that we can add to what the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee said. However, given that that committee does not regularly write letters like this to us, and given that it seems to make a reasonable case, my preference would be that we write to the Government to say that we have had a representation from the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, that there appears to be a case to answer and that we seek the Government’s view on the matter.
To be honest, those were exactly my thoughts. The clerk and I discussed the issue and that was the line that we thought was appropriate to take. It is surprising—we tend not to get any letters from Nigel Don and we have had them in successive weeks. A letter to the cabinet secretary would be appropriate, if colleagues are happy with that approach.
Members indicated agreement.
12:22 Meeting continued in private until 12:25.