Plenary, 04 Apr 2001

Meeting date: Wednesday, April 4, 2001

Official Report 372KB pdf

---

Water and Sewerage Charges

This evening's members' business debate is on motion S1M-1683, in the name of Richard Lochhead, on the removal of reliefs for water and sewerage charges for charitable organisations. Those who would like to participate should indicate that now, and those who are not staying should leave quietly and quickly.

Presiding Officer, is my name showing up on your screen?

I am sorry, I cannot hear. Could we have Mr Gibson's microphone on, please? The microphone next to yours seems to be working, Mr Gibson, but not yours.

I will change position.

We had some problems with the microphones earlier.

Presiding Officer, I—

I am sorry, I still cannot hear.

I was just asking—[Laughter.]

It is working now.

I am sorry, Presiding Officer, it has been a long day. I wanted to say that I had pressed my button to indicate that I wanted to speak, but nothing happened to show that my request had been recorded. That is why I have switched seats.

Your name is not showing on my screen yet. The names on my screen are: Mrs Margaret Ewing, Cathy Peattie, Cathy Jamieson, Robin Harper, Richard Lochhead, Fergus Ewing, Murray Tosh, Keith Raffan, Irene McGugan—and now Kenneth Gibson. Any other takers? We will begin with Richard Lochhead.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament expresses concern over the decision to phase out reliefs for water and sewerage charges for charitable bodies starting from 1 April 2001; recognises that if implemented this decision will mean an estimated additional bill of £27 million for Scotland's voluntary sector in 2001-02 and more than double that for the following year; notes that the additional costs that will result will threaten the ability of many voluntary organisations engaged in helping the more vulnerable members of our society and tackling social exclusion; questions the level of consultation that has taken place with the sector over these proposals, and believes that this decision should be revisited as a matter of priority.

I thank the 46 members from across all parties, and Dennis Canavan, who signed my motion and made this debate possible.

I do not know whether you Presiding Officer, read The Press and Journal, but there is a report in today's paper:

"A granny is the first to sign up for a charity challenge in Inverness—to climb a hospital chimney.

Mary Walker, 63, has agreed to climb Raigmore Hospital's chimney and abseil down its side on May 12 to raise money for the Anthony Nolan Bone Marrow Trust."

She said:

"I've met some people who suffer from bone marrow problems and I want to do something for them."

That lady is braver than I am, and no doubt she is braver than many in this chamber. Her efforts illustrate the lengths to which people will go to help others. Society owes an enormous debt to the country's army of volunteers, who each and every day take time to offer others a helping hand. Each person who is involved in a voluntary organisation and who helps their community, the less fortunate and the more vulnerable members in our society, or elsewhere in the world, makes a personal sacrifice for which they do not expect any special thanks or treatment. However, the voluntary sector quite rightly seeks recognition from public bodies, the Government and this Parliament of its financial situation and its contribution to society.

Forty-eight hours ago, Scotland's charities became liable for water rates, because the reliefs that they have enjoyed for centuries are being phased out. The news from the water authorities in February could not have come at a worse time, because it came after most organisations had concluded their discussions with their main funders for the following year. The bills could not be arriving at a worse time, as charity events continue to be cancelled throughout Scotland due to foot-and-mouth disease.

The history of this issue is confusing and complex, which says a lot about the way in which the water industry in Scotland has been run through the decades. Unless action is taken immediately, Scottish charities will become the latest victims of the chaos that has reigned.

Colleagues may recall that Sarah Boyack, who was the minister at the time, announced in 1999 that the proposed withdrawal of reliefs would be postponed until the following year. That concession followed a vigorous campaign by the voluntary sector, and because the minister accepted that the consultation process was flawed. The water authorities made a concession, in that they distinguished between sensitive and non-sensitive premises, with reliefs for the latter being phased out by 20 per cent a year. Negotiations continued, but the voluntary sector had the rug pulled from beneath its feet when the small print at the end of the water authorities' press release in February delivered a body blow. All that came on top of massive rises—in some cases several hundred per cent—in general water charges in recent years.

Perhaps it was an oversight that the continuation of the reliefs was not built into the new legislation following the reorganisation of the water industry in 1996, but that is not the fault of the many organisations that now face closure. Most charities rely on grants from cash-strapped local authorities, but the grants have remained static or have been reduced in recent years. Another source of income is the generosity of the public. How many more raffle tickets will have to be sold by charities for them to remain viable? How many more sponsored walks or activities will have to be arranged to avoid bankruptcy?

I tell the minister that the report by the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations on the voluntary sector in Moray last year found that 46 per cent of organisations had incomes of less than £1,000. When one realises that water bills for village halls are set to multiply, perhaps the minister will appreciate the damage that will be inflicted. If the Government's proposals close village halls, it will not stop there: luncheon clubs will have to close, badminton clubs will have to close, and the numerous other clubs and societies that use the halls will be left homeless.

I will refer to messages that I have received in relation to this debate. I am sure that other members have also received messages. I have had e-mails and letters from many organisations throughout Scotland, detailing extreme concern at the proposals. The Scottish churches committee, which has campaigned vigorously on this issue for years, is up in arms at what is happening. Capability Scotland, which had water bills of £14,000 last year, will have bills of £18,000 this year and of £90,000 by the time the reliefs are phased out. That organisation, which does so much for the disabled, will be hit extremely hard by the proposals.

Abbeyfield Scotland, which runs 100 very sheltered houses and residential care homes throughout the country, will see its bills go up by the equivalent of 22 people's wages. Largo Bay Sailing Club, MoBus in Fife and Voluntary Service Aberdeen also got in touch. The latter's bills are going to go up from £9,000 to £87,000, which is an increase of more than 900 per cent. The service runs facilities such as Linn Moor Residential School, which provides for children with special needs, and homes for the elderly. The archdiocese of St Andrews and Edinburgh pointed out that we will be the only European country that does not give concessions to charities.

Perth and Kinross Association of Voluntary Service, an umbrella organisation that represents 160 organisations in Perth and Kinross, got in touch. It says that in the next few years, the Gateway centre alone will face water rates and sewerage charges of almost £10,000, for which the centre, like many other organisations, has no budget. That is a just a tiny sample of the organisations that have contacted MSPs on the issue.

Surely the minister accepts that as tackling social inclusion is one of the Executive's avowed priorities, it is a retrograde step to pull the rug from beneath the feet of the many charities that play a crucial role in helping ministers to achieve their aims. If those charities go under, who will step into the breach? Consultation with the voluntary sector has been shambolic and inconsistent. Some might suggest that it has been a sham. Every organisation that has contacted members has complained about the consultation or lack of it. The sector rightly says that the compact between it and the Executive has been breached.

The consultation is a sham. The North of Scotland Water Authority told me in a letter that I received this morning that 90 per cent of respondents to its questionnaire said that reliefs should continue, yet the authority stormed ahead and removed them. The Government's response has only been to highlight the fact that water authorities can install free water meters. That solution may assist some village halls, but it has two problems. Installing water meters will not prevent sky-high bills that may break the bank, because water charges have gone through the roof in recent years. Meters also offer no help to residential homes, whose water usage is enormous, or to charities that wash clothes that may have been donated to be sent abroad.

Water meters or not, an important principle is at stake when it comes to village halls, residential homes or any charitable bodies. The principle is that society is willing to recognise the special role that charities the length and breadth of Scotland play in the community. The needs of many people in society who rely on charitable works will not go away, and the last thing that we need is for charities to go away.

There are many reasons why the removal of reliefs should be cancelled. The Scottish Charity Law Review Commission is due to report. Why on earth can we not wait to find out what it says, rather than jump the gun? The Transport and the Environment Committee is conducting an inquiry into the water industry. Why can we not wait for its report? The creation of a unified water authority has been proposed. Why can we not revisit the reliefs issue when the Parliament debates the bill on water services?

All that the motion asks is that the minister gives an undertaking to revisit the issue. No one is arguing against changes to the system. All that is asked is that the minister accepts that the principle of giving special help to the sector is retained, as befits a civilised society such as Scotland. We also seek immediate action to help those organisations that help our fellow citizens in their time of need or provide services that would not otherwise be provided.

I urge the minister to give Parliament and Scotland's charities some good news by accepting that the issue needs to be revisited as a matter of priority.

I congratulate Richard Lochhead on initiating the debate. The issue is important. In the past two years, the Parliament has had several debates on the voluntary sector. If the Scottish Parliament did not exist, such debates would not have been held, as they would not have taken place in Westminster.

The Executive has a good track record on working with the voluntary sector. The Parliament is committed to taking on board voluntary sector issues in our committees and some of the cross-party groups.

I have concerns about the removal of reliefs from water and sewerage charges for voluntary organisations. Not all voluntary organisations are charities. For instance, credit unions and food co-ops are not charities, but they are self-help organisations that are crucial in our communities.

Those at the band hall in Bo'ness work with kids and help to build a local band that can feed into two larger bands. Although meetings are held only twice a week, the band hall will be hit with large water bills. That is crazy.

A small voluntary organisation runs a day centre in Grangemouth, which is in my constituency. It holds a lunch club two days a week and will never be able to meet the water bills that it will face.

The voluntary sector is one of Scotland's biggest assets. Organisations are run by people of different ages, classes and backgrounds. The sector is crucial. Those involved should not be always engaged in raising money. Richard Lochhead is right—there is something obscene about running more raffles just to pay water rates.

It is worth noting that thousands of people work in the voluntary sector. The sector is the only one that I know of in which workers have to raise money for the work that is done by their organisation. They have to raise money to pay their own salaries and those of their staff. It is the only sector that I have ever worked in in which people sometimes do not get paid in February and March because there is no money available to pay their salaries.

We must think about what the voluntary sector actually is. It is not some wonderful idea, whereby someone is hidden away but likely to appear with lots of cheques and lots of money every time that the need arises. The voluntary sector is run by communities, by volunteers and by people with real commitment and we must support them.

The charges will mean additional burdens for voluntary organisations. Will the minister consider developing another category of water customer? As well as domestic and commercial customers, there could be a not-for-profit category. That would make a lot of sense. Perhaps the new water authority could explore that idea.

Will the minister develop the discussions that have taken place with the SCVO and ensure that the voluntary sector is involved in those discussions at all levels? That is vital.

We have heard about free water meters, but they have not been made available throughout Scotland. For my wee band hall, a free water meter would make a lot of sense.

This issue is important and I hope that we can come back to it. I hope that the minister will come back to us with the outcome of the discussions that she has with the SCVO and others.

I congratulate Richard Lochhead not just on securing the debate today but on leading a campaign on this issue throughout Scotland. The campaign has focused on the iniquity whereby the water authorities are, in effect, picking on the weakest in society—volunteers and voluntary organisations.

In the Highlands, there are a great many voluntary organisations, all of which have one thing in common: they spend a great deal of their time and effort simply raising enough money, through charitable donations, to survive. Rich voluntary organisations, such as RSPB Scotland, could no doubt afford to pay increased charges. However, the attack on organisations such as Highland Hospice, whose charges will rise by an extra £2,500 and, in five years' time, by an extra £12,500, or on Capability Scotland, whose charges will rise by in excess of £90,000 per annum by 2005, is totally unsustainable.

Today, I received a copy of a letter of formal complaint that has been made by the Scottish churches committee, which comprises representatives from many of Scotland's churches. The letter, to the water industry commissioner for Scotland, is dated 27 February. It is the most serious complaint that I have yet seen to the commissioner, who, in my experience, is not noted for responding positively to complaints. If the commissioner does not take the complaint seriously, that will raise questions about the usefulness of Mr Sutherland, and the body that he heads, as the so-called watchdog and so-called customer champion for the water industry in Scotland.

The Scottish churches complain that they sought to be involved in the consultation process, but were rebuffed, and that they asked East of Scotland Water repeatedly for the right to put forward their views, but were spurned. In addition, they complain that East of Scotland Water was, basically, in cahoots with the water industry commissioner, who did not consult them properly, and with the Scottish Executive.

Where do we go from here? I suggest that if the Executive wants to give a lead, it should instruct the water authorities to suspend, very quickly, any implementation of the measure. I also suggest to the minister that, if the water authorities really wish to find the money, perhaps they should take a close look at their own activities. I have seen independent analysis and critique of NOSWA and it seems to me that many questions should be asked and that the Executive should put in place a great deal of scrutiny. For example, a proposal for an extended sewage works in Aviemore was put out to consultation. There was, supposedly, more than one option, but before the consultation process began, the water authority had purchased land on its preferred site. Does that not call into question the validity of that so-called consultation exercise? It is up to the Executive to supervise and scrutinise quangos such as NOSWA. That ain't happening, and unless the Executive gives a lead, it will be letting down the voluntary organisations and many of the weakest members of society in Scotland.

I associate myself with what Richard Lochhead and Cathy Peattie said about the importance of the voluntary sector in Scotland and the significance of the issue to voluntary organisations. There is a clear belief in the voluntary sector that one reason for having a public sector water industry is that the industry should be subject to public policy priorities and to public sector reliefs that have existed in the past, and that scrutiny and amendment perhaps ought to continue.

It is usual in such debates to begin by congratulating the member who has raised the issue. However, I am not sure that that is appropriate on this occasion, because I find myself uncomfortable not with the issue but with the timing of the debate.

I am a member of the Transport and the Environment Committee, which has been taking evidence since December on many aspects of the water industry. We have gathered evidence on this particular issue and we have taken advice and evidence from the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations.

I will tell Murray Tosh the rationale behind the timing. Water relief began to be removed two days ago. Today is the earliest and best opportunity for a debate.

I understand that and I have discussed it with the SCVO. I understand why that organisation was anxious that the issue should be raised at the earliest opportunity, but Richard Lochhead knows about parliamentary processes and procedure. I do not think that a debate at this time properly respects the work that the Transport and the Environment Committee is doing.

I am afraid that raising the issue today is likely to force a response from Rhona Brankin in line with those that Sam Galbraith used to give and it poses the question: what is the point of the committee's looking at the matter and trying to develop a case? The committee had a meeting this morning to consider the evidence it has gathered and to consider the recommendations for its draft report, which will be available in mid-May. We have undertaken a massive amount of work and we think that we have done so very responsibly. We think that the Executive ought to take our findings into account in carrying forward this matter, along with all the other related matters.

Unless the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development, in her response to the debate, has some dramatic new policy initiative to announce that will send everybody away happy, I hope that she will not close off the options. I hope that she will agree to wait until the Transport and the Environment Committee has made its recommendations and to give full, unfettered consideration to those recommendations. I cannot ask her to accept the recommendations when she has not seen them—the Transport and the Environment Committee has not made them yet. I hope that the issue will not be closed today just because it has been brought up for debate and supported by Mr Ewing's somewhat contentious political remarks. Those remarks are not necessarily wrong, but they have a clearly political thrust.

The issue is important. It is being handled by a parliamentary committee. The Presiding Officer should go back to the Parliamentary Bureau, on our behalf, and question the validity of holding a debate on a matter that is currently under investigation by a parliamentary committee. If we respect the Parliament's committee processes, those processes should be our priority.

I take your point, Mr Tosh. The Presiding Officers will raise the matter at the bureau.

I will make a few comments on the impact on the voluntary sector of the removal of reliefs for water and sewerage charges and suggest some ways of opening up discussion about the future and how to achieve some progress on the issue.

As a former voluntary sector worker, like Cathy Peattie, I am well aware of the difficulties of working for a small voluntary organisation. I am also aware that many charities and larger voluntary organisations are multimillion-pound businesses. I accept that there were a number of inconsistencies in the handling of the removal of reliefs and that some small voluntary organisations were perhaps disadvantaged under the old system, although some of the larger ones benefited from it.

We have a problem, in that the perception in the voluntary sector is that there has been no consultation process. I am aware that consultation took place, but some of the organisations that are most likely to be directly affected are those that do not have the staff or resources to submit responses to consultations in considerable detail. Some small organisations may feel that they have slipped through the net.

I have been contacted by an organisation in my area that works in music and drama with young people. It has indicated that, for premises that are used only intermittently—primarily as a store for scenery—it faces a bill of £327.51. It is to be hoped that, throughout Scotland, premises that do not necessarily use a huge amount of water will be eligible for the installation of water meters at no cost. Those who use such meters would benefit by not being faced with massive bills. I would like the minister to say more about that if she can.

If possible, I would also like the minister to give some guarantee that urgent talks will take place with the SCVO. Perhaps the minister can advise us what discussions have taken place to date with the SCVO and what its position is. As I understand it, discussions have taken place about the possibility of further help with the phasing in of the charges and about some kind of dispensation for special cases, but there have been difficulties with that. The SCVO has so far been unable to present a solution that is practical and workable.

I ask for assurance that the minister will meet the SCVO to discuss the matter and that she will put pressure on the water authorities where appropriate. I ask her to assure us that pressure will be applied in the short term so that organisations throughout Scotland can take advantage of the free installation of water meters where that would be helpful. I understand that evidence has been submitted to the Transport and the Environment Committee, some of which may be useful in finding a way forward.

Like others, I congratulate Richard Lochhead on securing the debate, which—given the circumstances—is timeous.

I will not take lectures from Murray Tosh about observation of parliamentary procedure. The Conservatives initiated a debate in the chamber on long-term care for the elderly long before the appropriate committee had completed its evidence taking. Murray Tosh cannot have it both ways. If the Conservatives cannot observe the rules and regulations, he should not give lectures on those rules and regulations. The charges start soon, so we must not postpone discussion of the issue, which is vital to our voluntary organisations.

There are 200 voluntary organisations in Moray. Like Cathy Jamieson, I know that some organisations are well-recognised charities, but many come in various, far smaller guises. The people who work in our voluntary organisations are strong on time and commitment and on caring for those who are vulnerable in society. It is incumbent upon the Parliament to give them its support. They need more than a pat on the head, a lump of sugar and being told, "You're very good boys and girls." They need to know where the principles lie in the Scottish Parliament.

Meters are a complex subject, about which the minister may have something to say in her response. I recognise that the provision of meters has been encouraged by the SCVO as a possible method of reducing the charges to many of our voluntary organisations but, as Cathy Peattie said, they are not available everywhere in Scotland. I have a fear about where charges will stop once we start metering. There may be an interim saving for many organisations, but what will happen when the charges go up? We must remember that we are talking about organisations for which water use is very important and in which physical provision is required for bathing, cleansing and clothes washing. Water is vital to many of those organisations. The problem is being exacerbated for many of them by complications relating to the administration of the European social fund. Perhaps we could return to that aspect tomorrow in the debate on structural funds.

I urge the minister to take this issue and this debate very seriously and to give us a positive message to take back to our hard-working voluntary organisations.

I, too, congratulate Richard Lochhead on securing the debate and on the moderate and reasonable way in which he presented his case—or our case. We are right to debate the issue now. The reliefs have already gone. This is a Parliament; we do not bow to committees, nor do committees bow to us. I tell Mr Tosh that the Parliament is perfectly right to debate the issue. Who knows? We may have provided some evidence for the deliberations of the Transport and the Environment Committee.

The phasing-out of reliefs for water and sewerage charges for charitable bodies makes no sense. It is contrary to the Executive's strategy of increasing support for the voluntary sector, achieving stable funding for the voluntary sector, and helping to bear the burden of extra costs on the voluntary sector, such as the Scottish Criminal Record Office checks. The Executive gives with one hand while the water authorities take back with the other.

The decision to phase out reliefs is also contrary to the voluntary sector compact. There has been a lack of consultation and what consultation there has been has been rushed and—as the water industry commissioner himself has said—flawed. The information that has been given to the charitable bodies has been inadequate, patchy or almost non-existent, to the extent that it has increased concerns rather than allayed them. Let me give a few examples.

Abbot House in Dunfermline is a museum café adjoining the abbey, which is run by Dunfermline Heritage Trust with more than 100 volunteers. The trust received a rambling, confusing "Dear customer" letter from East of Scotland Water, dated 5 February, informing it that the reliefs were coming to an end. The letter promised

"more information in due course".

By late last month, the trust had heard nothing and had no details of the extra charges that it faced. As a result, it could not budget and the situation was extremely worrying, especially as Abbot House depends on the café for 95 per cent of its income. It is an important facility for Dunfermline and it is run by volunteers.

North Parish Church in Stirling recognises that water rates relief was of great value to churches, as it enabled them to spend money that they would not otherwise have had on community projects. In fact, the reliefs enabled churches to help those who were in greatest need.

Community village halls throughout Mid Scotland and Fife are crucial facilities, particularly in rural and remote areas. They are the focal points of community life, but now the very continuation of some of them is under threat. If the halls have to pass on the charges, many of the groups that use them, such as pre-school playgroups and mother-and-toddler groups, will be under financial strain and may not be able to continue.

On Saturday, I visited one of Abbeyfield Scotland's houses in Pitlochry. Abbeyfield houses provide very high-quality supported care for the elderly. The society's water bills are likely to increase by 40 per cent. The same goes for hospices such as the children's hospice at Rachel House in Kinross.

The Executive prides itself on joined-up thinking. Would it please show some now, by ensuring that this ridiculous, absurd decision is reversed at the earliest opportunity?

I congratulate Richard Lochhead on bringing the motion before Parliament. If there is any criticism of the timing of the debate, it should be directed at the powers that be, because they make the decisions on such matters. However, having discussed the matter with Murray Tosh, I feel that there is indeed a timing issue here. We should review procedures and get clearer guidance for future occasions as to when, where and how it is appropriate to hold a 5 o'clock debate in Parliament on something that is in the process of being discussed by a committee.

I wondered whether I would need to ask if it was in order for me, as a member of the Transport and the Environment Committee, even to speak in this debate. I have spoken, however, and I want to say that, in the coming year, there must be a very clear decision on principle. Either there must be a principle that voluntary organisations do not pay or, if there is a new principle that voluntary organisations do pay, the charges must weigh as lightly as possible upon them and must be graded in such a way that they are manifestly fair in their application.

When the Executive attempts to do that, I think that it will find that it is well nigh impossible and that we must return to a system where full relief is given to voluntary and charitable organisations. I hope that when the minister responds to the debate, she responds as evasively as possible and does not commit herself to anything.

Three minutes will be shared between Mr Gibson and Irene McGugan.

I thought that you were going to follow the principle of ladies first, Presiding Officer.

I add my congratulations to Richard Lochhead on securing the debate. I am sorry that Murray Tosh added a sour note on an issue that has great cross-party support.

The decision to remove all relief from charitable bodies is the outcome of a process involving the water authorities, the water industry commissioner and the former Minister for Environment, Sport and Culture, Sam Galbraith. I mention the former minister because I think that the debate gives the current minister an opportunity to start with a clean slate.

The decision is in clear breach of the compact that provides a framework for relations between the Executive, its agencies and the voluntary sector. A survey, of some sorts, of charitable customers was carried out by way of a questionnaire, but the results were never published. On 20 November, the water commissioner stated:

"The questionnaires were not as objective as they should have been".

We have heard of the horrendous financial implications for charities. There can be no doubt that the decision will impinge on the Executive's social inclusion strategy. It will impact on jobs and on service delivery. One can only imagine that, in social inclusion partnership areas, many voluntary services that are on the borderline could cease. More money raised by the voluntary sector will, proportionately, have to go to water companies, so less will be available for good causes.

Cathy Jamieson mentioned that no cognisance has been taken of the affordability of the charges for individual voluntary organisations or of the relative water usage of different organisations. Price rises that are well above inflation make the impact even more severe and inflict a double whammy on the sector.

The suddenness of implementation has meant that it is too late for voluntary organisations to plan or budget effectively to account for the change. It is self-defeating in terms of public policy.

The policy is penny-wise and pound-foolish. The Executive must reflect on its impact and reverse the decision.

The decision to withdraw relief for water charges from 1 April has been met with dismay by the Scottish sporting community. The Scottish Sports Association has received an enormous number of expressions of concern from clubs regarding their future financial viability. Very few of those sports clubs are registered charities—they are amateur clubs. They do not distribute profits among their membership; they are non-profit-distributing organisations.

I will give the chamber some figures. A tennis and squash club that paid £527 in 1999 will have paid £1,646 in 2000. A golf club that paid £3,222 in 1999 will have paid £4,677 in 2000. It is reaching the point where there is critical financial vulnerability for a number of sports clubs that are run by volunteers and exist on delicately balanced budgets.

Far from accepting the proposals, in response to the consultation the SSA asked that relief be maintained where it is in place and extended to cover all sports clubs that do not currently obtain relief. I urge the minister to give consideration to the association's pleas and to the motion.

The Executive appreciates that this is a sensitive and important issue. Many members have recognised the Executive's strong commitment to the voluntary sector, which has been demonstrated by the announcements that we have made about funding.

I came into politics through the voluntary sector route, having been a member of my local village hall committee and having been involved in setting up a women's refuge in the Highlands. Many members have extensive experience of the voluntary sector and are deeply committed to it. As a result, we recognise that many organisations and bodies are concerned about the immediate impact of the withdrawal of reliefs. Although I will say more about that in a moment, I must begin by commenting on a number of inaccuracies in Richard Lochhead's motion and by explaining the Executive's support for the principle of withdrawing reliefs.

The motion states that the reliefs that the water authorities have started to phase out this year will mean an extra £27 million in water charges for the voluntary sector this year and more than double that next year. That is simply not true. The water authorities estimate that the cost to them last year of the reliefs was about £10 million. However, the authorities are phasing out the reliefs over five years to ease the impact on those affected. We welcome and support that approach as a means of helping organisations to adjust to increased bills.

Will the minister give way?

No—I want to finish this point.

As a result, the extra cost to affected organisations—not all of which are charities—would be less than £2 million a year in today's terms if spread over five years, which is a fraction of the £27 million that is quoted in the motion. Furthermore, as that cost is spread over a range of organisations—not all of which, as I said, are charities—the impact on charities is much less than the motion suggests.

Will the minister give way?

No. I want to reply to a number of the points that have been made.

The motion also questions the level of consultation on the proposals. In fact, last June, the water authorities wrote to the 11,100 affected customers, seeking their comments on the proposals. Of the 29 per cent who responded, 1,682 favoured retaining reliefs for all and 1,166 favoured retention in some cases. That illustrates the fact that there is some tension on this matter; as Fergus Ewing said, some charities can afford to pay the cost.

I want to say why the Executive supports the phased withdrawal of reliefs.

Will the minister give way on that point?

No.

When the water authorities took over their responsibilities in 1996, they inherited arrangements under which various types of premises—including police stations, education establishments, charity shops, offices, clubs, churches and nursing homes—received relief on their water and sewerage charges. As a result, there was no consistency in the way in which the authorities charged charities or others that gained relief, which was obviously unfair.

Will the minister give way?

No.

The authorities are also required—

This is disgraceful.

Order. It is entirely up to the minister to decide whether she gives way.

When a challenge—

Order!

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. It is certainly normal practice in the other place—where I spent eight unhappy years—that when a minister attacks a member on an inaccuracy, the minister should give way to allow that member to challenge him or her. That is normal practice in all the Parliaments that I have attended; I have visited many and been a member of three.

This is not the other place; however, it is a debate. Minister, please continue.

The authorities are also required by the Local Government etc (Scotland) Act 1994 to endeavour to ensure that no undue preference or discrimination is shown in fixing charges. That presented the authorities with a potential legal dilemma, in that continuing with reliefs could be seen as giving preferential treatment to certain groups of customers.

There was also the wider issue of fairness. Providing relief to some customers can be done only at the expense of other customers, which is difficult to justify, however worthy or laudable the work that is done by a particular organisation. In the case of charities, the relief can be seen as a form of compulsory charitable contribution, regardless of whether individual customers support or endorse the work of the bodies that benefit. Such considerations led the water authorities in 1997 to start withdrawing reliefs.

Will the minister give way?

Not just now. I want to address some of the points that members have raised and to engage with the debate, as Dr Ewing has requested.

I understand why there is opposition to the Executive's policy. Sam Galbraith understood that too, which is why he asked the water authorities to consider identifying special cases that could be ring-fenced from the exercise. The authorities' conclusion was that there is no satisfactory means of doing that. As members will appreciate, for every customer who is exempted and content, there will be another who—rightly or wrongly—considers that they are just as deserving but has not been exempted and could therefore have a ground for complaint against the water authority. There are difficulties with the idea of ring-fencing so-called special cases.

We endorsed the authorities' judgment that charging all customers on a consistent basis is the only fair way of proceeding. In evidence to the Transport and the Environment Committee's inquiry, the SCVO confirmed that ring-fencing special cases is not feasible. Moreover, as Fergus Ewing said, some charities can afford the charges.

What impact does the minister think the measure will have? Richard Lochhead emphasised the fact that some charities may lose up to £80,000 a year, which could result in the loss of jobs and the closing of premises.

I take serious issue with the figures that Richard Lochhead cited, as I have explained.

Will the minister give way?

Not just now.

The whole point of phasing out the relief is to make it easier for charities and other organisations to adjust when they begin to find themselves in a difficult position.

I shall continue to respond to the various points that members have raised. We recognise that the withdrawal of relief will place additional burdens on the organisations that are involved; the authorities are assisting those organisations by phasing that withdrawal. In response to the concerns of Cathy Peattie and other members, I suggest that the fact that free meters are being made available to those whose consumption of water makes that financially attractive is important and will help places such as village halls. That measure should provide real help to all those bodies that occupy premises with a high rateable value but that use very little water.

As I said, we recognise the concerns of many organisations about the immediate impact that the first phase of withdrawal will have on them. Many of those bodies play vital roles in local communities and employ a significant number of people. To colleagues who have asked that we keep up the dialogue, I say that, although we do not think that it would be right to act on the motion and revisit the decision on withdrawal in principle, we want to continue to explore how to help the organisations concerned to deal with the implications of the change. Accordingly, we hope to meet representatives of the SCVO in the near future to discuss the practical steps that the Executive and the water authorities might take.

I know that members have strong feelings on this subject and I acknowledge the concerns that have been expressed about consultation. We will continue to discuss with the SCVO the practical steps that the Executive and the authorities can take to alleviate some of the potential difficulties and implications of the decision to withdraw relief. I hope that, in the light of what I have said, members will recognise why we support a phased withdrawal of all reliefs and I hope that they will agree that our approach of looking for practical ways of easing the impact of withdrawal is the right one. As I said, we hope to have a meeting with the SCVO in the near future, at which we will continue our discussions.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. In light of the experience of this debate, could we have some guidance about the precise circumstances in which a minister should accept an intervention, particularly when that minister has directly attacked material that has been used by the member who initiated the debate and which was included in the text of his motion? It seems to me that we did not have a debate or a dialogue this evening. Some guidance would be appreciated.

We are growing a new political culture in this Parliament and we are not another place. I take the point that we were having a debate and I expect that the Presiding Officers will reflect on what has been said.

Meeting closed at 17:50.