PERRC – amendment

I made the following speech against the amendment to allow opting out of the ecclesiastical rates element of parochial taxes.

Sir,

Let me just say that personally I don’t attend any church  and don’t want to go through the moral arguments or disestablishmentarianism here – I am pleased I got that out! What I do want to do is focus on the pandora’s box that will be opened should this amendment be passed.

Now I’m sure members have heard of the Tasty Walks initiative. This is a series of self-guided walks which, and I quote from the Visit Guernsey website, ‘make the most of the very best the island has to offer – its stunning scenery and fabulous food.  – They have been a key and successful marketing focus for C&E’s Tourism Dept  and are really well promoted on the web as well as brochures and through TV adverts.

Now if you look at the routes, you will find that at least half of these walks take in a Parish Church, including St Martin’s, Forest, Torteval and Town Church. Indeed, Visit Guernsey actually includes one of these in its Spring TV Advert.

In other words, we as a States acknowledge that these are buildings of historical interest, part of our rich heritage that brings in the visitors and supports our tourist industry.

These buildings do not belong to the Church of England, they belong to the parish.   Yes, this is system we have inherited over many years that clearly has flaws but it does allow for those buildings to be maintained at minimal cost to ratepayers and is a symbiotic relationship.  The Church and more generally, the Island, benefits. Certainly, in the 2 parishes I represent – SA and SM, the church works particularly closely with the parish schools, providing a strong community support role.

But, to me, the biggest problem with this amendment is that it has not considered the practical issues, which are pretty fundamental.

For a start, it ignores the fact that parish rates are a household tax. So, what if the house is multi-occupancy? What if a husband, say, doesn’t want to pay the so-called Ecclesiastical portion and the wife does for example? Under this amendment, she would be precluded from any future benefits against her will! So, the freedom of choice that Deputy St Pier so desires for some will be lost to others.

We’ve also got to remember that the people who administer all this, and in the interest of openness I should say that my husband is one of them, are volunteers. All this amendment does is produce another layer of complication which, whilst it may be acceptable if they were well paid civil servants, is less so when people are giving their free time to serve their community.

The St Martin and St Andrew’s Douzaines were unequivocal when they met the SE Deputies on Monday evening that, should this amendment be passed, the extra time and money that would be required to administer it would be out of all proportion to the perceived benefits.

 

For example,

  • In terms of monetary costs – the IT system used for the billing process, called Lapis, would need to be upgraded considerably – and that at the expense of the States.
  • And, In terms of time costs – there will be added administration in maintaining the database of those who opt out, as well as dealing with changes of property ownership.

 

Finally, I refer to the report that we will be debating later, on the potential to tax employer provided parking spaces. A report produced by T&R which has the Minister’s name at the bottom of it. In that report it states ‘ on balance and taking into account the relative rarity and potential complexities, and the likely administration costs, the T&R Department can’t reasonably recommend the States to introduce such a regime. Well, I would say, for that very same reason this amendment should not be passed.

 

No, as a non-church goer, but someone who respects what the church does for our community, the fact that our parish churches are an indelible part of our heritage and landscape, as well as the potential inequity, unfairness and administrative burden out of all proportion to the sums involved, I can’t support this amendment.

Comments are closed.