PP97/08

Third Report of the Standing Orders Committee for the Session 2007-08

Petitions for Redress Presented on Day 2008

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE OF TYNWALD

The Hon S C Rodan SHK ()

Mr G D Cregeen MHK ( and )

Mr E A Crowe MLC

Mr E G Lo'wey MLC

Hon G M Quayle MHK ()

The remit of the Standing Orders Committee is stated by paragraph 7

of the Schedule to Standing Orders

The powers, privileges and immunities relating to the work of a committee of Tynwald are those conferred by sections 3 and 4 of the Tynwald Proceedings Act 1876, sections 1 to 4 of the Privileges of Tynwald (Publications) Act 1973 and sections 2 to 4 of the Tynwald Proceedings Act 1984.

Copies of this Report may be obtained from the Tynwald Library, Legislative Buildings, Finch Road, Douglas IM1 3PW (Tel 01624 685520, Fax 01624 685522) or may be consulted at www. lynwald. org. im

All correspondence with regard to this Report should be addressed to the Clerk of Tynwald, Legislative Buildings, Finch Road, Douglas IM1 3PW.

To The Honourable Noel Q Cringle, , and the Honourable Members of the Council and Keys in Tynwald assembled.

T hird R eport of the Standing O rders C o m m ittee for

the Session 2007-08

Petitions for R edress P resented on Tynw ald D ay 2008

1. introduction

1.1 The following persons presented Petitions for Redress at Tynwald assembled at St John's on 7th July 2008:

(1) David Edwin Boyles (2)' Joseph Duffy (3) Christopher Robert Farrer, Cliff Clague, Wendy Buttery and Dave Me Williams (4) Rodger Gimbert (5) Kevin Anthony Glynn and Greeba Skinner (6) Graham Peter Joughin (7) Robert David Kelly (8) Margaret Lombard-Chibnall (9) Martin Moore (10) Donald Whittaker

C/St/plb 1.2 In accordance with Standing Order 6.8(2), we report on whether the Petitions are in order. Copies of the Petitions are annexed.

2. PROCEDURE

2.1 Before examining each Petition, we feel it is appropriate to make a few general comments on the presentation of Petitions for Redress of Grievance. Standing Orders are explicit about the basic requirements of petitions - those requirements may seem somewhat technical and possibly legalistic, but they are requirements which are neither unduly onerous, nor obscure. Moreover, the Clerk of Tynwald's Office produces an explanatory memorandum to assist the potential petitioner to comply with the requirements of Standing Orders. The Clerk of Tynwald and his colleagues make their time and experience available to assist prospective petitioners to produce petitions which comply with the basic requirements of Standing Orders.

2.2 In the light of such assistance, we can see no reason for failure to comply with the basic requirements of Standing Orders, If prospective petitioners do not take up the assistance offered, they may find that their petitions fail.

2.3 Standing Order 6, which deals with Petitions, and on which the Committee bases its decisions, is reproduced below -

2. Public Petitions

Presentation of public petitions

6.2 A Member, who is not one of the petitioners, may present a public petition.

Public Petitions not to be debated

6.3 (1) In presenting a public petition a Member shall be confined to a statement of the persons from whom it comes, of the number of signatures which are attached to it and to the reading of the petition and prayer.

(2) When a public petition is presented no debate shall be allowed.

Printing Public Petitions

6.4 On the presentation of a public petition a motion may be made that it be printed with the minutes; the motion shall be put, without any amendment or debate.

2 C/St/plb 3. Petitions for Redress

Petition may be presented on Tynwald Day

6.5 A Petition for Redress may be presented at Tynwald only when assembled at St John's.

Mode o f presentation

6.6 (1) A Petition for Redress may be presented at the foot of the Hill by the petitioner or a person authorised by the petitioner; such authorisation shall appear in the petition.

A Petition for Redress may also be presented on behalf of a petitioner by a Member.

(2) A petitioner presenting a petition shall approach the Hill by the processional path.

(3) No Petition for Redress may be presented at the foot of the Hill by more than three persons.

Petition to be handed to Governor

6.7 (1) If presented by a petitioner a Petition for Redress shall be handed by the petitioner at the foot of the Hill to the Clerk of Tynwald who shall forthwith deliver the petition to the Governor.

(2) On delivery of the petition to the Governor, the petitioner shall return along the processional path.

(3) If presented by a Member, a Petition for Redress shall be handed forthwith by the Member to the Governor.

Reference to Standing Orders Committee

6.8 (1) The Governor shall, on receipt of a Petition for Redress refer the petition to the Standing Orders Committee.

(2) It shall be the duty of the Standing Orders Committee to examine every Petition for Redress to ascertain whether it. is in order, and report to Tynwald.

No reading o f or address on petitioii on Hill

6.9 A Petition for Redress shall not be read, nor shall any Member speak to it in Tynwald, until the Petition for Redress has appeared on the Order Paper.

Requisites of Petitions

6.10 Standing Order 6.1, except paragraphs (5) and (10), shall apply to a petition for redress.

3 C/St/plb Contents of Petitions

6.11 Every Petition for Redress must -

(a) relate to a matter of public interest;

(b) relate to a matter falling within the province of Tynwald;

(c) not relate to any specific case which could be or has been adjudicated upon by the High Court or any tribunal or arbitration, or any formal officially recognised complaints procedure, unless the petition shows that in the particular circumstances it is not reasonable to expect the petitioner to resort, or to have resorted, to such remedy;

(d) contain no reference to any matter the substance of which has been determined by Tynwald in the current Session.

6.12 A Petition for Redress which is in order but which has not been the subject of a resolution for its investigation by a Select Committee of Tynwald within five years following the end of the month in which it has been presented on Tynwald Hill shall be deemed to have lapsed and shall cease to be before the Court (whether or not a general election to the shall have taken place within that period).

3. PETITIONS PRESENTED ON 7th JULY 2008

3.1 Petition of: David Edwin Boyles Your Committee finds this Petition to be in order. In Order.

3.2 Petition of: Joseph Duffy Your Committee finds this Petition to be in order. In Order.

3.3 Petition of: Christopher Robert Farrer, Cliff Clague, Wendy Buttery and Dave Me Williams Your Committee finds this Petition to be in order. In Order.

3.4 Petition of: Rodger Gimbert Your Committee finds this Petition to be in order. In Order.

3.5 Petition of: Kevin Anthony Glynn and Greeba Skinner Your Committee finds this Petition to be in order. In Order.

3.6 Petition of: Graham Peter Joughin Your Committee finds this Petition to be in order. In Order.

4 C/St/pIb 3.7 Petition of: Robert David Kelly Your Committee finds this Petition to be in order. In Order.

3.8 Petition of: Margaret Lombard-Chibnal Your Committee finds this Petition to be technically defective for the lack of the petitioner's address, and therefore not in order. Not in Order.

3.9 Petition of: Martin Moore Your Committee finds this Petition to be in order. In Order.

3.10 Petition of: Donald Whittaker Your Committee finds this Petition to be in order. In Order.

4. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS

4.1 Your Committee is pleased to note that all the petitions save one are in order, and in the case of the petition by Margaret Lombard-Chibnal there is a technical defect but the purport of the petition is clear and the matter of it is, in any event, before the Court at this sitting.

4.2 One final petition was sent to the Clerk of Tynwald by Patricia Anne Kelly by e-mail in the early hours of 8th July, the petitioner explaining that she had been "not physically able to make the journey until later than necessary". The petition is annexed, but there is no provision for a petition to be presented electronically, or indeed after Tynwald Day itself, and the petition by Ms Kelly is therefore not a Tynwald Day petition and cannot accordingly be in order.

S C Rodan (Chairman) G D Cregeen E A Crowe E G Lowey G M Quayle

10th July 2008

5 C/St/pIb r ANNEX

IN TYNWALD 7th July 2008

To the Honorable Members of Tynwald

The Humble Petition of David Edwin Boyles, of Cregville, Cregneash,

Sheweth that

The Manx Museum and National Trust trading as Manx National Heritage (MNH) is in large part Government funded, operates with Government Trustees and the majority of the professional staff are civil servants.

MNH representatives and employees are using an alleged remit from the Government, to influence independent planning inspectors in their favour; that MNH believe and give account of themselves as acting on the remit of the Manx Government and, if this is true, it causes the Manx Government to be acting against the Human Rights of the individual when the individual is facing planning objections from MNH and, in particular, to be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 8, regarding the right to "respect for private and family life, home and correspondence';

Wherefore your petitioner seeks that:

Should such a document exist as a remit from the Government to MNH it should be made public and that it contains reference to the Human Rights Convention Article 8.

If no such document exists then this should be stated and MNH should still be limited in their actions to adherence of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 8, regarding the right to 'respect for private and family life, home and correspondence'.

IN TYNWALD 7 Ju ly 2008

To the Honourable Members of Tynwald Court

I authorise Peter Karran MHK to present this Petition on my behalf

The Humble Petition of

Joseph Duffy 16 Montreux Court Dougfas Isle of Man IM2 6AF

Sheweth

That a serious deficiency exists in the level of State Dental and Orthodontic Service provision to the Island community.

The absence of sufficient Dentists offering state dental treatment forces many residents to pay for private dental treatment at their own expense - or forego timely dental care. This can impact most harshly upon the poorest in the community. This is an unacceptable situation.

Furthermore, the lack of an adequate level of Orthodontic Service provision for residents with debilitating jaw and/or teeth misalignment problems is a cause of serious concern. It appears that orthodontic staff resignations, unfilled vacancies, staff employed on a part-time basis, inadequate resourcing, low morale and a general inability to meet patient needs has led to patients having waiting two* three or more years for commencement of active treatment. Treatment waiting times of this length are not acceptable.

It is a recognised medical fact that inadequate dental care can be the cause of other serious medical conditions. The need to improve the nation’s dental health has been recognised by the government discussion on whether to fluoridate the Island’s water supply. However, this debate has ignored the significant contributory role played by a failing state dental and orthodontic service in the creation of the present situation.

This prosperous Island should be capable of providing its citizens with a first-class state dental service - funded by the well-tried and traditional combination of National Taxation and Patient Contributory Charges. This is not rocket science. It merely requires the diligent ongoing provision of a traditional service in an efficient manner. Over the past decade there have been demonstrable falling standards in this area of health provision.

Many Elected Members can evidence being approached by residents dissatisfied with dental and orthodontic service provision. Regrettably, there is general resignation that dentistry and orthodontics in particular are a recognised area of failing public service standards - with orthodontics being something of a Cinderella service.

Wherefore your Petitioner seeks that Tynwald appoints a Select Committee to investigate a) Why the Island’s provision of State Dental and Orthodontic services has declined over the past decade b) The reason for waiting times of two. three or more years for commencement of Orthodontic treatment c) W hether arrangements should be put in place to help recompense those particular members of the community who, through no fault of their own, are discriminated against by having to pay for their own Dental and/or Orthodontic treatment privately due to the lack of adequate public service provision d) What measures exist for improvement in the delivery of State Dental and Orthodontic service provision

I

IN TYNWALD

7th July 2008

To the Honourable Members of Tynwald Court

The humble petition of Christopher Robert Farrer of 16 Cronk Reayrt, Park, Peel IMS 1DB, Cliff Clague of 7 Oldfield Rise, , IM9 2HL Wendy Buttery of 96 Hillside Avenue, Douglas IM1 4NB and Dave McWilliams of 9 Ballathane Square, Ballasalla IM9 2MB

Sheweth

That your petitioner Christopher Robert Farrer is fifty four years of age and that he has, since Christmas 2007, been unable to pursue his trade of painter and decorator because of contracting Parkinson's disease, the diagnosis of which was confirmed in January 2008, since when he has continued to be unable to work and has no prospect of returning to work. Although your petitioner has received incapacity benefit since 22nd December 2007, he is left unable to make payment, or full payment, on the mortgage of his home because income support is capped at a maximum of £235 per week, and he is only entitled to higher rate incapacity benefit from the 29th week after the diagnosis of his illness.

Wherefore your petitioners pray that:-

A select committee be established to examine and report on the remedy or remedies which should be introduced to make immediate provision for persons diagnosed with chronic illnesses on account of which they are unable to work, as from the date of the diagnosis rather than from a date 29 weeks later, by which time they will have become in serious financial difficulties through no fault of their own, and to establish a welfare rights officer to advise claimants

And your petitioners Cliff Clague, Wendy Buttery and Dave McWilliams authorise the said Christopher Robert Farrer to present this petition on their behalf as on his own

And your petitioners will ever pray etc.

Cliff Clague

Dave McWilliams Wendy Buttery

IN TYNWALD

7th July 2008

To the Honourable Members of Tynwald Court The Humble Petition of Rodger Gimbert, 30 Derby Road, Peel, IMS 1HP

Sheweth that and Civil Service departments routinely transfer data, including that which may be both sensitive and personal, to Government departments in the United Kingdom and other jurisdictions. However, in 2007 Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) lost the confidential details of twenty five million child benefit recipients, including bank and building society details, National Insurance numbers, addresses and child records. Widespread public concern over this disaster lead to the Poynter Review, published on 25th June 2008. This report prefaces that 'The loss was entirely avoidable and the fa d that it could happen points to serious institutional deficiencies at HMRC. ' and states (page 37) that ’Large amounts of data are transferred both within HMRC and to external government bodies with insufficient regard to risk and security

The widespread cultural failings exposed at HMRC may well feature in other UK Government departments which handle data transferred from the Isle of Man. The UK Information Commissioners Office (ICO) press release on this matter, also dated 25th June 2008, refers to 'deplorable failures' and states that HMRC breached Data Protection requirements and will be served with a formal enforcement notice.

Whilst concerns about data losses in the UK have been raised in Tynwald there has been insufficient discussion for Tynwald to make a determination about how to properly protect Isle of Man residents from all the urgent issues arising from the risk of the loss of our data when it is transferred outside the Isle of Man.

There is also the issue of how data transferred to other jurisdictions may be misused.

The 8th June 2008 House of Commons Home Affairs Committee report ‘A Surveillance Society?’ noted the great public concern caused by the HMRC data loss and referred to the UK Information Commissioners 2006 ‘Report on the Surveillance Society5 which refers to the many new data collection and surveillance practices created by the UK since Tynwald passed the Data Protection Act 2002. The Home Affairs Committee report summarised that 'Mistakes in or misuse of databases can cause substantial practical harm to individuals— particularly those who have little awareness of or control over how their information is used.' Data transferred outside the Isle of Man that is lost, misused or transferred elsewhere creates unknown risks. The Home Affairs Committee further summarised that the UK Government should now acknowledge the fact that loss of privacy through excessive surveillance erodes trust and changes the relationship between citizen and state. The Home Affairs Committee concluded (page 101 para 16) 'that the longer information is retained\ the more likely it is that the information will become inaccurate * and that (page 102 para 18) ‘Any increase in the collection and storage o f information increases the risk that security will be breached and that the information will be used for purposes other than those for which it was collected\ Additionally the ll

Therefore, to protect the Isle of Man and its residents from both the. risks of data loss and any form of unknown or constant surveillance, Tynwald must know what data is being transferred from the Isle of Man to other jurisdictions and why. Tynwald must further be assured that data being transferred outside the Isle of Man is for necessary purposes and is safeguarded and ring-fenced. All the Principles of the Isle of Man Data Protection Act 2002 must apply in every instance with the First Principle of sensitive personal data being rigorously applied such that the conditions in Schedule 2 and Schedule 3 are met. Tynwald should take note of the Second Principle being the ''purpose for which data are obtained and processed\ the Fifth Principle being the 'time for keeping data’ the Seventh Principle ‘measures against misuse and loss o f the data* and the Eighth Principle 'transfer o f data abroad

W HEREFORE Your petitioner prays that Tynwald without delay appoint a Select Committee to establish what data on Manx Residents is being transferred to United Kingdom Government departments and other jurisdictions from Isle of Man Government and Civil Service departments. And that, in the light of the data loss by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the Select Committee recommends the measures Tynwald must put in place on behalf of all Manx residents to minimise the amount of data transferred. And further that the Select Committee recommends the measures Tynwald must put in place to safeguard all transferred data against the risk of any loss and misuse arising in the United Kingdom or other jurisdictions.

And your Petitioner will ever pray etc.

Rodger Gimbert IN TYNWALD

7lh July 2008

To the Honourable Members of Tynwald Court

The Humble Petition of Kevin Anthony Glynn of Cagliagh, Lezayre Road, Ramsey, IM8 2LU and of Greeba Skinner of Castleward Farm, Strang, Braddan IM4 5EJ

Sheweth that

The recent campaign by the Department of Health and Social Security to persuade the Manx public that the public water supply should be artificially fluoridated, allegedly to improve the condition of children's teeth, has been rejected by popular demand; that the DHSS have now confirmed they have withdrawn this proposal; that the reported results of surveys of children's dental health status by the DHSS purport to show a worrying degree of concerns in relation to children's dental health, and that this was one of the major foundations of the campaign to introduce fluoride into the Manx public water supply; that, moreover, the dental health of children in the Isle of Man is a concern for all who live in the Island.

Wherefore your petitioners pray that: -

A Select Committee of three members of Tynwald be established to investigate all the facts of the relevant dental surveys and the manner in which the DHSS has interpreted the raw data, methodology and presentation of such surveys, and the conduct of the campaign to gain public support for the artificial fluoridation of the Manx public water supply

Greeba Skinner

IN TYNWALD

T111 July 2008

To the honourable Members of Tynwald Court

The Humble Petition of Graham Peter Joughin of Glen Villa, Glen Elfin Road, Ramsey, in the Parish of Maughold, IM8 2HF

Sheweth that

In May 2007 a public meeting on water fluoridation was held at the Loch Promenade Church Hall, Douglas, Isle of Man. Dr. Connett who is Professor Emeritus of St. Lawrence University, U.S.A, addressed the meeting. Jsle of Man Newspapers were notified a month prior and reminded a week prior. No newspaper reporters were present and no interviews were taken. Details of the meeting were not publicised by The Isle of Man Examiner, The Independent and The Courier. Isle of Man Newspapers (the owners) did publish minimal yet essential details a day beforehand on their website Isle of Man Today. Isle of Man Newspapers gave no indication to the organisers, ‘Save our Water’ that public notification via the newspapers was being withheld.

During May 2007 Isle of Man Newspapers published two pro fluoridation advertisements entitled ‘What’s in our water?’ and ‘Bring back a smile to their faces’ free of charge for the Department of Health and Social Security. Both were published in all three newspapers. ‘What’s in our water?’ was a verbatim copy of a leaflet published by the D.H.S.S. and the U.K.National Fluoride Information Centre (N.F.I.C) but these advertisements were published as newspaper editorials.

Wherefore your petitioner prays that

i) A select committee be appointed to investigate whether and if so the extent to where the monopoly enjoyed in relation to newspapers in the Isle of Man by Isle of Man Newspapers works against the public interest and whether sufficient legislative powers exist in the Office of Fair Trading to remedy the situation and to report with Legislation Drafts.

ii) Tynwald will request to H.M. Government:

a) an appropriate inquiry into the N.FJ.C.’s misinformation.

b) to investigate whether and if so the extent of the propaganda disseminated by the N.F.I.C. and other pro fluoridation organisations such as the British Fluoridation Society works against the public interest and whether sufficient legislative powers exist to remedy the situation and to report with Legislation Drafts.

And your petitioner will ever pray etc.,

IN TYNWALD

To the Honourable Members of Tynwald Court

I authorise Andrew Jessop to present this petition on my behalf.

The Humble Petition of Robert David Kelly of The Rhaa, Baldrine,

Sheweth That subsequent to repeated verbal and written assurances to the contrary Mr. John Smith of The Isle of Man Water Authority has recently indicated that I may have been subject to duplicated charges by an unspecified amount for an unspecified period.

Wherefore your Petioner prays that this Honourable Court-

1. Consider that charging procedures should be centralised and simplified.

2. That if required charges to be clearly itemised and specified.

3. That charges on properties which do not have and do not require mains water supply be restructured.

4. That the charging structure should not appear to permit nor encourage profligate negligent mischevious or malicious waste.

/? z>

IN TYNWALD 7th July 2008

To the Honourable Members of Tynwald Court

The humble petition of Mrs. Margaret Lombard- Chibnall Sheweth That over the past weeks the DHSS has made known that Cummal Mooar, Glenside and Reayrt Ny Baie residential homes will close to all new long term residential care. This has taken place and it is understood that the homes will only be available for respite care as the present residents leave. The intention for those who require residential care will be the private market or the option to stay in their own homes.

Wherefore your Petitioner seeks that CUMMAL MOOAR, GLENSIDE AND REAYRT NY BAIE are re­ instated as long term Residential accommodation for the elderly.

Signature V

IN TYNWALD

7th July 2008

To the Honourable Members of Tynwald Court

The humble petition Martin Moore of 92 Port-e-Chee Avenue, Douglas IM2 5EY

Sheweth that under the Road Transport Act 2001 the Road Transport Licensing Committee (“the Committee”) have extensive powers with regard to the granting and revocation o f registrations and licences, and that under section 21 of that Act there are rights of appeal against decisions of the Committee to the High Bailiff; that experience of the use of such appeal rights has show^n that the court is reluctant to interfere with the findings of the Committee or to substitute its own judgment for that of the Committee; that the rights o f appeal conferred by section 21 are therefore of very limited value and should be expanded permit the court reach its own conclusions on the issue under appeal, in default of which there is no adequate chcck on or review of decisions by the Committee;

Wherefore your petitioner prays that> a select committee be appointed to investigate and take evidence upon the operation of appeal rights under the Road Transport Act 2001, and to consider whether the law should be amended to provide for appeals to be by way of rehearing of matters before the Committee, or whether the Committee’s decisions should be subject to endorsement by the court, or otherwise, and for related matters;

And your petitioner will ever pray etc.

IN TYNWALD 7th July 2008

To the Honourable Members of Tynwald Court

The Humble Petition of Donald Whittaker Of 66 Beech Grove Silverburn Estate Ballasalla, Malew

Sheweth that

Many individuals are aggrieved that there are no safeguards within the Planning process to prevent a “Developer” or other interested party, with recourse to generous funds, from carrying an issue beyond the financial capacity of challenge by other parties.

Any individual is able to pursue their democratic point of view throughout the Planning process without fear of any cost penalty, except for the loss of ones own time or any legal cost voluntarily engaged. Having thereafter been justified by a favourable decision at the Planning Appeal, it should not then be possible for such individual to be subsequently excluded as a consequence of new legal proceedings before the High Court which brings the certainty of engaging insupportable costs even when confident of success. This derives from a situation under which only approximately a third of the extremely high, but almost certainly necessary, legal costs are generally recoverable - even when the case is won.

Any system which ensures major cost penalties being imposed on those justly proved right in the High Court, must be flawed. Nor does it seem balanced that there should even be a risk of this when proper planning procedures have already been followed successfully.

Wherefore your petitioner seeks that

Tynwald urgently appoint a “Select Committee” to consider, investigate and report to Tynwald with recommendations in regard to establishing a system which creates a level playing field over Petitions of Doleance and which furthermore protects the position of the ordinary objector against the weight of the wealthy. Tue, Jul 8, 2008 9:31 AM

Subject: IN TYNWALD Date: Tuesday, July 8, 2008 3:10 AM From: Anne To: Conversation: IN TYNWALD

Dear Mr Comwell-Kelly,

It is with much regret that I missed the opportunity to submit my petition this morning, unfortunately I was not physically able to make the journey until later than necessary.

I have attached a copy in the hope that it may be accepted along with the other Petitions for Redress this year.

Thank you for your time and efforts on my part ig u r continuing assistance and support in this matter is deeply appreciated;

Kindest regards

Yours sincerely

Anne Kelly IN TYNWALD 7th July 2008

To The Honourable Members of Tynwald Court

The Humble Petition of Patricia Anne Kelly, Rossendaie, Glen View Terrace, Port Erin.

Sheweth

That The Isle of Man Government has failed to act on two previous petitions presented by the petitioner and others in 2006 and by the petitioner herself in 2007.

The petitions in question allege very serious breaches of Government Statutory Duties against children by Government Officials and Agents acting in their official capacity.

Constitutional & Administrative Law, 5th Edition, Hilaire Barnett, Cavendish Publishing 2004, p.758, states of a failure to act;

‘An authority may be under a statutory duty to take action and, depending upon the specificity of the duty, may be held to be acting unlawfully if it fails to act.’

Wherefore your Petitioner seeks that

A select committee be appointed to investigate why no administrative action or criminal prosecution has been initiated in respect of the offences and breaches of statutory duty arising from these facts and whether measures are now in place to ensure that such failures do not recur.

(p. A. Ketty

Parliamentary Copyright available from:

The Tynwald Library Legislative Buildings Finch Road DOUGLAS Isle of Man IM1 3PW British Isles 2008 Tel: 01624 685520 Fax: 01624 685522 e-mail library®tynwald.org.im Price: £2.00