§
'. (1)—(1) The Secretary of State may by order make provision obliging a Scottish region or islands area (hereafter referred to as "a local authority") to grant rebates, of amounts determined as provided in the order in respect of the non-domestic water rate in respect of such financial year as is prescribed in the order, on lands and heritages which qualify under subsection (2) below for such rebate.
(2) The lands and heritages which qualify rebate are lands and heritages in respect of which the non-domestic water rate levied in the financial year are more than one and two thirds times the charge levied in respect of the supply of water to the lands and heritages in the previous financial year.
(3)
(4) An order under this section may contain incidental and supplemental provisions.
(5) An order under this section can only be made by statutory instrument which shall not have effect until approved by resolution of the House of Commons.'.
§ Mr. WallaceI noted that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, included new clause 53, which I believe is listed separately. However, with the consent of both sides, I will take it with the others.
I shall explain to hon. Members who are waiting for what I accept is an important debate on dog registration that this issue might take up some time, because there are a number of points all of which, I believe, even the Minister of State would accept are reasonably substantive.
1014 I would say to those hon. Members from the Scottish National party and who have campaigned for nonpayment of the poll tax that the right place to campaign for any changes to this monstrous and unjust system of local government finance is on the Floor of the House. That is why we bring forward these new clauses.
New clause 1 is intended to bring Scotland's poll tax rules for the standard community charge more in line with those that already exist in England and Wales. Clearly, many of us, especially those who represent rural areas, have received many representations about the level of the standard community charge in our constituencies. I, perhaps, am almost unique, because I expect that the Shetland island council is only one of the few councils which has not had a multiplier of two in applying the standard community charge.
Where there has been an amount of dissatisfaction is in those cases where people over the years have had handed down to them family homes and crofts which they have maintained or which they often use for weekend holidays. They are small houses, probably of little monetary value, but, nevertheless, the fact that they have been handed down from generation to generation means that they mean a lot to the families concerned.
Up to now, usually because of the location in remote island communities or in remote areas on the mainland, their rateable value has been relatively low and the amount paid in rates for those properties was very low indeed. Those properties are now landed with a standard community charge two times, in most cases, the personal community charge in any given area. Therefore, people who previously were perhaps paying less than £100 now have to pay more than £500 for the pleasure and for the genuine value that they attach to those homes. That has caused considerable aggravation and annoyance. These are not wealthy people who buy second homes in the country. The people hit are people who usually have modest means, and are now faced with the prospect of having to give up homes which they had gone to or occupied for many years. No doubt, in turn, those properties will he bought up by people to use as second homes who will make no long-term contribution to the community.
There are other anomalies too. In Scotland we are a year ahead of England and Wales and it is only in recent months that we have had to cope with the injustices and anomalies which the poll tax throws up. In some cases, people have taken in elderly relatives to live with them. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House want to encourage the idea of ill or elderly people living with their families rather than being put into institutional care. Often elderly people are naturally reluctant to give up the homes they have long occupied, and in such cases they have been landed with a standard community charge at twice the given amount. A schizophrenic person in my constituency lives with his mother but refuses to give up his house on one of the remoter islands. No amount of rational explanation that it might be in his interests to do so will make him change his mind—and who is to quibble with a person who makes such a choice? He is landed now with a community charge much higher than the rates he had to pay before.
1015 10.15 pm
What about a person sentenced to prison whose co-habitee or wife no longer stays in the old family home and who has no income at all? His uninhabited home is subject to the standard community charge and he has no income with which to pay it.
Another great injustice is that people do not qualify in the same way for rebates of the standard community charge—
§ Mr. WorthingtonWould the hon. Gentleman add to that list the sheer complexity now emerging on caravan sites, on which some people now pay poll tax and others continue to pay rates? Will he also add the complexities involved in the European Community ruling, which has brought in VAT on rents for the first time, and the fact that people now find that they must also pay an additional VAT levy on the rates they pay? This is all part of the confusion that seems to be spreading from the Scottish Office and the Department of the Environment, in which one hand does not know what the other is doing.
§ Mr. WallaceI am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point so eloquently. Within the past seven days I have come across a similar case to do with caravans in my constituency. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight this confusion.
As I said, a number of anomalies have been thrown up, regarding both property and people. Scotland differs from England and Wales in that under the Scottish legislation the standard community charge must be between one and two times the personal community charge, whereas under section 40 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, English and Welsh local authorities can apply a multiplier, or indeed a fraction, of zero, 0.5, 1, 1.5 or 2. Part of our new clause would put Scottish local authorities in a position similar to that of those in England and Wales. The other part would empower the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations which would specify the classes of property or persons for which local authorities could set different multipliers. That woud give local authorities the flexibility that is necessary if they are to administer an unjust tax with a lesser degree of injustice.
The Minister of State knows that my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) has corresponded copiously with him about this matter, yet he tries to maintain that Scotland is no different from England and Wales and that Scottish local authorities can still exercise considerable discretion about whether to apply a multiplier of one. Although that may be true of one or two cases, many Scottish local authorities have been obliged to set a multiplier of two in the knowledge that if they did not they would lose revenue, because they believe that the revenue support grant that they receive is dictated by the assumption that a multiplier of two will apply. If the Minister of State wishes to deny that that is the underlying assumption in the revenue support grant, I shall give way to him because that would be welcome news.
§ Mr. LangThat is the underlying assumption, but it does not necessarily mean that all local authorities would have lost money if the assumption had been different. The assumption is used as a basis for the distribution of a fixed 1016 sum of money. Some local authorities on an assumption of a multiplier of one would have had more money and some would have had less.
§ Mr. WallaceIt is not even very late but arithmetically the Minister's intervention defeats me. He is saying that he takes into account that income is based on the assumption of a multiplier of two, but if there is a multiplier of one the income will be lower. He must explain this further when he replies to the debate. On any rational view there would be net losers. That element of discretion does not exist.[interruption.]
§ Madam Deputy SpeakerOrder. There are a number of conversations going on in the Chamber, which shows great discourtesy to the hon. Gentleman who is moving the new clause. I would be obliged if those who want to hold conversations would do so on the other side of the swing doors.
§ Mr. WallaceOur new clause says:
In determining the annual revenue support grant, the Secretary of State shall take into account the determination by each local authority of the multiplier for each specified class of property.He will not make an assumption that everyone will go for the highest possible option.New clause 6 seeks to clarify the powers of a sheriff to hear evidence in summary appeals under the poll tax legislation. I am sure that the Minister is well aware of the points that I intend to make, because we have corresponded about the new clause following a case in my constituency. I can make only brief reference to that case because I think that, technically, it is still subject to a possible appeal to the Court of Session. The sheriff found that he was unable to hear evidence on an appeal about the reasons why my constituent did not give information about the date of birth of his co-habitee. The sheriff took the view that legislation, in particular section 64(5) of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 and section 39(5) of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976, give specific power to the sheriff on summary appeal to hear evidence. The 1987 Act does not.
In that context there is also the opinion of the Lord President in the Court of Session in the case of Cigarro against the City of Glasgow licensing board. In that case the Lord President states:
The proper starting point for ascertaining the precise limits of a sheriff's powers in dealing with an appeal which is disposed of as in a summary application is a statute which provides for the particular appeal to the sheriff, the statute which enables him to entertain and determine it.For example, appeals to the sheriff may be made on the reasons for not providing certain information in the registration form. They can also arise in terms of a dispute about the location of a person's sole or main residence. I think that there is legal doubt about the matter and the new clause seeks to put the matter beyond doubt. It would enable those who wish to give evidence to explain why a course of action has been pursued or why they believe themselves to be resident in a specific area, to be allowed to give evidence before the sheriff. It does not in any way strike at the heart of the Government's community charge legislation and I hope that the Minister will be able to give a positive response.New clause 44 seeks to exempt women's refuges from the scope of the collective community charge. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) will deal with that matter at great length if he catches your 1017 eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. Under the legislation, if a person leaves home the partner is liable for the poll tax. That means that under current legislation a person could be charged the poll tax twice.
§ Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)There is no poll tax.
§ Mr. WallaceThe hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) says that there is no poll tax.
§ Dame E. Kellett-BowmanThe hon. Gentleman should describe correctly the legislation passed by the House.
§ Mr. WallaceSellafield or Windscale, poll tax or community charge—it is all the same thing.
New clause 50 deals with charges for sewerage services in Scotland. Aggravation is felt by people who are not connected to the main sewerage but who are nevertheless assessed for full liability to the community charge, a position which is distinct from those who are not connected to a mains water system. In other words, if one is not connected to what is coming in, one does not have to pay the community charge water rate, but if one is not connected to what goes out, one is still fully liable for the charge. It is clear from my postbag that a number of people regard this as an injustice.
I accept the public health argument that as a community as a whole we benefit from the provision of a sewerage service. That is why the new clause does not seek to give a total exemption from any liability to make a contribution towards the provision in a community of sewerage services. It would simply reduce that contribution by 50 per cent.
I anticipate it being said that a similar case could be made for those who do not send their children to a local authority school or those who do not make use of the public library. I repeat that such a distinction is already made by the Government in respect of water charges. Also, when some years ago one of my constituents complained about having to pay for clearing septic tanks, the then Under-Secretary, Michael Ancram, said that while there was a point to the argument, in Scotland the fact that one was not connected to the main sewers could be taken into account by the assessor when determining the rateable value of the premises. With the introduction of the poll tax system, there is now no benefit to be accrued by those who are not connected to the main sewers, and the new clause tries to take account of that.
I regret that the structure of our debates is such that important matters such as this have to be debated late at night. The final point I must raise in dealing with this series of new clauses concerns particularly the business community in Grampian and Highland regions, where metered water charges have placed a considerable burden on local government. Our proposal is a stalking horse to enable us to raise that point, and I will leave my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon to deal with it in more detail.
In addition to non-domestic water rates, the whole issue of metered water charges must be considered. We have chosen an arbitrary figure. We have used the basis of rebates which were set out by the Government in their legislation which followed revaluation in 1985. We cannot, from the Opposition, put forward a provision that any 1018 sums that a local authority is obliged to rebate should be reimbursed by central Government. The rules of the House preclude us from tabling such a provision.
We were anxious to raise the matter on the Floor of the House because the Minister of State is alleged to have said in an informal conversation with the Federation of Small Businesses that there were no legislative possibilities for him to do anything about a problem which hon. Members in all parts of the House accepts exists. We have, as we debate this measure, such a legislative opportunity. The wording of what we propose may be far from perfect, but if the Government wish seriously to address themselves to a problem that is harming the business community in the Grampian and Highland regions they could act now. This debate may prompt them to take that opportunity when the Bill is in another place.
§ Mr. Malcolm BruceThe hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) has told my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) that there is no such thing as a poll tax. When the Government launched an advertising campaign in Scotland to tell people that they could pay the community charge by direct debit, their advertising agency found that nobody knew what the community charge was. The advertisement, paid for by the Government, therefore had to say,
When you pay your community charge or poll tax, you can do it by direct debit.Even the Government have been forced to acknowledge that we have a poll tax.New clause 1 relates to the community charge on holiday homes or second homes, which has caused considerable problems in Scotland. Scotland was a guinea pig because the legislation implementing the poll tax in Scotland went through before that implementing the poll tax for England and Wales. An enormous number of anomalies have cropped up. As a result, the legislation for England and Wales is different from that for Scotland. It seems reasonable that the changes in criteria that it was thought would make the legislation for England and Wales fairer should be applied to Scotland and that is what we are trying to do.
I am not arguing against people who have holiday homes paying community charge on them. That seems reasonable although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland said, there are degrees of holiday homes. I have had exchanges with the Minister about the injustice in the fact that a Barrett's timeshare development qualifies for a non-domestic rate, but when a farmer lets out two of his cottages he has to pay double community charge on them, but in Scotland only. That is a monumental injustice and is contrary to the Government's intention to allow farmers and others who live in rural areas to diversify their income. It is a disincentive, and the Government have a duty to ensure that it is put right.
Some tenant farmers have either inherited or bought a croft or cottage for their retirement. One would have thought that the Conservative party would be in favour of people in tied accommodation having somewhere of their own to retire to, but such people are having to pay double poll tax—once on the farmhouse in which they live as a tenant farmer and once on their retirement cottage. Often, such a household would have been paying nothing in rates, 1019 but now has to pay £1,200 to £1,400 out of untaxed income. Is it any wonder that the Tory party is losing support in rural areas?
§ Mr. BruceI have no qualms. I have just been round my constituency and I did not find many people saying that they would vote for the Tories.
New clause 44 deals with the way in which women's refuges are treated. I have had correspondence with the Minister about this and am waiting for a reply from him. The women's refuges which operate in Aberdeen have been in touch with me, and one operates in my constituency. These provide secure refuges to which women can retreat when they have been battered by their husbands or partners. It is regrettable that this happens—it always has—but it is a positive development that there are now organisations willing to set up and run such refuges, always as charities which rely on voluntary raising of funds.
Until now, such refuges have been treated as hospitals and rated accordingly. Now the Government are saying that they have to be treated as a multiple-occupancy dwelling in which every individual has to pay poll tax. That presents severe practical problems. The women entering those refuges do so at short notice, and may remain there for a very short time or for a longer period. On arrival they are in an emotionally and physically stressed condition. Organisations whose prime objective is to provide such women with support are not in a position to hammer them for money. Yet the Government are saying that that is what refuges must do.
That is an unsympathetic attitude which underestimates the difficulties facing those organisations and the additional stress placed on the women concerned. Worse still, those women will have left homes where they are jointly and severally liable to pay poll tax along with their husbands or partners. The husband or partner may already have paid the woman's share of poll tax and will remain liable to pay it. The Government are in effect pressing for additional revenue by taxing individuals who are already in an extremely distraught and emotional state.
If that is the kind of treatment that the Government want to mete out, it is no wonder that they are seen as heartless philistines—which, in the circumstances that I have described, they are. The number of women involved is relatively small and the circumstances extremely stressful, but still the Government aim to collect double tax. The Minister must make a response which both shows compassion and answers the question of whether women in such circumstances should be pressed to pay the poll tax twice.
My final point relates to new clause 53, which concerns non-domestic water rates, including the general standard and metered rates. I raised that matter in an Adjournment debate, and it has been the subject of considerable correspondence with the Minister. We believe that the Bill presents an opportunity for a legislative change which would ensure that companies currently confronted with draconian increases threatening not only their profitability but in some cases their viability may know that there is a limit to the rates that they will be expected to pay.
1020 The Government may say that they disapprove of such a measure, but they introduced similar legislation at the time of the last property revaluation in Scotland. There was a massive revolt among Conservative supporters in the business community about the revaluation's implications and the extra charges that it would impose.
On that occasion emergency legislation was rushed through the House, with all-party support, to limit the amount of the increase that any business would have to absorb. The purpose of the proposed new clause is to provide similar protection for businesses faced with the same prospect as a consequence of the poll tax or community charge.
I was told by Grampian regional council today that it is very concerned about the implications of the charge. It has taken positive helpful measures, including a series of meetings with businesses at which it sought to offer advice on increasing the efficiency of water operations with a view to reducing waste. The council issued 38 information packs, offered consultancy advice to nine companies, and received one application for grant assistance. That shows a constructive attitude and a positive response.
I hope that the Minister accepts that a 109 per cent. increase in water charges still represents a severe burden. He acknowledges that the scope for manoeuvre was limited and that Grampian complied with the law. The increase in the Highland region was 72 per cent. and in Midlothian and Strathclyde it was 64 to 66 per cent. That sort of increase is a serious burden on companies. So far, the Government's ability to deal with the problem has given no satisfaction. Essentially, they have said, "That is the law. Grampian have interpreted it in one way. It is open to a different interpretation, but on balance that is right because that is what they have to do and the businesses will just have to lump it." Businesses should not have to expect such treatment. Given the Government's previous new clause 47 about the fixing of the new uniform business rate, it goes against the grain that they feel unable to intervene and help in this case.
Given the treatment that has been meted out and the hardship that has been imposed on businesses in the Grampian region, the Minister must understand that there is little willingness to believe that what the Government propose in the form of their new rates measures for businesses will be beneficial. In a previous debate I raised the concerns in the Grampian region, but the Minister did not answer my questions. What we are proposing today shows, as my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland said, that we who believe in parliamentary democracy are putting the amendments in the right place—the House of Commons. The Scottish National party Members are conspicuous by their absence. They rarely appear in the House, but stalk the country talking about illegal action, confrontation and extra-parliamentary action. At the end of the day, however, they achieve nothing but failure.
We come here in a constructive spirit to put the arguments to the Government, reflecting the clear representations which have been made to us on behalf of business, and asking for a constructive response. The points that have been raised deserve a serious and, I hope, sympathetic reply from the Minister.
§ Mr. LangI shall certainly respond to the points that have been raised in the debate, which has covered five entirely unrelated subjects. Opposition Members cannot, 1021 therefore, he blamed for taking slightly longer than expected. I know that the House wishes to make progress and so I shall stick closely to the amendments which have been tabled.
On new clause 1, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) spoke mainly about the decision of all Scottish local authorities, except Western Isles and Shetland, to choose to impose a multiplier of two, twice as high as they need have done. However, the intention of his new clause is to bring Scotland in line with England and Wales with regard to the standing community charge arrangements, particularly for setting standard community charge multipliers.
However, the new clause is based on a misconception that there are significant differences between the position north and south of the border and that the English and Welsh arrangements are more flexible. That is not so as I shall seek to explain. There are some technical differences between setting the standard charge in Scotland, and doing so in England and Wales. The key point is that in all three countries local authorities have discretion to set the multiplier up to a maximum of twice the community charge for their area.
In Scotland, local authorities' discretion starts at a multiplier of one. They can set a standard community charge multiplier at any point between one and two times the level of the personal community charge, and the multiplier which is determined will apply to any property which may be liable for the standard community charge in a local authority area.
Authorities in England and Wales will be able, subject to certain restrictions, to set multipliers at one of five different specific levels: nought, a half, one, one and a half or two. However, the range of properties liable for the standard charge is smaller in Scotland than in England and Wales. That is because certain Scottish properties do not attract the charge, either by virtue of a specific exemption, such as homes of people who go into hospital on a long-term basis, or by virtue of being retained in rating, for example properties which are not suitable for occupation throughout the year. Equivalent properties in England and Wales will be liable for the standard charge but maximum multipliers will be imposed on them by regulations, for example, nought for the homes of long-term hospital patients and one for planning properties of which the planning conditions do not permit them to be occupied throughout the year.
§ Mr. Malcolm BruceMy understanding is that, provided there is no closing order on them, properties which are not occupied throughout the year are levied for the full standard community charge. That is certainly true in my constituency. Is the Minister saying that that is not right?
§ Mr. LangIt is not for me to question the decision of the community charge registration officer, but these are matters for appeal if they come into contention.
While the English and Welsh arrangements allow for different multipliers for different classes of property, it is important to realise that the different classes of property are closely defined and that there is no discretion for a local authority to determine its own classes of property for which it will set different multipliers.
In broad terms, the properties in respect of which the English and Welsh local authorities will be able to exercise 1022 discretion to set a multiplier of up to two will be comparable to those properties in Scotland, which will be liable for the standard community charge.
I should make it clear that English local authorities have still to determine what multipliers to set on second homes. It is not possible, therefore, to compare outcomes between Scotland and England. If there are differences between Scotland and England in the way in which people are treated in practice, that is more likely to be because local authorities in each country have chosen to use the discretion that is available to them differently rather than because of technical differences in the arrangements for setting the standard charge. This could arise if English authorities decided to set the multiplier at less than the maximum of two, which has been adopted by virtually all Scottish local authorities. In these circumstances I do not consider the new clause to be necessary or desirable.
10.45 pm
New clause 6, which was spoken to by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), relates to a specific interest on which he has expressed concern in the past, which is whether evidence can be heard at community charge appeals before the sheriff. We have given detailed consideration to the hon. Gentleman's proposals. I have already made it clear to him in correspondence that I consider his proposals unnecessary because under summary application procedures, under which community charge appeals are heard, the sheriff can effectively act as he thinks appropriate. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of our concern not to prejudice this general position. We are obviously concerned, however, that there should be no possible doubt that evidence can be heard. In the light of the particular case which has aroused the present concern, I would propose to consider whether we should introduce an amendment in another place along the lines of new clause 6, but making it clear that the power would be without prejudice to the generality of summary application procedures as provided for in the Sheriff Courts Act 1907. On the basis of that undertaking, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press his new clause.
New clause 50 relates to sewerage. I listened carefully to the arguments which were advanced but I am not persuaded that payment towards domestic sewerage Js any different from payment for other services which are included within the community charge. There are not enough reductions for those who have to maintain private roads, or who do not make use of the education system or who may not have access to a public library. There are many other examples. To concede that special arrangements should be made for sewerage would lead to a proliferation of requests for relief from payment towards services which are not provided or utilised. It would make the community charge register more complex and would introduce additional administrative costs.
§ Mr. WallaceI anticipated that the Minister would refer to private roads and public libraries, but surely sewerage provision is most comparable to water supply. The Government have made a distinction between those whose properties are connected to mains water and those whose properties are not. Why make that distinction in respect of what comes in but not in respect of what comes out?
§ Mr. LangThat is partly because it was our purpose in making changes to the community charge under the common business rate to minimise the disruption to the existing system. In the past there have been separate arrangements for water, which we have carried forward under a new guise. There were no formal arrangements of that sort for the reasons that I have described.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) spoke about women's refuges when he directed himself to new clause 44. I thought that his remarks were wholly intemperate and inappropriate on a matter on which we have shown great concern. We have received a number of representations from Women's Aid about the designation of women's refuges as collective community charge establishments, and the present arrangements were introduced to meet the requirements of Women's Aid. However, we have decided to act upon its subsequent representations and to introduce regulations that will have the effect of moving the refuges back into rating. Officials from my Department met representatives of Women's Aid last week to discuss these proposals. I hope to be in a position to lay regulations before the House quite soon. I think that the hon. Gentleman's remarks were entirely misplaced because we have responded not once but twice, and comprehensively, to the attitude of Women's Aid.
New clause 53 is directed to the non-domestic water rate. Occasionally an amendment or new clause misses the bull's eye, but new clause 53 misses the target altogether. The source of the complaint is the impact of metered water charges. Other water charges, to which the new clause relates, have not increased in the Grampian region. The fact is that they have decreased. Non-metered water charges were 8.16p in the pound last year and they are now 7p in the pound.
The new clause has been tabled on the assumption that non-domestic water ratepayers need some relief, but the hon. Gentleman has failed to take account of the fact that in only two regions do non-domestic water rates amount to more than one and two thirds times last year's domestic water rate, which then applied also to the non-domestic sector. Last year, both regions levied a public water rate which we have now abolished.
If that were taken into account, the increases in those regions would be nowhere near the two thirds limit that the hon. Gentleman seeks to invoke. The new clause is misconceived. It would breach the fairness provisions that we were at pains to introduce in the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. Act. Any concessions would have to be paid for by other water users and would introduce additional administrative costs. For those reasons, I cannot accept the new clause.
§ Mr. WallaceI am grateful to the Minister for his reply, even though it was fairly short, for understandable reasons.
His reply to new clause 1 was wholly unconvincing. The relevant legislation shows that there are clear differences between Scotland and England. They are not on a par. England can have a multiplier of less than one, but Scotland cannot. The Minister completely failed to respond to the points that were made about holiday cottages and prisoners. The Government have missed an opportunity to rectify some of the injustices in the implementation of the community charge.
As for sewerage, the Minister failed to convince us that water should be treated differently from sewerage. Schedule 5 to the 1987 Act shows that, unlike libraries or private roads, a local authority is obliged to calculate separately its sewerage costs and apportion them between different categories of payers. Sewerage is dealt with in that Act in a way that makes it different from the other services. The Minister's reply—that the charge will not be reduced for supplies to those who are not connected to the main sewerage system—lacked conviction. It is a matter to which we shall return.
As for water charges, if the Minister had listened to what was said he would have realised that we appreciate that the new clause is not drafted as well as it might be. We referred to meter charges. I am always suspicious when Ministers say that the defect lies in the drafting of Opposition amendments. He did not address the issue. The Minister told the business community that there was no legislative opportunity to do anything about this problem. We have proved that he was wrong. He has failed to take that opportunity. I hope that it will be dealt with in another place.
I thank the Minister for having gone some way towards meeting two other points that we raised. I heard what he said about appeals. I welcome the fact that he is giving some thought to the matter and that he intends to ensure that an amendment is tabled in another place to make clear what are the sheriff's powers, while not compromising other legislation.
I welcome also his announcement about women's refuges. It underlines the point that I made at the outset. Those of us who complain about the poll tax and who believe in parliamentary democracy feel that we must make our arguments in this place. There has been some response from the Government tonight, which shows that those who have neither attended nor contributed to the debate and who only bluster have failed the people of Scotland. It is the Social and Liberal Democrats who stand up and tackle the poll tax in the one way that can be effective.
§ Question put and negatived.