Members will remember petition PE56 from Ian Cantwell, which we considered last week. When the petition was considered previously, a report from the Executive indicated that the assessors are accountable to the appropriate valuation joint board or local authority and that procedures for dealing with complaints are either in place or being put in place. However, the committee questioned whether matters that complainants believe have not been dealt with satisfactorily could be referred to the local government ombudsman. Members will see from the briefing paper that the Executive has clarified that that route is possible.Are members agreed that I should write to the petitioner explaining the latest position and indicating that the matter is now closed as far as the committee is concerned?
Official Report · Committee
Petition
Speakers
Choose an MSP to read only their contributions- Trish Godman Lab 8
- Keith Harding Con 6
- Jamie Stone LD 3
- Gil Paterson SNP 1
- Colin Campbell SNP 1
- Bristow Muldoon Lab 1
- Donald Gorrie LD 1
The record
21 contributionsThe whole point of the petition is that the legislation does not say that a complainant can go beyond the rating valuation board to the local government ombudsman. The petitioner wanted that added to the legislation.
The letter from the Executive clarifies that point.
But it is still not included in the legislation.
Although I take your point, the Executive has clarified that the local government ombudsman can be called in. Are you asking how complainants will be aware of that?
Anyone who tries to enforce that issue will find that it is not mentioned in the legislation. That is what happened to Mr Cantwell; he found that he could not get beyond the council's rating valuation board.
Eugene Windsor has told me that the Executive has sought legal opinion on the matter and has concluded that complainants can go to the local government ombudsman. However, I understand your concern that that step is not mentioned in any legislation.
My understanding was that Mr Cantwell was prevented from going to the local government ombudsman. Did the ombudsman not tell him that the matter was not within his remit?
As I recall, the petitioner felt that the process had reached a brick wall and that the authority was merely scrutinising itself.
The Executive is now saying that the law permits the petitioner to go to the local government ombudsman. However, I take your point that complainants might not be able to find out that they can take that step, even if they employ a lawyer to examine the legislation. Do you want some further clarification on the matter?
I think that we should find out how the Executive will make this known to the wider public.
Is not the local government ombudsman available to anyone who feels discontented with local authority decisions?
I am sure that, in the initial petition, the petitioner said that he contacted the local government ombudsman and was told that the matter was not the ombudsman's responsibility.
This petition has been knocking back and forth for some time. As the Executive has clarified the position, we should simply write to the petitioner with that clarification, unless someone has strong evidence that disputes the Executive's conclusions.
Although I do not disagree with that, members might agree that this is not a particularly clear subject. Many of us will have served on rating valuation appeal committees. Unlike areas such as education, roads or transport, the public do not understand the appeals process in this area, the clerk's job and so on. Although I hate to use the word guidance, the Executive should issue something to make matters clearer to the public. That said, I do not disagree with Bristow Muldoon's point.
Are you suggesting that we pass on the information that we have to the petitioner and seek further clarification from the Executive?
Possibly. Donald Gorrie will keep me right on this point. I have always felt that this area is rather unclear. Perhaps we should make representations to the Executive.
That is a good idea.
We will write to Jack McConnell and ask how the Executive will publicise the fact that the local government ombudsman can be involved. We will also follow Bristow Muldoon's suggestion and write to the petitioner suggesting that he take his complaints to the ombudsman.That resolves the petitioner's dilemma, but it does not resolve the wider issue for other people who may find themselves in the same position. We should ask the Deputy Minister for Local Government about that.
The system of appointments to the rating valuation appeal panel is a strange area—is it not still governed by the Lord Lieutenant's advisory committee? It seems an anachronism.
Yes—something like that. Is that agreed?Members indicated agreement.
In this meeting
Everything on 3 Oct 2000 →- Scottish Parliament Local Government Committee Tuesday 3 October 2000 (Afternoon) Committee business · 1
- Leadership Advisory Panel Committee business · 37
- Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) (Scotland) Amendment (No 2) Regulations 2000 (SSI 2000/261) Subordinate legislation · 12
- Petition Petitions · 21
- Budget Process Committee business · 27
The type of each item (debate, statement, questions, members’ business and so on) and the times shown are worked out by this site from headings, the chair’s opening words and the Official Report’s running timestamps. They are not the Parliament’s own classification. Text: the Scottish Parliament Official Report.