The NSS recently sounded the alarm over more taxpayer funding of church buildings which allows the CoE to focus their spending on evangelising, to which Andy Walton replied on Twitter:
This kicked off a lively exchange of ideas which included a further rejoinder from Andy here:
So does the church provide these services out of kindness and deserves taxpayer funding or is it wealthy enough to provide for itself yet finds others to pay it’s bills? I’ll take the lead from Andy and use Trinity Margate as an example to investigate.
The Parochial Church Council Of The Ecclesiastical Parish Of Holy Trinity, Margate, a registered charity certainly doesn’t look wealthy. It has 173 parishioners (these are 2016 figures) and income of £115,119 of which £96,272 was Voluntary Income and Activities for Generating Funds was £12,000. Against this was expenditure of £152,484 so generating a loss of £37,365. Troubling indeed, in fact the PCC declared it would not pay it’s Parish Share in full this year due to the straightened circumstances.
So should the taxpayer help further? To answer the original question on repairs the answer looks like a no. The PCC spent £15,138 on the church building but received £15,563 in Gift Aid so the tax payer is already paying the whole building repair cost. But what about the community activities, surely these deserve support? Again the answer is not straightforward, linked to the fact the PCC has funds of £1,224,877 and no expenses linked to the community.
The funds relate to a property owned by the PCC which is rented out (at below market rate?) for £12,000 pa to a separate charity called Trinity Resource Centre, this body runs community activities and charges accordingly. They even clearly spell out that “The congregation of Holy Trinity Church provide some of the volunteer time in these affairs but little finance ….”.
The TRC had income of £336,122 of which rent was £50,396, grants £63,956, fees £108,198 and lunch clubs £73,686. The PCC even paid the TRC £33,633 for recharge of salaries, as some church employees were paid through the TRC rather than directly. Total funds shows as £646,580. Expenditure was £354,120 and included £211,729 in salaries.
The TRC is not considered part of the CoE, it could have been set up as a separate trading subsidiary under the PCC but the trustees decided not to do this, so it’s activities don’t count towards the church’s income. Is it then fair to say the church provides these community services? Not really I’d argue; you can’t have it both ways. A separate non CoE charity provides community services so Andy is wrong to say the church provides this. It’s also not fair to say the church does this charitably, the TRC charges fees for all it’s activities and shuts down those which do not pay enough, such as the after school club where parents preferred the school’s own service.
So the PCC does not provide community services and the tax payer already funds the church repairs. The money making arm of Trinity has been created and run separately so the Diocese can’t touch it. Neat.
A last note; food banks? The PCC does support the Thanet Food Bank but only in kind and as noted in the accounts this is “as an alternative to our 10% of income being given to missionary activity”. So even food bank support is a cost saving measure. Credit where it’s due Trinity’s finance management is excellent, but the charitable ethos is less clear.
