The Times Online reports that David Hartnett, head of Revenue and Customs, is to write to Scotland's top civil servant saying that there is no legal basis for a local tax and that the Revenue would refuse to collect it.

The letter to Sir John Elvidge, Permanent Secretary at the Scottish Government, will apparently state:

"[T]here is no legal basis for a local income tax along the lines outlined in the SNP consultation document."

"Your proposal for a tax where the rate was set by the Executive and the proposed tax was collected and administered by HMRC is a reserved matter under The Scotland Act 1998, and therefore a matter for the UK Government."

"HMRC does not have the power to collect or administer a local income tax: its role in relation to the devolved administration is confined to administering the Scottish Variable Rate,"

According to The Times, the letter puts pressure on SNP ministers to concede to demands by the Scottish Liberal Democrats to allow all 32 local authorities to set their own local rate.

A spokesperson for the Scottish Government is quoted as saying: "It's still arrant nonsense. Scrapping the unfair council tax and introducing a fair local income tax based on ability to pay is a matter for the Scottish Parliament to determine not for the Treasury to dictate from London. This latest intervention is constitutionally confused and politically inept. The Scottish Government and Parliament is not a Whitehall department which can be bullied by the Treasury. We represent a country, and we have every right and ability to scrap the council tax and replace it with a local income tax."

It may be illegal, but we should probably just press on ahead regardless, eh?

Labels: News, Scottish Government, Tax

Don't forget to check out Mike Dailly's new blog in The Firm Magazine. Entertainingly titled "Dailly's Weekly Blog" it kicks off with an attack on proposals to introduce ABS (Alternative Business Structure) to the legal profession in Scotland, concluding (with a crescendo) in labelling the SNP Justice Secretary Mr. Kenneth MacAskill "spoon boy"!

LOL! (As I believe they say in cyberspace). It is believed that this is the first time that any serving member of the Scottish Government has been compared to a character in The Matrix. (Although, in a certain light Fiona Hyslop looks a bit like Carrie-Anne Moss). Presumably, Mr. MacAskill will remember that - there is no spoon. Also that Matrix Chambers are English barristers and, therefore not subject to Scottish legislation.

Labels: Just for Fun, law firms, Scottish Government

In the first ruling of its kind, a judge has ordered the Royal Bank of Scotland to install a lift so that a wheelchair user can have the same access as any other customer.

Furthermore, in recognising the embarrassing treatment the young man experienced at the hands of the bank, he was awarded £6,500 - the highest ever compensation payout in this kind of case.

In taking the case against the bank with the support of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, David Allen, a 17 year-old wheelchair user from Sheffield, has secured a historic legal victory.

Since the Disability Discrimination Act came into force in 1995, a judge has never before ordered an injunction to force an organisation to make physical changes to its property so that disabled people can gain access.

Mr. Allen's case will help ensure that a great number of disabled people in Britain are able to access goods, facilities and services. His case was taken with the support of the Commission and he was represented by the Sheffield Law Centre.

David Allen's legal battle began when, contrary to signage outside his local branch of the bank and information posted on its website, he found that he could not gain access. In a catalogue of incidents, David had to discuss his current account details in the street, breaching his right to confidentiality and causing him significant embarrassment. The bank then suggested that he should use the nearest accessible RBS branch, even though it was a 10 mile journey and amounted to a two and a half hour round trip journey by bus.

Judge Dowse of Sheffield County Court ruled that the Bank discriminated against Mr. Allen by not providing physical access to wheelchair users in its Sheffield city centre branch, and that the bank made no serious attempts to make the branch accessible to wheelchair users as required under the law.

In handing down his judgement, Judge Dowse said: "In the light of the findings, I have made it is plain that David has suffered from discrimination and that he has suffered from considerable embarrassment caused by the Bank". Quoting a previous judgment, Judge Dowse described discrimination against disabled people as "a social evil".

On hearing the Court's decision, David Allen said: "I'm glad justice has been done. I only wanted them to comply with the law and provide disabled access so I could get into my bank like my friends."

Labels: Discrimination, Law Centres, News

A number of female pupils have been excluded from Grey Coat Hospital School in London in relation to an abusive facebook page about a teacher. The group was called "The Hate Society" and 29 girls signed up as members of the group.

They were all excluded from school for between 2 and 15 days, and the group has since been removed. The teacher concerned is said to be receiving counselling.

The Headteacher was reported as saying: "We can confirm that a number of pupils have been given fixed term exclusions for between two and 15 days after the school became aware of their involvement in a hate campaign about a member of staff using an open facebook group."

"While the offending material has been removed from the website, the school's decision to exclude these pupils temporarily was not taken lightly and has been designed to send a strong message to our whole school community that we do not tolerate such behaviour."

"The vast majority of parents who have been to see me about this incident are supportive of the school and understand why we have taken firm disciplinary action."

So, pupils who hate their teachers (an uncommon breed, I understand) would be best advised to keep their thoughts to the playground and not publish them online.

Labels: Defamation, Education Law, News

News reaches us from the Christian Legal Centre that Gary McFarlane, a relationship counsellor, has won a claim for wrongful dismissal against Relate Avon. He was sacked because his Christian beliefs prevented him giving sex therapy to homosexual couples. The Employment Tribunal was in December and Mr. McFarlane was represented by religious liberties specialist, Barrister, Paul Diamond.

Gary McFarlane had worked for Relate since 2003. He was disappointed with the hostility he had experienced from Relate. Although Mr McFarlane had never had to provide sex therapy to a same sex couple, he thought that if the situation did arise, he would be able to discuss his Christian views with his supervisors so that his position could be discussed and if necessary accommodated. Any such discussions were, however, pre-empted by unexpected meetings between Mr McFarlane and his manager in October 2007 when he was asked to state his views regarding same sex couples. Despite explaining that he would counsel couples in compliance with Relate's Equal Opportunities Policy, and that he would raise any issues with his supervisors and manager, as good practice required, Mr McFarlane was suspended in early January 2008 and then dismissed in March 2008.

However, although he won his wrongful dismissal claim, the Tribunal held that his claim of religious discrimination should fail. The Tribunal recognised powerful arguments on both sides, but held that the provision of non discriminatory services was important.

Andrea Minichiello Williams Director of the Christian Legal Centre said : "The law is in a confused state; in the case of Lillian Ladele, the Islington Registrar, the Court held that Christian belief must give way to the rights of same sex couples; but in the case of Gary McFarlane there is a finding of wrongful dismissal. The courts and public are confused; we call on the Government to recognise the legitimate expression of conscience by Christians in the area of sexual orientation and provide protection where necessary."

She continued: "It is important to note that Mr. McFarlane has never refused to counsel a same sex couple; he merely raised the potential conflict between his Christian faith and homosexual conduct. It is deeply disturbing that the mere expression of religious belief with an inability to give unqualified support to sexual orientation issues means that a Christian can be dismissed with no attempt to provide suitable accommodation for his or her beliefs. The law preventing religious discrimination against Christians is in danger of becoming a dead letter".

McFarlane v. Relate Avon Limted ET 1401179/08 (Bristol)

Labels: Discrimination, Employment Law, News

The Court of Appeal has ruled that workplace harrassment "on the grounds of" sexual orientation may be unlawful regardless of whether the victim is (or is thought to be) of the sexuality in question.

A Mr. English was married with children and was not gay. His colleagues knew he was not gay. However, since he had gone to boarding school and lived in Brighton, he was called "faggott" and lurid comments regarding him were published in the works' magazine.

His case for harassment was rejected by the Employment Tribunal - as he was not, in fact, gay.

However, the Court of Appeal held that the behaviour complained of did offend against the Sexual Orientation Regulations. The court stated: "If, as is common ground, tormenting a man who is believed to be gay but is not amounts to unlawful harassment, the distance from there to tormenting a man who is being treated as if he were gay when he is not is barely perceptible."

Sedley LJ opined that the application of anti-discrimination laws should not be dependent on an individual identifying themselves as belonging to one or other strict definition of their sexuality - sexuality being "a nuanced" issue.

School playgrounds up and down the country - take note!

Labels: Discrimination, Employment Law, News

An article from the Nearly Legal housing law blog alerts draws my attention to the imminent (well, 1st April 2009) coming into force of Section 11 of the Homelessness etc (Scotland) Act 2003.

This long awaited jigsaw piece of the legislation will require landlords to notify the local authority before taking action to recover a rented property. It will allow the authority (with the assistance of other agencies) to take early action to assist the tenant and prevent unnecessary homelessness.

Section 11 will put into statutory force the protocols agreed with many local social landlords in Glasgow as part of Govan Law Centre's prevention of homelessness project (POHP).

Labels: Glasgow, Law Centres, News, Scottish Parliament