£50 Sewerage Charge

[Roger Mexico]

There has been some query on here as to why the sewage charge seems to have got through Tynwald with so little comment and appeared to come as such a surprise. In part this seems to have been due to the way that appeared on January's Order Paper for Tynwald. Simply as:

 

 

3. Sewerage Charges and Trade Effluent Consenting

Statement by the Chairman of the Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority.

which doesn't give much away and might be assumed to be just about something technical for businesses at first sight. Of course when Houghton made his statement all became clear. I'm not going to quote it in full, not least because, as with so many Tynwald statements, it is bulked out with jargon and things everyone already knows, presumably to lull the politicians into a false sense of security. But the 'reason' for the charge is stated (lines 2638-47)

 

As part of the Government’s budget rebalancing strategy, from 2013-14 there will be a year-on-year reduction in the revenue granted to the Authority. In addition, Treasury will be reintroducing the requirement for the Authority to meet the full cost of its sewerage capital loan repayments, together with the interest charges.

In order to continue to operate without going into deficit, it will be necessary to change the way that these important functions are funded. The Authority has concluded, and the Council of Ministers has agreed, that the only practical solution is to seek Tynwald’s approval for the introduction of a sewerage charge, as provided for in the Flood Risk Management Act. It is proposed that the charge will be levied on all properties connected directly or indirectly to a public sewer.

 

Now you might think this pretty odd, in that it assumes that Tynwald will automatically approve the change to the way that sewage works are paid for in principle and so is pressing ahead for a charge to cover this. It's a bit cart before the horse and rather assumes that Tynwald is just a pointless rubber stamp that will do anything it is told to by the Civil Service. Which it is, but it's usually considered polite not to point this out.

 

It also is worrying that if the public is expected to meet the "full cost of its sewerage capital loan repayments, together with the interest charges", this means that taxation is effectively being imposed to pay for work done in the past when it was expected to be met out of other budgets. You'd also think that it would be possible to work out exactly how much this charge would be. But Houghton was rather cagey (lines 2649-55):

 

In order to ensure a smooth introduction of the charges and to give the public time to adjust to the change, a phased transition is proposed. It is proposed that the sewerage charge will be introduced from 1st April 2014 at £50 per property or apartment per year, and this will rise to £100 per property per year from 1st April 2015. It is proposed that the charge for emptying septic tanks will be introduced from 1st April 2014 at £50 for each empty, and this will rise to £100 per empty per year from 1st April 2015. Following the introduction of the charges, an assessment will be made on their equitability and affordability for any increases in future years.

 

You get the impression that they don't have the honesty to say how much this new principle of charging will cost each household. Or maybe they are just seeing how much they can try to screw out of the punters.

 

The first quote from Houghton also helps explain why this charge passed under the radar of most politicians. The "Flood Risk Management Act" sounds like a fairly innocuous and useful piece of legislation and indeed in what I have read, most of the discussion in the Keys and LegCo were about the sort of things you would expect from that title.

 

The members of Tynwald seem to have unprepared for this revelation and only Karran actually picked up on it in his own inimitable (which is why I'm quoting in full) manner (lines 2688-91):

 

 

Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane,obviously it is a very sad day, but unfortunately we are in a mess and we have to find ways of dealing with this calamity.

Could the Chairman tell us how the likes of office developments… how is he going to… as far as other things than households, is the implementation going to be some sort of unit cost on them?

Does he not feel that it is slightly unfair that… we should have got the review of the rateable valuation in order that we got it hitting… the people with the bigger houses would pay all the liability as far as the sewerage rate is concerned?

 

I'll try to get back later on whether the issues Karran raised can be dealt with and if so how.

[carbon selector]

That's a good post Roger.

 

It looks to me that you and quite a few others on this forum (hi slinky, see you lurking there) and other members of the public are interested enough and capable enough to look at what is going on with our society and our parliament. Many of you are able to look through and understand legislation and intelligently question it. Well thought out suggestions also often emerge too.

 

So why the fuck do we pay a bench of (in the main) sleepy fogeys at £1000 a week each to sit on the Legislative Council?

 

Fucking why?

Edited February 17, 2014 by carbon selector

[malebrain]

The public need to understand the financial challenges that the Government have caused are facing. I like him to know the financial challenges that I am facing as a result of them! The cheeky c**t!!!!

 

http://www.energyfm.net/cms/news_story_302688.html

[Donald Trumps]

Yes,lets hope LegCo really go to town on this one & rip it to shreds

 

I'm relying on you Corkish to do you duty....oh, wake up for fecks sake

[woolley]

The public need to understand the financial challenges that the Government have caused are facing. I like him to know the financial challenges that I am facing as a result of them! The cheeky c**t!!!!

 

http://www.energyfm.net/cms/news_story_302688.html

And so say all of us!

[Max Power]

Perhaps we should be paying an "Earthquake and Volcano Management Charge" also?

 

I now realise what Bell meant about more pain to come, he wasn't talking about spending cuts or tax hikes for the wealthy, he was talking about bleeding the ordinary worker, the elderly, the poor and disadvantaged to death!

[NoTail]

MP be fair

 

They are the easy targets!

[Max Power]

Yes, it would seem that they are!

Our government are incapable of standing up to anyone with a modicum of clout or substance. They are mainly all weaklings running scared of their own shadows, and I'm not just talking about our elected representatives!

 

It is much easier to impose taxes on those who can not do anything about it!

[Old Manxie]

why when I have one toilet do I have to pay the same as the Sefton , Empress, Palace & Sleepwell Hotels , Markwell House , Govt. buildings when they have more dumpers than me.

Headlines - IOMTODAY

09/12/2008

"TREASURY Minister Allan Bell believes the Isle of Man will escape a recession – and that our economy will continue to grow but at a smaller rate.

He told the House of Keys this week: 'We have had 25 years of unbroken growth and, despite the recent slowdown, I do not anticipate the Isle of Man economy turning into recession any time in the near future.

'Our current forecast is for continued growth during the current period. BLAH BLAH" (more From link below )

 

http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/isle-of-man-news/isle-of-man-will-escape-recession-says-treasury-minister-1-1786704

 

Must have had head in dump bucket like Houghton has.

 

[woolley]

why when I have one toilet do I have to pay the same as the Sefton , Empress, Palace & Sleepwell Hotels , Markwell House , Govt. buildings when they have more dumpers than me.

Headlines - IOMTODAY

09/12/2008

"TREASURY Minister Allan Bell believes the Isle of Man will escape a recession – and that our economy will continue to grow but at a smaller rate.

He told the House of Keys this week: 'We have had 25 years of unbroken growth and, despite the recent slowdown, I do not anticipate the Isle of Man economy turning into recession any time in the near future.

'Our current forecast is for continued growth during the current period. BLAH BLAH" (more From link below )

 

http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/isle-of-man-news/isle-of-man-will-escape-recession-says-treasury-minister-1-1786704

 

Must have had head in dump bucket like Houghton has.

I like this bit best:

 

Peter Karran (Lib Vannin, Onchan) asked: 'Can he assure this House that the weak, the sick and the poor won't be the ones who get hammered?'

Mr Bell replied that he found the question 'somewhat insulting' given the priority given by the government to help those on low incomes.

 

Obviously this was before the toilet tax was dreamed up. You have to hand it to Peter. Some of his outpourings are quite prescient (as with MEA et al).

Edited February 17, 2014 by woolley

[Donald Trumps]

He really means govt is doing a little bit to help those on very low incomes

 

Weasel worded slimeball

[Oh Mona]

Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding of it is that the Flood Management Bill that brought in this sewerage charge had its third reading in the Keys a year ago and only 1 MHK voted against it and that was not Peter Karran. So where was he hiding then? No good shouting about it now, unless that is just to curry favour with the electorate to save his job?

 

There has been some query on here as to why the sewage charge seems to have got through Tynwald with so little comment and appeared to come as such a surprise. In part this seems to have been due to the way that appeared on January's Order Paper for Tynwald. Simply as:

 

 

3. Sewerage Charges and Trade Effluent Consenting

Statement by the Chairman of the Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority.

which doesn't give much away and might be assumed to be just about something technical for businesses at first sight. Of course when Houghton made his statement all became clear. I'm not going to quote it in full, not least because, as with so many Tynwald statements, it is bulked out with jargon and things everyone already knows, presumably to lull the politicians into a false sense of security. But the 'reason' for the charge is stated (lines 2638-47)

>

As part of the Government’s budget rebalancing strategy, from 2013-14 there will be a year-on-year reduction in the revenue granted to the Authority. In addition, Treasury will be reintroducing the requirement for the Authority to meet the full cost of its sewerage capital loan repayments, together with the interest charges.

In order to continue to operate without going into deficit, it will be necessary to change the way that these important functions are funded. The Authority has concluded, and the Council of Ministers has agreed, that the only practical solution is to seek Tynwald’s approval for the introduction of a sewerage charge, as provided for in the Flood Risk Management Act. It is proposed that the charge will be levied on all properties connected directly or indirectly to a public sewer.

 

Now you might think this pretty odd, in that it assumes that Tynwald will automatically approve the change to the way that sewage works are paid for in principle and so is pressing ahead for a charge to cover this. It's a bit cart before the horse and rather assumes that Tynwald is just a pointless rubber stamp that will do anything it is told to by the Civil Service. Which it is, but it's usually considered polite not to point this out.

 

It also is worrying that if the public is expected to meet the "full cost of its sewerage capital loan repayments, together with the interest charges", this means that taxation is effectively being imposed to pay for work done in the past when it was expected to be met out of other budgets. You'd also think that it would be possible to work out exactly how much this charge would be. But Houghton was rather cagey (lines 2649-55):

 

In order to ensure a smooth introduction of the charges and to give the public time to adjust to the change, a phased transition is proposed. It is proposed that the sewerage charge will be introduced from 1st April 2014 at £50 per property or apartment per year, and this will rise to £100 per property per year from 1st April 2015. It is proposed that the charge for emptying septic tanks will be introduced from 1st April 2014 at £50 for each empty, and this will rise to £100 per empty per year from 1st April 2015. Following the introduction of the charges, an assessment will be made on their equitability and affordability for any increases in future years.

 

You get the impression that they don't have the honesty to say how much this new principle of charging will cost each household. Or maybe they are just seeing how much they can try to screw out of the punters.

 

The first quote from Houghton also helps explain why this charge passed under the radar of most politicians. The "Flood Risk Management Act" sounds like a fairly innocuous and useful piece of legislation and indeed in what I have read, most of the discussion in the Keys and LegCo were about the sort of things you would expect from that title.

 

The members of Tynwald seem to have unprepared for this revelation and only Karran actually picked up on it in his own inimitable (which is why I'm quoting in full) manner (lines 2688-91):

 

 

Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane,obviously it is a very sad day, but unfortunately we are in a mess and we have to find ways of dealing with this calamity.

Could the Chairman tell us how the likes of office developments… how is he going to… as far as other things than households, is the implementation going to be some sort of unit cost on them?

Does he not feel that it is slightly unfair that… we should have got the review of the rateable valuation in order that we got it hitting… the people with the bigger houses would pay all the liability as far as the sewerage rate is concerned?

 

I'll try to get back later on whether the issues Karran raised can be dealt with and if so how.

[Oh Mona]

Well at least this is a start, and a welcome change from a lot of the drivel on this particular post. So a community charge based on the number of occupants regardless of their ability to pay or more like the Council Tax based on capital value bandings? Do you suggest metered supply of water, with all the costs of implementation and on going administration?

Incidently, I don't beleive that water charges are that significantly higher, on average, than the average in the UK. Plus due to enconomies of scale we should not compare to UK mainland, but say Jersey and Shetland Island. eg SHetland Island council tax, water chaarge and sewerage charge all mount up and put things in perspective.

Bills for directly delivered services and amenities to be charged on a truly fair basis such as a community charge paid by the individual user.

 

That is the only fair and reasonable basis,unless you can reason otherwise.

[Roger Mexico]

In an earlier comment, I described how the proposed sewage charge seemed to come as a bit of a surprise to Tynwald and passed without comment, except from Karran. He may have had some idea of what was coming (he served as Chairman for 13 years up to 2003 and still tends to ask a lot of questions on the topic).

Karran was concerned about the flat rate nature of the charge, that every property: large and small, rich and poor, commercial and domestic, would pay exactly the same amount. There would be no consideration as to how much sewage the property produce, whether it was relatively remote and needed a long connection and so on. Houghton attempted to deal with this (lines 2699-2709):

 

 

[...] It was because of that that it was decided by the Authority, and the Council of Ministers agreed, that we would put a clause in the Flood Risk Management Bill, which is now being enacted, in order to place a charge, rather than a rateable value, on the cost of sewerage… recovery of funds, as the Treasury moneys reduce year on year.

In respect of his question on office development as against households, the point that we are quite aware of on this – and it is an interesting point the Hon. Member makes – is that there is one charge – the law says that there is one charge – per property, and so it matters not whether it is a hotel or a business premises, the Villa Marina, a school or whatever. But he needs to have regard that we will be looking at this matter further in respect of trade effluents coming from certain appropriate premises, not all, and the board in the future will be deciding on any future charging policy that may arise from that.

 

Houghton's use of the English language can make even Karran's appear precise, concise and elegant, but this appears to imply that the Water Authority has no choice but to impose a flat rate charge because that is what the Flood Risk Management Act says. But that piece of legislation was only passed last year (it received Royal Assent in October and was mainly discussed earlier in the year) and by Houghton's own admission it was decided to insert this clause specially. So if they had wanted to charge out in a fairer way they could have done. If anyone has tied their hands it's themselves.

 

But perhaps it's better to actually see what the Act actually says. The only relevant reference to 'charge' occurs in Section 92 which amends various sections of the Sewerage Act 1999. The wording reads:

 

 

92 (5) For section 11 and the cross-heading immediately before it, substitute -

“Sewerage charges

11 Sewerage charges

(1) The Sewerage Authority may, by order (a “sewerage charge order”), impose charges on any person (each a “beneficiary”) for whom it performs, or who receives the benefit of the performance of, its functions under this Act.

(2) However, subsection (1) does not apply to functions for which charges are imposed under Schedule 2 (conditions of trade effluent consent).

(3) A sewerage charge order may give a discount or rebate for prompt payment of the charges it imposes.

(4) The discount or rebate cannot be more than 5%.

(5) The following apply for a sewerage charge order —

(a) it must be made on or before 31 January in the financial year before the charges imposed under it are to take effect (the “next year”);

(b) the charges take effect in advance —

(i) at the time or times during the next year as provided for under the order; or

(ii) if no time or times are provided, when the next year starts; and

© unless the order otherwise provides, a particular charge becomes owing from when the relevant function is performed for the beneficiary.

(6) Subsection (5)© applies subject to sections 4 and 5.

(7) In imposing the charges, the Sewerage Authority must consider the amounts it will need to perform the functions to which the charges relate.

 

Now I'm not a lawyer, but that looks to me as if there is no requirement for the Sewerage Charge to be a fixed amount per property. All this revised section appears to be doing is giving the power to make such charges and the basis of their calculation would presumably be the contents of whatever the Sewerage Charge Order says. So if the Water Authority, which is presumably acting under the direction of the Council of Ministers, wanted to have a fairer system, they presumably could have designed one. And of course even if the law does imply what they claim they could have phrased the law differently.

[Lisenchuk]

Roger, your piece of detective work is pretty much along the same line of conclusion as I have arrived at.

 

That is why I posted up the MR news article with audio clip where Houghton stated it wasn't a tax ,rather it is a charge.

 

So if it is a charge then the consumer has the right to pay their bill in reasonable proportion with their level of consumption,and can not be forced to subsidise those who consume services at a higher usage rate.

 

I don't believe they've thought this through very much at all......Buffoonery at it's finest.