guilty

In London last year they were appalled by the massive rise in their combined charge (water and sewerage) "Households in London are to face the biggest rise in water bills in the UK this year, with rates rising by almost double the rate of inflation to an average £354. Thames Water, which supplies 14 million homes across the Capital and the Thames Valley, can put up water and sewerage bills by 5.5 per cent from 1 April, the industry regulator Ofwat said. Customers cannot choose their supplier so Ofwat tells firms how much they can raise prices. Its move means households in the capital will see their average bill rise by £18." London Evening Standard, February 2013)

For a Band D house in Scotland: Water £190.17, Sewerage £220.68, Total £410.85 2014/15 Water rate in IoM is £3.0722/£. So, if your house has a rateable value of £150 you will pay 150 x 3.0722 = £460.83 That's just for water. Add £50, rising to £300, to that for the toilet tax. Say £750.

Both Houghton and Bell have already publicly suggested £300.

The section in the Flood Risk Management Act 2013 which amends the Sewerage Act 1999 to allow for a sewerage charge to be imposed, was not part of the original public consultation in July 2009, nor was it part of the Legislative Drafting Instructions, nor was it mentioned by any responses to the consultation. In Keys on 12th February 2013, John Houghton said: “The Bill that is now before the Keys is a substantially redrafted version of the Flood Risk Management Bill, that was introduced in the 2010-11 session.” This ‘substantial redraft’ did not go back out for public consultation. Houghton continued, “…there is an enabling provision for the Authority to introduce sewerage charges, when it considers that to be appropriate. However, I would emphasise that, before it can introduce sewage charges, the Authority will need to make an order, which will require the formal approval of Tynwald. At this stage, however, there are no plans to introduce such a charge.” The Sewerage Act 1999 already contained such a provision – but it was for a percentage rate, based on property rateable values. The so-called ‘enabling provision’ was actually a change of wording from a rate to a charge. Brenda Cannell spoke out: “The other thing I would like the Hon. Member, perhaps, to let us know what the Department’s thinking is in terms of this sewerage charge, which is being suggested in clause 11, sewerage charges. Of course, at the end of that, it says: ‘In imposing the charges, the Sewerage Authority must consider the amounts it will need to perform the functions to which the charges relate’, which suggests to me that they are bringing in a provision in law to enable them to be able to charge for things that we currently do not pay for and that the sewage treatment plant deals with, which has been highly contentious previously when another place has debated a concept of it. So if the Member can let us know what the thinking is behind this and reassure us that any such order applying a sewerage charge would in fact need Tynwald approval and would be subject to a debate in another place and not merely rubber stamped, where we have got a situation where it would be laid before Tynwald without debate and the negative resolution would apply.” Peter Karran also made an attempt: “The other thing I am a bit concerned about is the clause to do with the sewerage charges. If there were no plans to bring it in, I do not know why we are bringing in clause 93. The reality is we are in extremely difficult times. The fun and games of having no accountability, as far as spending is concerned and I think we should have some sort of clear declaration by the mover, if we are bringing in a rate or a charge for sewerage, then we need to know and we need to get that out into the public domain, so that our citizens who are finding hard times can adjust to know that information.” Houghton responded: “Yes, this Bill here does introduce an… (Mr Anderson: ability.) the Bill, the clauses Bill, produces an enabling clause for the ability to bring forward sewerage charges by order, and that order means via a Tynwald Order that would go to Tynwald for voting upon, not laid before Tynwald. It is set out clearly and that is the clear intention of the Water and Sewerage Authority to bring forward in the future, if it is so pressurised under the constraints of the Treasury, where it will not have sufficient funds to operate from what it receives from Treasury. So that is all about how well the budgeting works in the future and so on. But as I noted in my answers to the Hon. Member, Mr Karran, on sewage charges, I do see them coming forward, not tomorrow, not the day after, but sometime in the future, if we are so constrained by the receipt of budget from the Treasury. Hon. Members, how long is a piece of string? This is an enabling clause, it will be brought forward as an order for Tynwald to approve and that is when the debate would happen in the future, if at all in the future.” FOR Mr Quirk Mr Hall Mr Karran Mr Ronan Mr Crookall Mr Anderson Mr Bell Mr Singer Mr Quayle Mr Teare Mr Cannan Mr Cregeen Mr Houghton Mr Henderson Mrs Beecroft Mr Robertshaw Mr Shimmin Mr Corkish Mr Cretney Mr Skelly Mr Gawne The Speaker AGAINST Mrs Cannell