Meeting of the Parliament 29 January 2015
There are a few issues that need to be dealt with. First, the use of the £425 million figure, which was used when the discussion first took place, has been unhelpful. We know from the evidence that we have received that the vast bulk—indeed, the overwhelming bulk—of the money is uncollectable, for reasons that the cabinet secretary outlined, such as people having moved out of Scotland, changed their names or died. However, that remains the sum total that is being considered.
The second element that is unhelpful relates to COSLA. When the Finance Committee took evidence from Glasgow City Council and Dundee City Council, my committee colleague Jean Urquhart asked whether the outstanding debt was considered to be outstanding by councils, and Glasgow City Council responded by saying:
“As I have said, it was written out of the books in Glasgow in 2003”.
Dundee City Council said:
“Community charge debt is not sitting on the books of Dundee City Council.”—[Official Report, Finance Committee, 29 January 2015; c 12.]
Two councils giving evidence said that the debt relating to the community charge was not held on their books.
The Finance Committee wanted to know whether the same applied for other councils. At the time, COSLA was unable to give us that information. I have to say that it concerns me when COSLA spokespeople arrive at committees and seem unable to provide us with information relating to local government in Scotland. We need to look at how COSLA presents that information, given that it is the umbrella body for all 32 local authorities.
The question, then, is whether the debt can be collected, and we heard pretty strong evidence that it cannot. We also heard pretty strong evidence that there will come a tipping point at which the expenditure in relation to pursuit of the debt would outweigh any money that could be collected.
Another interesting issue that was raised relates to the 20-year prescription and the fact that, essentially, the entire debt was being reapplied through summary warrant in order to circumvent that prescription. Therefore, it was not that the debt could be pursued. The summary warrant was simply being reapplied for in order to get around the element of prescription—and not because the debt could physically be pursued.
On the issue of precedent that Mr Brown raised, we have heard in the debate the evidence that we found, which is that 10 local authorities have unilaterally taken the decision not to pursue community charge debt. If Mr Brown’s contention and the fears that were expressed at committee were accurate—that that action would result in council tax debts and council tax payments showing a tail-off—we would have seen evidence of that. I would have expected us to receive evidence to that effect from the councils that have taken the decision to cancel community charge debt.