Sewerage charge is tax by stealth

The whole issue has got confused, but if my memory is correct I believe it was in the minority report that the States eventually accepted.

If you wish to have an example of taxation by stealth, look at your Cadastre bills. After the Budget I expected a modest increase, but I have been taken aback by the actuality. It is 15%.

That is bad enough in itself – here is the really sneaky bit.

Cadastre taxes go directly into the general revenue account. That revenue account funded the old Public Thoroughfare Committee's entire budget, which included provision for sewer maintenance and extensions.

Then came the big bang. All the old committees were disbanded and their various functions were re-allocated into the new ministerial culture.

Quite logically the sewerage system went to Guernsey Water, because there were many overlaps. Where the sneaky bit crept in is that Guernsey Water charge us a sum of money for sewerage by adding an extra charge for that purpose on the percentage of water that enters our properties.

There has been no reduction in the Cadastre rates to compensate. Double taxation or stealth tax? Take your pick. Either way it is plain wrong. Tax haven? Not if you live and work in Guernsey.

Enough is truly enough.

PETER BOUGOURD,

St Sampson's.

Editor's footnote: Spokesmen for the Public Services and Treasury and Resources Departments have jointly responded as follows:

'Thank you for the opportunity to reply to this reader's letter.

We can assure all your readers that the waste water charge was not by any means introduced in a 'sneaky' way. It was, in fact, very well publicised when first proposed by the Treasury and Resources Department back in 2007, has been discussed in a number of meetings of the States of Deliberation, and was widely communicated prior to its introduction in April 2011.

The concept of 'user pays' for the waste water services is now applied here, as it is in most other jurisdictions. Households are now directly charged, so we no longer receive central funding for the operation and upkeep of the waste water network and services. The one notable exception – albeit a very significant one – has been the major capital investment in new facilities at Belle Greve, which has been ongoing for a number of years. That has been directly funded through taxes like the one your correspondent refers to.

However, the reason they have not seen an equivalent reduction in Cadastre bills is because that was never the purpose for introducing a waste water charge. Since zero-10 the income of the States has reduced considerably, and therefore other funding methods have had to be explored for certain services that may, in the past, have been funded centrally. This reduces the burden on general revenue for other essential services and facilities, from health to education, and from police to roads maintenance.

We appreciate that no one likes to pay more for services, but the reality is we have to fund these from a diminished pot.'