back back to Synod previous previous story  |  next story next

DRAINAGE BILLS: Water charges are taxation, Synod told

Martin Dales led the Synod in a parody of the children’s action song © not advert
Action song: Martin Dales led the Synod in a parody of the children’s action song “The wise man built his house upon a rock”: the chorus ran: “The rain came down and the tax went up, And the charities of the land fell flat”

THE SYNOD has expressed concern about the effect on many parishes of the sudden and very large rises in water charges — and has asked the Government to require OFWAT to rectify the situation.

Introducing the debate on his private member’s motion, Martin Dales (York) said that the rain tax for water coming off buildings and car parks had provoked a crisis for churches and community groups. It was expected to cost Church of England parishes more than £15 million a year, plus a further £10 million for professional advice. This was “unfair and wrong”. The total cost to the not-for-profit sector was expected to exceed £100 million a year.

Treasurers, churchwardens, and clergy were reported to have received “heavy-handed” treatment from water com­panies, and threats of debt collectors and court action. Some church officers had resigned; there had been requests to bishops to close down churches.

Stress and anger levels among volunteers were made manifest by the response to the Downing Street website petition, set up by David Boddy, a churchwarden in York diocese. The water bill for his church, St Luke’s, Thornaby, had risen by 1300 per cent from £70 a year to £910 — “a massive rise for a large, inner-city church with a tiny congregation”, Mr Dales said. The Downing Street petition had 41,000 signatures.

He drew attention to the campaign “dontdrainus.org”, launched in the dioceses of Manchester, Chester, Liverpool, and Blackburn. It sought a gov­ernment review of the charging mechanism to introduce a new charity band or return to exemptions, and an in­vesti­gation into why OFWAT ignored government guidelines.

The Prime Minister’s silence had been “deafening”, said Mr Dales, who had gone to Downing Street to present him with a campaign umbrella. The response of Hilary Benn had been more positive: “We have made it very clear that we believe these increases are not in line with DEFRA’s charging guidance to OFWAT in 2000 or OFWAT’s more recent detailed 2003 guidance to the water companies.”

Mr Dales promised: “Until there is a statement from the Prime Minister in Parliament on how this is going to be resolved, the campaign against the Government’s, OFWAT’s, and the water companies’ current stance on this issue will continue.”



The Archdeacon of Leeds, the Ven. Peter Burrows, said that congregations were struggling to maintain historic churches. This would be an extra burden some churches were not able to bear. “The real danger is that small congregations will walk away from their buildings when the costs get too much.” Churches, charities, and busi­nesses; but churches and charities were not the same as businesses, because they could not readily raise extra money.

Shirley-Ann Williams (Exeter) said that water companies said that they had responsibility for drainage, but their lack of investment suggested that these levies were “a tax”. But no power had been given to the privatised water companies to raise taxes. Churches often pre-dated “modern” legislation on water dating from the 19th century. Ancient rights to extract water, allowed in legislation in 1963 and 1973, should now be paralleled with the right not only not to pay for run-off, but to harvest it and sell it to the water com­panies. The water companies could not both claim that the water belonged to them and then also charge to take it away.

The Bishop of Blackburn, the Rt Revd Nicholas Reade, said that one parish in his diocese faced a rise in its water bill from £520 to £3500, and there were worse cases in other areas. The privatised water boards had changed their charging patterns in response to lobbying from the business community. It would be fairer if prices were based on the rateable values of properties. “Taking money from char­ities to give to businesses is frankly un­acceptable.”

Philip Fletcher (Archbishops’ Coun­­cil), chairman of OFWAT, said that he had been cast as the villain, but he wanted to make it clear that there were clearly defined lines between OFWAT and the companies it regu­lated. He said that he was a church­warden of a Southwark church that had a water bill of £320, and if it had a sudden increase in its costs, this would prove difficult for it.

He said that six water companies did not charge these rates, and had not said they intended to. Severn Trent “was moving very slowly” towards doing so. United Utilities had agreed to suspend the new charges and to go back to 2007/08 bills. Northumberland and Yorkshire Water had fully implemented the charges.

If the charges were properly imple­mented, OFWAT believed it was both the fairest system and the most sustain­able, and it would encourage churches to be environmentally friendly by put­ting in soakaways to reduce their bills.

Timothy Cox (Blackburn) would have extended the Synod’s concern to charities, not-for-profit clubs, and voluntary organisations. Highways did not pay for their own drainage, but churches, Scout huts, Sea Cadets, and the great range of vol­untary organisa­tions that provided “the vast majority” of helpers for the na­tional emergency services and other key activities did have to pay. If, as a re­sult, they had to close down, “the fabric of our society will be rent asunder.”

Robert Key (Salisbury), who had been responsible for the poll tax under Margaret Thatcher, said that this was “a poll tax that is round the bend; so let’s straighten it up.” He said that it needed a ministerial decision by the Govern­ment.

The Archbishop of York said that he had made it clear to the Prime Minister that “we will not give up on this one until we have got what we need.” A national problem needed a national solu­tion. “We need certainty that churches will not be treated as busi­nesses. Churches are not businesses.”

Jenny Bate (Carlisle) described “worrying developments” in Cumbria, where many rural churches were not connected to mains drainage, but had started to receive bills from United Utilities. Others whose water drained away into the open countryside were also getting bills and having to challenge them. One had had a bill of £1030 cancelled. Only the personal intervention of the local MP had reduced the bill for another — “not a healthy picture of customer service”. The Revd Jonathan Alderton-Ford (St Edmundsbury & Ipswich) urged churches affected to send back their bills and request a detailed breakdown of how they had been calculated.

The motion was carried by 282 votes nem. con., with 3 abstentions. It read:

That this Synod, concerned about the effect on many parishes of sudden, massive rises in water charges for churches, request HM Govern­ment to remind OFWAT of its obliga­tions to ensure that the water com­panies adhere to the clear guidance given by the Secretary of State for the Environment in 2000, which states that “there are many non-household users who are not businesses . . . including places of wor­ship . . . and it would be inappropriate to charge all non-household customers as if they were businesses.”



back back to Synod up back to top previous previous story  |  next story next


© Church Times 2006 - All rights reserved

Website by Baigent