Printed (by Authority) by M Et G Print Holdings Ltd., Lord Street, Douglas, Isle of Man. REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF TYNWALD COURT

Douglas, Wednesday, 17th November, 1982 at 10.30 am

Present: The Governor (Rear Admiral Sir Nigel Cecil, K.B. E., C.B.). In the Council: The President of the Council (the Hon. J. C. Nivison, C.B.E.(, the Lord Bishop (the Rt. Rev. Vernon Nicholls), the Attorney-General (Mr. T. W. Cain), Mr. R. J. G. Anderson, Mrs. E. Q. Hanson, Messrs. R. E. S. Kerruish, E. G. Lowey, R. MacDonald, W. A. •Moore and P. Radcliffe, with Mr. T. A. Bawden, Clerk of the Council. In the Keys: The Speaker (the Hon. Sir Charles Kerruish, O.B.E.(, Messrs. W. K. Quirk, J. D. Q. Cannan, J. N. Radcliffe, Mrs. C. M. Christian, Dr. E. J. Mann, Messrs. A. A. Callin, D. G. Maddrell, R. A. Payne, M. R. Walker, N. Q. Cringle, Dr. D. L. Moore, Mr. C. A. Cain, Dr. H. D. Teare, C.V.O., Messrs. G. V. H. Kneale, A. C. Duggan, E. M. Ward, B.E.M., D. F. K. Delaney, D. Martin, J. A. Brown, with Mr. R. B. M. Quayle, Clerk of Tynwald.

GOVERNMENT POLICY OBJECTIVES—DEBATE CONCLUDED.

The Governor: Hon. members, we continue with item number 7 on the Agenda. The first to speak is the hon. member for Rushen, Mr. Cringle, followed by the hon. member for Ramsey, Dr. Teare.

Mr. Cringle: Your Excellency, I find that sometimes, when debates are continued on the following day, it is difficult to get back into the tenor of the debate. However, I do not feel this morning in any way that we have to recap on anything that was said yesterday, and largely I believe that most of it was said, particularly in the two opening speeches which were made to us in relation to the motion which is on the Agenda Paper. I certainly this morning am accepting the motion on the Agenda Paper and not supporting Mr. Speaker's proposed amendment that it should be received and debated in the Branches. I am unashamedly—and have been on record as saying so •previously—in support of the idea of Executive Council immediately after the general election or within six months coming forward with what I referred to as a "Queens Speech", so in that context I like the idea of Executive Council or some leading part of government deciding what should be the policy. Looking at the White Paper in front of us, I must agree with Mr. President of the Council, though possibly he was a little harsh on the mover of the resolution in his comments, that it was difficult when going through the paper to find anything which was definite in a question of policy. It certainly provides a framework, but when we get to actually talking about what is going to happen over the next few years, I found it difficult to follow. I would envisage, when Executive Council grows up and our Government moves forward, that a policy debate on this sort of measure could very well ultimately be more important than the budget

Government Policy Objectives— Debate Concluded. 1194 TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982 estimate debates which we have become accustomed to over the last few years at March time, when we were talking at that stage of priorities. If Government, via a policy document, can establish what its policy is going to be, broadly working through the board system there should be no necessity to spend two days debating each board's individual priorities, because if Government as a whole—and I think Mr. Speaker's words of warning were important yesterday afternoon in relation to the elected members' chances— have accepted in a policy debate what is going to happen over the next few years, then we do not need to go into the detail of board's priorities at an estimate debate. So I agree with Mr. President of Council, and I would have preferred personally more direction, more definitive terms within the debate. Mr. President of Council did put emphasis on 3 (2) (a), (b) and (c) and the question that we would all say 'Hear, hear' to them, and similarly of course, when I read any report or whatever, I always turn to the summary at the end to see, when we have read all the words, exactly what they are saying. If you read paragraph 7 (1) what you find is that "The Committee's overall conclusion is that, due to the widespread recession, the Island's economy is currently depressed and the projections indicate that there are no immediate prospects for recovery." You then come on to paragraph 7 (3) of the conclusions and it says this time that "The overall conclusions of the Committee are that Tynwald should, taking account of the information supplied in the Policy Planning Programme, commit itself to several strategic goals", so you have got in 7 (1) and 7 (3) two overall conclusions, and when you turn the page you have these goals, A, B and C, which again go back to somewhat bland language. The object of the exercise, presumably, of forwarding to us the large policy planning booklet was that we should consider the white document along with all the mass of information which is in this one, so again I turned to the Policy Planning Programme summary and conclusions on the yellow sheet, and you turn to paragraph 9 of that and you find exactly repeated the words of the first conclusion: "The Committee's overall conclusion is that the Island's economy is currently depressed and the projections indicate that there is no immediate prospect for recovery"—end of story, so if we are looking for a drive, a forward moving force which is going to lift us out of our current depression, we do not particularly find it in the document. Having said that, I am supporting it, because I do believe that it is a framework and a first attempt of Government to try to establish a policy programme. Accepting that I think that, all right, this time we will let it ride. Next time a policy document comes forward I will certainly be looking for some major indication of how we are moving. We could very well have some decisions as to what are going to be the priorities of the Manx Government, the elected representatives, this Chamber as a whole, whether the emphasis is going to be on finance, on industry, or on tourism, all these sorts of things; at the present time there is no immediate guidance in there as to what are definitively going to be the powers of the Finance Board or Executive Council and saying that is the line on which we are going to move along, because that is the one which is going to help us to turn the corner. When we do talk about industry, employment prospects and training —all excellent stuff and all very good words indeed— I think that we really need to consider again what was almost opposition from amongst our two gurus, if you want to call them that, who came up with this planning report, insofar as the Chairman of Executive Council was merely, in his speech, saying that we go back to a full-blooded drive on new residents and an increase in population —and I accept that I was a signatory to a population committee of the last

Government Policy Objectives— Debate Concluded. TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982 T195 report which said that 75,000 was a realistic target, so I can see that as being a method. But equally, I was very much aware that when the Chairman of Finance Board made his speech, he almost as an aside said that the chairman was almost propounding a new residents policy, but he did not think that they were. Now, as for the two gentlemen who have come up with this document, there was in their addresses to us, I felt, some division, and of course it is very important indeed to me, and that is the one thing which I felt was really missing completely out of all the paperwork which we were sent. If we are talking about a drive in industry, or a drive for new residents, employment, that sort of thing in the Isle of Man at this very moment, never mind over the next five years, it is important to us because nowhere in this document has it considered, in my opinion, the social structure of the Isle of Man. Yesterday we heard a lot about the constitution of the government and the constitution possibly of the Isle of Man; there are certainly a lot of these facts in this document about the economy of the Isle of Man, but it is purely in bald terms about the economy, and I do not think that either of our two gentlemen have really paid much attention to the social structure of the Isle of Man or how we, the Government of the Isle of Man, would like to see the social structure. I would like to say at this stage that I feel at the moment we are a little in danger in the Government of the Isle of Man of dividing our society seriously, so that we have almost a two-tier system in the society in the Isle of Man. As well as looking at the constitution and the economy—and I know that they can have a bearing on it—we should consider what the society of the Isle of Man is, what the social structure is, so that we use the economy to have a decent social structure for the people of the Isle of Man. Your Excellency, I do not propose to go on any longer. I have made my comments on it and I certainly will be supporting the resolution on the Agenda Paper, purely because, as I say, it is the first attempt at producing a policy document in this sort of form and because it is a framework I will accept it.

Dr. Teare: Your Excellency, I planned to second the amendment of the hon. Mr. Speaker for two main reasons: firstly, the document is so important and so full of fact that it merits much fuller discussion and time for thought before it can be fully digested; and secondly it is virtually what the Chairman of Finance Board has already suggested, that there should be a series of debates on all the details of the document to help our planning for the future. I think the sub-committee is to be congratulated on producing an excellent document entitled "Policy Planning Programme." but I feel that this title is not strong enough. It should be "Policy Programming and Budgeting." After all this is a fairly common practice in big business and explains why the successful ones are successful, in that they arrange things looking far ahead and making sure that they can finance what they are trying to undertake, and I think that the sub-committee should take as its motto the last line of B 12) and the first of B (3), and I will quote: "In the case of a government it is necessary for the highest policy-making authority to establish its strategy, so that it can be used as a framework within which subsequent decisions must be taken." This framework would be defined, as far as we are concerned, as what we want the Island to be and to achieve over the next 10 to 20 years. The highest policy- making authority in our case is going to be Executive Council. The hon. Mr. Speaker's first quote about cabinet government gave as one of the duties of the cabinet the final determination of policy for Parliament, and as he frequently does he hit the nail on the head, because the logical development of this document will be the continued

Government Policy Objectives— Debate Concluded. T196 TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982 evolution of the executive role of Executive Council towards cabinet government, with a consequent diminution of the powers of individual members, which is already worrying some people, but I imagine that Mr. Speaker will be among the first in the fray,to ensure that a fair deal is obtained for all the individual members of government; and indeed this morning on the radio the Chairman of Executive Council said that he favoured consultation and not control. I do not want to stir up too much, but it is conceivable that in getting the best possible organisation the structure of the cabinet will have to be altered compared with that which exists in Executive Council at the minute. The need for a framework of overall strategy is quite simply financial. We can no longer afford the luxury of directing any money, whether it be £10 or £10,000, or toss in a quick million, to finance schemes that are not shown to be of definite benefit and which in fact pay for their keep. We must remember that capital projects which do not do this result in continuous expenditure and we must know the cost of everything we attempt before we accept schemes. This point is stressed by the chart on G 121, which is frightening, particularly when the footnote in G (4)— notes on assumptions 2 to 4—shows the recurrent costs arising from the proposed capital expenditure are not included. What the chart tells me is that we cannot embark on any schemes which are not self-financing, unless we have extra revenue, which means new taxes or increases on the old, which nobody wants. The only thing is pruning of present expenditure, and this is one of the things about planning and budgeting, that you have continuous monitoring of what is actually happening, because you find that schemes dry up but still that money is made available for them to be perpetuated when they are not actually doing anything. The chart is splendid but I think it could be improved if there were some alt9rnative projections about revenue. Is what we see an average figure, or is it the best, or is it the worst? Should there not be another projection showing what happens if Sir Geoffrey Howe reduces value added tax? Down goes our revenue! Nevertheless, I think the chart should be plainly visible at all meetings of boards or committees where money matters are considered. Only one little thing: I must say that I am not starry-eyed yet about the free-port proposition. I support fully the setting up of a working party to investigate the whole issue, I am also delighted that already representatives of the Chamber of Trade, Commerce and Industry have volunteered to help. Shannon has been mentioned as a shining example of a free-port and what :t can achieve, so one will expect the working party to produce a full history of Shannon's establishment and its present position, and what cost there has been to the Irish Government. If the system is so profitable, why do we not institute the legislation and get private enterprise to do the rest, at no cost to taxpayers, and pay a fee to Government for the services provided? Another geographical fact with which I will close: the other place that has been mentioned is Rotterdam; one must be careful not to compare a city with the vast hinterland of Europe behind it and on the most important waterway of the continent with a town in the south of the Island on the Silverburn and with a small airport. I do not damn the idea, but I only ask that enthusiasm be tempered with caution, keeping in mind the chart on G (21. I feel this document, properly implemented, can hold out great hope for our future.

Mr. Payne: Your Excellency, up until now the standard of debate has been of the highest order. Now it is my turn, and for the first time since I have been a member of this hon. Court I sense in the debate a desire for all boards to work together in

Government Policy Objectives— Debate Concluded. TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982 T197

consultation with Executive Council for the good of this Island. If this policy document has done nothing else, it has made us all realise that we have to get it right if we are going to succeed. I fully endorse the remarks made so ably by the hon. Mr. Speaker regarding Tynwald being the government of the Isle of Man, at the same time accepting that Executive Council has got a greater role to play. I wish to compliment the committee of Executive Council on the conclusions they have reached regarding the free-port zones, or should I say the Manx international trading zones? When I asked the hon. Chairman of Finance Board a question on free-port zones he complimented me on— or should I say accused me of—my sense of extrasensory perception. I trust I will continue to have extrasensory perception, and I will say to hon. members that unless we move quickly on the free-port idea, events in the United Kingdom will overtake us and we might as well forget the idea now. I particularly am interested in item 6 of the Policy Planning Programme on free-ports. I believe I am right in saying that under our • present arrangements designated Customs warehouses could be established anywhere on the Island. I believe that the free-port idea has a role to play. It will not solve our unemployment problem but will make significant contributions. I am sure we have to move very quickly on this if we are going to get any mileage out of it at all. I therefore favour adopting the policy objectives as set down by the hon. Chairman of Executive Council in that form.

Mr. J. N. Radcliffe: Your Excellency, like other hon. members of the Court I too welcome this document, albeit that it is, as some have said, a lot less than a positive document in that it does not state any goals that this Government is aiming for. It is a bit weak in that respect, and I think it is fair to say that the only solid substantial objectives given were, by his own admission, the mover's thoughts, the hon. Chairman of Executive Council. He mentioned, for example, agriculture and fisheries, and particularly the sharp and disastrous loss in income which in the fishing has declined from something like £5 1/2 million to £2 1/2 million, and we all know that there is real need of a far-reaching policy in that sector and indeed, like him, I would add in passing that I hope that the Commission of Inquiry under Dr. Lyon-Dean will show the way ahead for this ailing sector for many years to come, and that in effect is a sort of starting policy there. As far as the agricultural sector goes, if we can achieve by whatever means a bit of harmony in certain quarters the way will be clearer for this section to fill its place in the picture and make the contribution that it undoubtedly can towards the Island prosperity. To my mind, the real and prime purpose of a policy document is to point the way for people to be able to have a more than reasonable chance of full • employment, not just for ten weeks in the summer but all the year round. We need a wide range of industries—we have said it many times in this Court, — of all sorts, large and small, and I think there could be a future which well could be incorporated in this policy that with the right sort of encouragement for more very small industries; in fact, if you want you could term them cottage industries. There is a lot of financial inducement offered to people who come, perhaps completely unknown to us here, and if they say that he will employ 30 or 40 people there is quite a lot of financial help given. If that sort of money were divided and given by way of grant or loan to enable 30 individuals to start their own small business it would be as effective, probably more effective, because pride and determination would ensure that those businesses would not fail. There are, hon. members, a not inconsiderable number of frustrated young

Government Policy Objectives-- Debate Concluded. T198 TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982

potential small industry makers who would leap at a chance to set themselves up, and I feel that the Island could only benefit in the long run. We teach our young people many skills; why waste them? We should not sit and wait, Your Excellency, and rely on our various financial sectors to bale us out. We must not and cannot afford to ignore our .own Manx possibilities and potentials for expansion and improvement, and these are the sorts of guidelines that young people are looking for in a five-year programme, and of course it is a programme that must be regarded as a rolling programme and subject to new projections and policies year by year. That too is essential. I think it is very essential for a debate on policy to take place, not in the Branches, but here in this Chamber of what should be and members see is desirable to be incorporated in a plan for a five-year projection, because the people are entitled to know and indeed have their own objectives in view. This is what we as a Government should be doing: going away and giving encoragement to people to aim for their objectives. I think that working with the documents—and they would be updated as a rolling thing again— Executive Council would provide the leadership and co-ordination which would be needed to get things moving, and if this clicks together as I sincerely hope it will, it will provide the opportunity which would then make this Island the envy of all as far as work and prosperity goes.

Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, this report as presented by the Chairman of Executive Council yesterday seeks to do a number of things, and it seeks to gain support for principles and not for details. An acceptance of longer-term planning, and the suggestion is that it should be a five-year period, has been touched on and mentioned many times by many members since the last election, but it has not been debated at any length and this is the opportunity. The report points out the problems associated with long-term planning, and there are many problems, and it also points out the difficulties that will ensure for this Island without long-term planning. It points out quite clearly that there will have to be controls and discipline. It says that quite starkly, and as a member of Executive Council I would say that I feel satisfied that members generally appear to accept that as being the case. Mr. Speaker said yesterday, in what I thought was - very good and interesting address, that Executive Council should operate—and I noted his words— by co-ordination, co-operation and practice. This report asks members to accept from Executive Council control, co-ordination and involvement, and I would suggest that there is not a lot of difference. There is an opportunity today for hon. members to do more than pay lip service to a five-year plan. It is easily said. By the acceptance of this report they can pledge themselves in support of their Executive Council. It is not us and them, or it should not be. The Chairman of Executive Council said yesterday, when he opened this debate, that in front of us was not a list of detailed policy projects but an acceptance of the principles, so members looking for detail I think have some reason to feel disappointed, but that, I would suggest, is the next stage. The report also points out to us some of the problems that face us today, and only some of them; it does not attempt to hide any of them: problems with the general economy, the fall in real terms of incomes and consequently the standard of living, energy problems and environmental problems. They are there and they are all underlined, and it merely goes on to make some suggestions as to what could be possible solutions, but we do not pretend that any of these solutions are conclusive. There is a lot of mileage in them all from members yet. The report was properly described yesterday as an information

Government Policy Objectives— Debate Concluded. TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982 T199

base for future policy decisions. If this report is accepted then we can look forward to the next steps, and they must be the detailed programme of capital projects, a programme of legislation and an annual speech by the Chairman of Executive Council outlining government policy for the next 12 months, and that speech then can be fully debated and the individual member can have his say. The question was posed yesterday: what of the individual member? Where will he make a contribution? I believe that he or she will play no less a part in the development of this Island in the future than in the past. There must be an opportunity for regular policy debates, and I believe that they should be in this Chamber. The Chairman of Finance Board told us yesterday about the uselessness of the estimate debates on the estimate procedures that we have had in the past, the hurriedness of situation, and he has suggested and has already set in train a longer period for discussion with individual boards and departments. There is no reason at all why the policy debates that take place at estimate time should not also take place over that longer period of time. He suggested yesterday the idea of a Development Council. I would fully support that, but we must not fall into the trap of just accepting the chairman and secretary of the local trade organisations. Government must be in a position to hand-pick the leaders of commerce and industry to take part on a Development Council such as was envisaged yesterday. The reorganisation of the board structure of Tynwald is something esle that was touched on, and is obviously very important, and it seems to me that we have two trains of thought. We either have a large number of small boards with perhaps three members or we think along the terms of larger boards, probably with a five-man membership. I think that the committee that has been set up with the responsibility of looking into boards' responsibilities should come forward to the floor of this Court and pose that particular question, rather than the details of what should happen within individual boards. Let us have a policy debate on what should be the future situation with regard to boards. Having decided that, we can look at the details of what they have to consider, and also at that time we must look at the future constitution of Executive Council and whether or not its membership should be made up of chairmen of certain boards, or whether or not we are on the right lines at the moment by allowing free elections for the individual places on the Council. Your Excellency, I believe that Executive Council is ready and willing to take on any role and accept any responsibility that members of this Court want to give to them. The success of this policy objective and long-term planning must depend on the full involvement of each and every member of Tynwald Court through their responsibilities in boards and departments of Government. They must be involved in the formation and implementation of any long-term development plan; if not it is doomed to failure. I would ask members to support the motion as presented by the Chairman of Executive Council and let us get on with the next stage of the job.

Mr. Kneele: Your Excellency, the Chairman of Executive Council in his opening remarks yesterday made reference to the fact that Tynwald is the government of this Island, and Mr. Speaker also accepted this. For many years I have been emphasising that fact and urging members to remember this at all times. All matters of finance and policy are decided here, and if we would really accept the fact that Tynwald is paramount and the House of Keys and the Legislative Council are the legislative Branches of Tynwald we would not have got into such a tangle over the appointment of chairmen because members have moved from one Branch to another. Having heard

Government Policy Objectives— Debate Concluded. T200 TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982

Mr. Speaker declare that Tynwald was the government of the Island, I was surprised that he should move an amendment that this report be received and referred to the Branches in their own Chambers, but I was more surprised that the other member for Garff, Dr. Mann, should attempt to second him, and absolutely amazed that Dr. Teare, the hon. member for Ramsey, should actually second him; then I remembered that doctors normally bury their mistakes (laughter), and I hope today we will bury those mistakes for them! Tynwald is the proper place to debate this report, and if it is felt that we need to go into it in greater detail, then maybe we could cancel the meeting of the Keys next week and instead have a special meeting of Tynwald to deal solely with this report. It is stressed over and over again that the experienced members of Tynwald have been elevated to the Legislative Council; that being so, it is important that they be present when this document is being discussed so as to give the members of the Keys the benefit of their experience. Personally, I believe we are wrong to send all our experienced members upstairs. I believe the experience should be shared between both Branches, but that is another story. Sooner or later we will get the set-up right. The Chairman of Executive Council also mentioned the question of raising the school- leaving age. Now I am pleased that at long last he is beginning to realise the need for raising the school-leaving age to 16, but I am sorry that it is the question of the present unemployment situation which has made some people realise this need. It has been there for a long time. I got the legislation through in 1972 to bring it about, but nothing has been done since then to implement it. In my view that was a bad mistake, and our young people are suffering as a result in these hard times. But it must be made quite clear that it is not just a matter of keeping the youngsters at school a year longer. That would be disastrous unless we have the facilities to cater for them. Because of the unemployment situation more and more children over 15 are staying on at school without warning, and this is creating serious problems. The new scheme for reorganisation within the eastern district which the Board of Education has produced has taken into account the raising of the school-leaving age, and when reorganisation takes place we will be able to cope. The College of Further Education will also have to its part in providing for these young people, but in the other areas of the Island we will have to face up to the need to extend the present accommodation so that we are able to cope with the extra young people who stay on at school beyond 15. For example, at Castle Rushen High School we already have four mobile classrooms and still there is pressure on accommodation. We must also remember that this desire to stay on at school may extend beyond the 15 to 16-year-olds because of the failure to find work. I can assure this hon. Court that I have always been dedicated to the raising of the school leaving age and will press on with the plans to bring it into being as soon as possible; but this cannot be done without both capital and revenue expenditure, and the members of this hon. Court must face up to that situation. I believe that this Policy Planning Programme which has been laid before us is a worthwhile document and worthy of our commendation to those who have prepared it, even though we may not all agree with everything that is in it. The important question that arises is: what do we do with it now? We must be sure that we do not go off at financial tangents but keep to strict control, otherwise all planning will be in vain. In conclusion I would just like to make reference to the behaviour of this Court generally. When we are talking about optimum important policy decisions and financial decisions, it is getting near the end of the day and we are anxious to finish in one day, everybody is shouting "agreed." Well, I

Government Policy Objectives— Debate Concluded. TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982 T201 would remind the Court that Standing Order 51 really puts all those resolutions that are put through on the nod absolutely out of order, and I believe that we should spend more time in this Court discussing things and less time in our Branches, because this is the place where we should all get together; and remember: we are all part of the Government and we should all be working for the good of the Government, and the experience and the inexperience should be gathered together to try and arrive at a proper solution. I believe this is where our future lies, not in fragmentation.

Mr. Cannan: Your Excellency, in my view policy planning must have as its main objective the maintenance of full employment, general prosperity of the Manx people and the efficient administration of Government. To this end, I believe that Executive Council must have the political will and authority of government to direct policy and govern, to accept responsibility both for success and for failure, and in order to have this political will the members of Executive Council must be ministers of new, large, amalgamated boards as has already been suggested yesterday. At this point in time the Government does not have an unemployment problem, but rather the unemployed have a problem of government. A Government that failed to react to the advancing recession despite the warning signals, a Government whose duty it is to provide the means for permanent, steady employment for our young people as against the present system of offering Manx youth a lifetime of casual employment and winter work schemes. Government must be motivated to explore every avenue of bringing manufacturing industry to the Island. Large firms in the new technological and electronic industries must be approached face to face, not by sending pamphlets or letters, but on a direct face-to-face basis with a view to setting up subsidiaries on the Island. In short, Your Excellency, Government must get up, go out and look for business. Two or three factories employing 200 people each would halve the unemployed. Now this may be difficult to obtain, I do not know, but I can say that sadly no representative of Government was present at Eastbourne during the recent Conference of the Confederation of British Industries when the heads of all the large manufacturing industries in the country were gathered together on one spot. It was, I believe, a wonderful opportunity for somebody to be there to lobby, speak to and contact these industrialists and sell the Island's potential for setting up subsidiary factories. Presently, winter work schemes are arrived at in an ad hoc manner as the men become unemployed. Again, hon. members of this Court, I believe that planning and provision should start now for next year, so that when men come out of work onto the register next October they go straight onto the winter work schemes, this of course being temporary, prior to the arrival or setting up of manufacturing industries. I believe that there is no alternative for our youth but furtherment and steady employment in the manufacturing industry. So, Your Excllency, this must be the main criteria of the Government Policy Objectives for 1982 to 1987: to get the Island back to work and to stop talking ourselves into worse recession but to work for economic recovery.

Mr. Quirk: Your Excellency, before I make my few remarks, may I congratulate the hon. new member for Michael on his excellent speech?

Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Quirk: I am sure this is indicative of the way that he will conduct himself in this Court; he is on his feet and ready to go, and I think we should take note of his attitude:

Government Policy Objectives— Debate Concluded. T202 TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER,1982 as he said himself "get up and go," and I congratulate him on his excellent speech. My few remarks, Your Excellency, will be based on the policy objectives 3.2 (b): "The effective utilisation of the Island's resources both human and physical in order to increase employment," I think that is the whole crux of the situation today, where we have young people becoming accustomed to a hand-out of cash rather than work, and if we do not correct this situation in the very immediate future we are going to have young people looking for cash rather than work, and this is not the Manx attitude. With full employment, or as much employment as we can get, we will then start to restore our way of life and our natural heritage and everything should fall into place. I would like for a brief moment to take to task the hon. member moving this document—and I must say that this I regard as a real commonsense article, where we go back to our boards, look at it, and bring forward ideas which will help in Government and to restore the finances of this Island. I would take him to task as emphasised yesterday about the friction in the Board of Agriculture. I wonder what this friction is all about? We have in the Board of Agriculture recently met all the various organisations connected with the industry, and we have had almost orderly discussions (laughter) on different attitudes in agriculture. I must tell this Court right now that we have come to a basic agreement that the organised marketing in the Isle of Man is agreed by all, and that is the basis on which our future discussions will carry on. I think it is right to say that I hope that your-1 do not want to call them misguided— observations yesterday will not in any way detract from the discussions which we will have in the future. One of the points here is that boards will be invited to prepare and submit comprehensive plans of future activities and they will subsequently be monitored by Executive Council. I wonder: how does this relate to the Board of Agriculture, who have a policy of controlling imports to the Isle of Man with a view to maintaining our agriculture in its present position and providing jobs for people with the attitude of another board who state it is financially successful to import? I wonder how that will relate? I stand here as a Manx person who believes that in the Isle of Man we can produce goods and articles which are better than anywhere in the world. I can see if we look at our schemes properly we are going to have opportunities here which in the future will provide jobs, and provide not only jobs but a lot of income for the Isle of Man also. I am not going to pursue that point, but I would like just to mention one point: I know I am being a little specific today and we are talking about policies in general, but one of the largest industries in the Isle of Man today is smuggling! Make no mistake about it, it is smuggling— bringing articles into the Isle of Man which we should be producing here on the Island. I think it is up to the Executive Council to look at this and try to do something about it. I would like to conclude by mentioning education. This is the important point, as far as all school- leavers are concerned. Education must equip them for the jobs that they have to do in the future, and I just want to leave you with this thought, Your Excellency. When I attended the Careers Exhibition the other night at the Douglas High School, it was amazing to see the number of young people there looking for jobs. It is absolutely apparent that there was no cohesion between those who have guided these people into the areas they should go and the young people themselves. The careers guidance was, to my mind, rather non-existent, loosely speaking. I will just give you one or two facts. In the British Broadcasting Corporation they had jobs for 3,000 people. All the applications they got in this particular area of the north-west was 2,000. The number of young people attending to question them about jobs was three or four. In retail

Government Policy Objectives— Debate Concluded. TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982 T203 sales—and you may say retail is not thriving in the Isle of Man at the moment, but it is—they are looking for young people to fill their sales positions, but they are looking for qualified girls. In nursing too, they have to have their basic education right before they can get into that particular stream. I was concerned to see that in the Services department where they have 7,000 applications per year only 500 jobs are available. The majority of our young people were interested in the Services where there are so few jobs available, and they knew very well they could not get in to that particular sphere. There must be somewhere along the line that we can in our own way direct these young people into the areas in which they are most likely to find employment which is useful to themselves and of benefit to the Isle of Man. In conclusion, I do hope that we will find some areas where we can use these people. I have a document here in front of me today which I brought along especially because of the talk which we had yesterday about qualified people, that we need qualified people to do this, that and the other. Here we have a report from the Board of Education; 110 young people last year gained some of the highest academic qualifications. We can be proud of the attainments of our young people. How many of these people will come back to the Isle of Man to guide us and give us the benefit of their experience and knowledge in the various trades and situations we have today? Very few, and I would suggest you get one of these documents, look at it, and decide yourself if our people could come back and lead us in the way we can go. I am sure, that it would be of great benefit to the Isle of Man, and I hope that this policy will be looked upon and every board come to your Executive Council in the very near future with some concrete proposals to carry out a forward- looking policy for the Isle of Man.

The Lord Bishop: Your Excellency, I felt yesterday was an historic day in this Chamber. I have now had the privilege of sitting here for eight years and it is the first time that I can remember a paper being presented and, if I may say so, two of the most outstanding speeches I have heard as to the future of this Island from the Chairman of the Executive Council and the Chairman of the Finance Board. I am sorry that certain members have felt it necessary to attack those speeches. I think if we quietly sit down and read, once we have our own copies of those speeches, we will think that they were an enormous contribution to the future. I believe that we were presented yesterday with a very real challenge, a challenge which I unfortunately shall not be able to participate in, but I hope very much that this hon. Court will accept that challenge. I want first, if I may, to support the Chairman of the Board of Education. We in the Board, Your Excellency, are moving rapidly towards the implementation of education up to the age of 16 years. We are glad to say that the number of children now remaining at school increases year by year. Perhaps it is due to unemployment, but I also believe it is partly their desire to acquire knowledge and to qualify. But this hon. Court must not forget that education is perhaps one of the most precious things that we offer to our community, and if we are to make those facilities available, then we have to say money will be required. The Board of Education is giving very serious thought at the present moment to the right use of the Douglas High School and Ballakermeen Junior High School and, of course, the College of Further Education. I think it was Dr. Mann who yesterday—or was it Mr. Speaker?—who made mention of the challenge which faces the College of Further Education. Yes indeed, the College must play its full part but, as the Chairman of the Board has said, if we are to meet the requirements of children

Government Policy Objectives— Debate Concluded. 1204 TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982 remaining at school up to the age of 16 years, then Castle Rushen High School and the Queen Elizabeth High School, which is already full, will require considerable moneys being expended upon them. I want to make one point which has come home to me really forcibly in the last few weeks. We are saying today that we would like to encourage people to come here. Can anyone tell me why it is that to bring a family plus a furniture van containing their home from Belfast to Liverpool is £145.00 whereas it costs £455.00 to bring that same furniture van and that same family from Liverpool to the Isle of Man? I think this needs to be looked at if we are to encourage people to come and to work here. It has been my experience quite recently in bringing a family to work within the church: £300.00 difference, and therefore if we are to bring people from the United Kingdom, the cost of air fares and the cost of sea travel is a very real consideration. Certainly, I think it can be a barrier in some respects in bringing people here. Your Excellency, I want to say one specific thing with regard to our debate so far: I am sad that we have not sent out to our good people on the Island a message with regard to employment. I would like to congratulate Mr. Cannan on striking that note in his maiden speech. A very fine speech indeed, and I agree entirely with what Mr. Quirk has said. It is no mean task to stand up for the first time in this Court, as I well remember, and make one's maiden speech. I feel that as a Court we ought to be giving very serious thought to the unemployment situation here. Can you visualise what it must be like to be in a home where father is unemployed, where mother may also be unemployed, and a teenager without any gainful employment?—the depression, the pressures and indeed the break-up of family life. I know this from my contacts across, where there are three million unemployed. But we have 1,800 unemployed men women and young people here without gainful employment. I believe this Court ought to be giving far more serious thought to it than we are. I rejoice that we have been able to find winter work schemes, and I congratulate the chairmen of boards, and indeed Executive Council and the Finance Board, in making this possible. But as Mr. Cannan has said, what about 1983? Our unemployment may decrease during the summer months of 1983, but the situation as I see it will be as acute if not more acute in the late summer or early autumn of 1983 than it is now, and somehow we ought to be giving thought to this. Your Excellency, I want to suggest that there is one aspect of our Island life that we do not use to the full. You must know, hon. members, as I know, men and women who come to live on this Island with very real expertise. Some have come to live in retirement; some continue their business from this Island in other parts of the United Kingdom or beyond. I certainly can give you some names of outstanding men in the field of industry and commerce whom I believe, if asked, would be willing to make their skills and expertise available to the Island. Do we ask them? Some have said to me "I have never been asked." This policy document which has been carefully prepared and presented, I think, is a challenge to boards. I think if Mr. Radcliffe, as Chairman of Executive Council, had said to boards, "This is what you should be doing," you and I would be rising from our seats and saying, "Let us get on with our business." Mr. Radcliffe, I think, has been right and so have those who have helped him to write this document in giving to the boards a challenge, and I am sorry that some of you have seen fit to criticise Executive Council and the chairman in particular because his document has not been more specific. It is a challenge, and I would like to feel that what the hon. member for West Douglas, Mr. Kneale, has said will happen: that this Court will sit down, not immediately, but at a specific date and consider still further this

Government Policy Objectives— Debate Concluded. TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982 T205

document. I would like to feel that we in our boards had a look at this document first and then came together as a Court to consider this. I think it is a very serious challenge and a very serious document, and I hope very much that organisations outside this hon. Court will be asked to read it and to comment upon it. I would welcome very much hearing what the view of the Chamber of Trade is, for example. I would like to hear what some of the young businessmen of the Island would say about this document. I want to join with Mr. Speaker: I feel that we are sometimes too fragmented in this small Island, and he made a contribution which must not be ignored with regard to unification of some of the boards. I am sure there will be resistance to this, because it may perhaps reduce the number of chairmen or it may reduce the members serving on more than two boards. I do honestly feel that that point is one that should be very carefully examined. I would be glad to hear what the view of the Chairman of Executive Council is on this. I know we jealously guard our boards. I was proud to be a member of • the Board of Social Security until November of last year. I enjoyed enormously my membership of the Health Services Board. I have been privileged to be on the Board of Education for over 8 years. I would be very sad if suddenly I were asked to leave it. But if it is for the good of the Island, if unification can be effective and, Your Excellency, I believe a saving in the expenditure in the Civil Service would be brought about, then so be it. I therefore welcome very warmly this report, I shall watch with very real interest its implementation and I hope very much that some of the matters we have raised today and yesterday can again come back again onto the floor of this House for discussion once boards and the Branches have had an opportunity of discussing the matter further.

Mr. Kerruish: Your Excellency, yesterday during the debate someone-1 think it was Mr. Speaker—enquired where the ordinary member stood in relation to these proposals. I take the view that there is probably no democracy in the world in which every single member of the Legislature is so closely involved with every aspect of government than is the case in the Isle of Man. It stems partly from our unique system of government by board; it also stems from this particular and unique assembly in which we are today assembled. Furthermore, I think it is an altogether unique procedure we have whereby the summary of the proceedings in Executive Council, the inner cabinet of the Island, are tabled in the Branches each month and each and every member has an opportunity of questioning and debating those particular proposals which emanate from the cabinet. I feel this is a very high degree of involvement by every member. The hon. member for Michael, a new member—and congratulations on • his speech, too—will be involved on the next occasion, when summary of proceedings of Executive Council will be debated in a matter of weeks, in knowing what is going on right at the centre, of being able to express his opinion on them and make contributions to those proposals. I think there is no doubt about it; here we have a very high degree of involvement, and I look upon the proposal at present before the Court as one further step forward in this direction. We have made a lot of constitutional advancement in the last even ten years. Greater emphasis has been placed upon the various Branches of the Legislature themselves, but particularly upon Executive Council. This is a step towards involving members with Executive Council in the evolution of government policy. I think I would agree with the hon. member of Peel when he said there are no great dramatic changes in policy approach in this particular document. I think Dr. Moore is

Government Policy Objectives— Debate Concluded T206 TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982 perfectly correct. I think it is a matter of emphasis and greater co-ordination between Executive Council and the boards of Tynwald. What has been our policy over the years? Over the last ten years, it has been gradually to build up greater emphasis upon the finance sector, and that stems from a commitment to a stable, government-balanced budget to creating a good environment and interest structure on the Island that will engender confidence, and that is the main ingredient which has led to the expansion of the finance sector here and we want to continue along those lines, probably, in the light of recent events, with the greatest surveillance; but certainly it is one of the areas where there is great potential of expansion both as far as employment is concerned and a contribution to our Gross National Product. There is also manufacturing. It has long been an established policy of government to establish light industry of an acceptable nature with a view to providing a worthwhile contribution to our National Income and also providing all-year-round employment. The hon. member for Michael in his excellent speech would like to see the establishment of a few larger factories: 200 or 300 units, with 200 or 300 people being employed at each unit. His colleague on the same bench Mr. Norman Radcliffe would like to see greater emphasis being placed upon the encouragement of the small man. I. hope both will be delighted to learn we have placed great store upon encouraging both types. Admittedly, during recent times—and we have to admit we are in the midst of a very deep depression; the whole world is in the very depth of an economic depression—during the last year or two we have sadly not seen the establishment of new factories employing two or three hundred people but we have seen a great interest and we have given a lot more encouragement to the one and two-man businesses as well as those that employ six and twelve. Any small entrepreneur thinking of setting up business on his own need not be discouraged by the fact that we are looking for the bigger fish; we are very happy indeed, by grant and loan and by help towards marketing expenses, to encourage all types of people who are prepared to make some contribution to the manufacturing sector. We do this not only by grants and loans to our big new factories, we encourage marketing, research and development, and even energy conservation—energy, as I pointed out yesterday, is a very important factor. On all these various fronts we are trying to help in a large and in a small way to establish new industries, and particularly to encourage the expansion of our existing industries. This, no doubt, is one of the areas in which there is great potential. I think it is worthwhile drawing hon. members' attention to page D 15 in the green pages of the policy document, which shows that those engaged in the manufacturing sector have increased by no less than 512, according to these figures, over the last 5 years. The figures were in 1976: 2,955; it is recorded here in 1981 as 3,467, a very worthwhile contribution to expanding our economy and making a greater contribution to the national income. I will admit that times are difficult at the moment. It would be impossible for our insular-based manufacturers to escape altogether from the effects of a very deep-rooted recession in the United Kingdom, our main market, but there is no doubt that finance and manufacturing are two of the areas upon which we must put greater emphasis. This we are doing by the engagement of top-rate consultants with a view to expanding both sectors by a variety of means. I might say that, although great store has not been placed in the document on agriculture, I take it for granted that it must always be regarded as one of our top priorities to retain in the Island a viable, efficient and progressive agricultural industry. Although it may not make a great contribution to our national income, it is very important from social and

Government Policy Objectives— Debate Concluded. TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982 T207

strategic angles; so there again, for my part, I am taking that as a committed government policy as evinced by a Tynwald resolution of quite recent years. It is mentioned in this document that there is room for expansion in the fishing industry, an all-important basic industry, and I know we all look forward to the report from the recent commission on that particular point. When talking of matters marine, could I make this point: I feel that the one perhaps unique area in which there is great potential for employment and extra revenue in the future is the activity that in my view, would stem from an extension of our territorial waters to 12 miles. I think the value of this could not be over-estimated, and for my part I would feel I would be expressing the view of Executive Council saying that we are placing top priority in pressing for the extension of our territorial waters to 12 miles as being very important in the national interest. Once we have reached that point we could look forward to considerable industrial expansion in that area. I am revealing no secrets to say even with the talk of •that extension the Energy Committee have already had interest shown from various quarters which would encourage us to believe that this could be one of the most important achievements that the Island could possibly aim for. Furthermore, one other point which I must mention in relation to this document: the great importance to be placed upon training. The Lord Bishop referred to the fact that sometimes we have not the skilled personnel here to fill some of the posts that are required. That is unfortunately the fact. But I think under the chairmanship of the present Chairman of the Board of Social Security great progress has been made in this direction, and the establishment of an Industrial Training Centre at Hills Meadow has been a very significant step forward. I think I must touch upon the comments made by the President of the Council yesterday when he talked of the lack of detail in this particular document. I think I would be safe in saying—and I am not one of its authors, but I certainly give it my blessing—that it is not meant to dot every i and cross every t. It is not supposed to make recommendations as to whether the Hill Cow Subsidy should be increased or whether a larger grant should be given for the modernisation of tourist accommodation. It has laid out broad lines of policy, and I believe the advance along that road is summed up in one particular point made very early in the covering document and here I quote from paragraph 2.3:

"Tynwald is recommended to commit Government to policy planning and to support the broad planning included in this report. This overall strategy should be adopted by Tynwald and Executive Council should be authorised to supervise this implementation. This will require an acceptance by members of greater control, co-ordination and • involvement in the policies of individual boards and departments by Executive Council."

It is for that reason that I am not supporting the amendment and going very strongly in support of the resolution as it appears on the Agenda. As I pointed out in my initial remarks, we have plenty of opportunities almost every week of debating in our separate Branches any matters we consider of national importance. We certainly have the opportunity of tabling questions. This is the forum in which policy should be debated. It is being debated here today, and I hope it will go on for a long time and we shall hear from as many members as possible. I fully support the hon. member for Douglas West, who said that here is the forum for debate, and to my way of thinking to take this back

Government Policy Objectives—Debate Concluded. T208 TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982

to the Branches—and I am not against the Branches debating it because they can do just that—at this stage would be a retrograde step. As I see this, the next step here is close liaison between Executive Council and the boards of Tynwald, where boards will come to Executive Council and give us their proposals and we will give them the benefit of our views. We will listen to what they have to say, and in Executive Council they will not only learn of the views that Executive Council had on their particular proposal but of the background. There are two sides to this coin. We are not just talking about making money. We are talking about spending money, and as is pointed out here very clearly, we could be reaching a time when the greatest stringency will have to be exercised in the disbursement of public funds. So I think that is the next great step forward: close liaison between the boards and Executive Council. I think if we adopt that procedure we can make great headway forward in a co-ordinated approach that will in no way inhibit hon. members from standing in their own Branches and raising any question they think fit. I would strongly urge members to support the resolution as it appears on the Agenda. Time is not on our side, and by the adoption of this resolution we can take a very positive and worthwhile step forward.

Mr. Maddrell: Your Excellency, after many sheets of paper and scribble I now find that I have only come down to quite a few lines and I will not hold this Court up very long. I presume that when we have all finished today we have adopted the report and that is it. All I have heard quite honestly is a lot of manifesto speeches, and I must hand out to Mr. Kneale something that he said about 'you would let the experienced speak and the inexperienced like myself would follow on.' But I think this Court is in disarray. I am gravely dismayed that after one year of being here I have listened to the arguments that I have heard since yesterday afternoon, and I am quite upset about it, actually, because I do not think we are getting on with the job. As far as I am concerned, all the spe'eches have not been made about the adoption of this policy but they have been made to purely put their own political pet ideas on the floor, and we have heard quite a lot of them in the past few hours. I have a feeling coming through to me that there is power politics involved here, and I am very sorry it has happened. We should not be in power politics when we get inside this Court. We should be getting on with the business of trying to get the Island on a firm footing, be it unemployment, be it finance or any other thing you care to talk about. We should argue it in the proper manner, not making your own ends but getting on with the job. I ask myself: is Executive Council the cabinet as I have heard people talk of, and which the Press have a habit of printing? In no way do I see that, because their formation is not comprised of cabinet people who can exercise that control. You do not delegate authority downwards when the people that are there are not the people that are heads of departments that will go out and exercise your authority. I simply see them as a body who will co-ordinate government, and for Heaven's sake we put them there! You voted them there in this Court, so you must have voted the right people to do the job. Let them get on with it! I must congratulate the two members who must have sat for many hours trying to get this policy out. At least one thing is that the policy is on the floor and it has disturbed a lot of people; it is giving new thinking. I have only been here one year and I consider that policy to be the best thing that ever landed in my house, because by reading it I learned far more about government and far more about the policies of the future than I did sitting on the different boards I was on. I thank the members for this; at least it is an

Government Policy Objectives— Debate Concluded. TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982 T209

enlightenment. The discussions have been quite long and we have discussed many part of government, but underneath I still feel that this is Tynwald versus Executive Council. Can I go back to 16th June 1981, "Isle of Man Government Constitution— Motion Amended and Agreed," and it states:— "The two Branches should meet as one body to be known as Tynwald, and with all members having equal rights without any dividing barriers to deal with matters of finance and government policy." Providing we stick to those rules we have nothing to be afraid of. I will support the policy prgramme. I will use my own opinions and my own arguments to support and oppose it as I feel fit.

Dr. Mann: Your Excellency, I just want to speak very briefly for the amendment because I think there has been some misunderstanding by the suggestion in my speech which was taken up by the Speaker. It was to ensure that we got adequate feedback and a consensus of view for the future; it was not an attempt to fragment Tynwald, it • was the use of the only existing procedure that is available. If somebody is going to assure us that Tynwald can have an opportunity at some future time to do this, I am quite happy. It just happens that the Keys meet three times as often as Tynwald and is seen by the people outside to be the getting together of their elected representatives. I am unfortunately getting the impression that this attempt at consensus politics is failing, and we may ultimately just have to produce a positive policy and have it opposed if it needs to be. As far as burying our mistakes is concerned, there are in medicine some forms of death that are recognisable as mental before physical; also we do object to digging holes only to fill them in again, and I do not intend to be in one of them!

Mrs. Christian: Your Excellency, the hon. member for Garff has rather taken some of the points that I wish to make, in that when I read the White Paper relating to the larger document I have a feeling of impatience that we have not progressed any further than this. It has been clear since the last General Election that Tynwald felt that we have got to have some policy programme, and this document is an excellent basis upon which to build; but it seems to be that the White Paper, which was produced by a sub- committee of Executive Council, should have been submitted to Executive Council and Executive Council should then have put the flesh upon it. I cannot see that if we are continually going to go back to try and seek consensus, we are ever going to get it, and it must be, I think, essential that we have the constitutional change first which will give Executive Council the power to progress a policy before we can ever achieve anything on the basis of the Policy Planning Programme. So far as the White Paper is concerned no- • one, I imagine, could dispute the policy objectives, the maintenance of constitutional integrity, the effective utilisation of resources, increased efficiency and so on, but what I was hoping for was not the points that are made here but how we are going to do this. Let us get down to the nitty-gritty of it. It is quite clear from the debate yesterday that a number of members felt that we should have had a lot more constructive proposals in this White Paper. Again it comes back to the point: did Executive Council feel it was necessary to come back to Tynwald to get approval first of all for the policy objectives which no-one can disagree with? It is a pity, in my view, that they felt they had to do this and could not progress it further before they came to the Court. So far as the actual positive and specific proposals in the White Paper were concerned, there seems to be only one that springs out of the paper and that is in relation to the duty-free zone. The

Government Policy Objectives— Debate Concluded. T210 TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982 others are rather nebulous again and need more specific plans attached to them. It is clear, if this is adopted today, that the sub-committee and Executive Council are going to progress with that matter, I would simply ask here that you please do not close your eyes to the north of the Island and bear in mind that we have an ideal site at Jurby with potential for development of manufacturing industry and development of the community in that area. There is another point which I think impinges upon legislation which I think we are considering at the moment: there is a mention of an easing of restriction on immigration in certain sectors. This may well reflect on future changes in the Control of Employment Act. Are we getting the cart before the horse as far as this is concerned? What do Executive Council have in mind in this particular issue, and is it reflected in the Bill which is coming before the Branches now? This is something we do not know. One thing that I find most particularly interesting in this planning document was the policy planning section in the orange pages. What I think we must get on with • now is doing what we find in Section 2 of that policy planning document, set the objectives, take the long as well as the short-term view, but let us have it in specific proposals. The speech made by the hon. President of the Council yesterday was one with which I felt considerable sympathy. We need to know what the policy is going to be in connection with things like value added tax and tourism and so on, and it is quite clear that although boards may have their own pet projects there have got to be some priorities defined, and those priorities will have to be stuck with if we are going to make any progress. Until we have those priorities down on paper, provided by Executive Council, either agreed or opposed, as the hon. member for Garff has said, we are not going to make any progress at all.

Mr. Lowey: Your Excellency, towards the end of the debate it is quite right that all that needs to be said has really been said. Let me say straightaway that I support the policy document as produced and, as the Agenda Paper says, "to accept and to implement it." It is relevant in listening to the debate that we have had a far-reaching one and it has been educational in so far as we have heard some very good speeches,criticising and probing—that is what a debate is all about. Can I just comment, Your Excellency, on one or two because I think they really did make very relevant points and if I had been speaking at the very start I no doubt would have developed some of these points as well. The first one is that the nub of our problems as a Government—and that is what Tynwald is, the Government of the Isle of Man— is about employment, and this was put very forcefully by Mr. Norman Radcliffe, the hon. member for Ayre. He is quite right when he says that it is about employment. This document may be factual, but at the end of the day it is about employment and that leads on to the point raised by my good friend, Mr. Cringle, when he says that part of this document could actually develop social consequences in the Isle of Man, not by design, I may add, more by accident and default if we are not careful. The mover of the resolution said what we really require is a New Residents Policy, which was then watered down by his seconder, because those who propose the New Residents Policy Mark II, say there were many advantages with the first one, there were very serious disadvantages too when the policy was introduced. How quickly we have forgotten those disadvantages.Now what I do say, Your Excellency, is that also in this debate I have seen what I can best describe as boards trying to—what I would call—"do the estimates thing," in other words getting their oar in early for when the meat is being put

Government Policy Objectives— Debate Concluded. TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982 T211 onto the framework, and very clearly illustrated by my good friend from West Douglas, the Chairman of the Board of Education, who said that raising the school-leaving age will require capital expenditure as well as revenue expenditure, and of course it will.l tried to square that with the statement from the hon. member for Ramsey, who said that the only capital schemes that should go ahead are those that are self-financing. I am trying to answer Dr. Teare too: a priority for government is the rebuilding of the Mannin Infirmary, and how ever could that sort of capital expenditure ever become self- financing? It cannot, but what I do say is that this document should also be about earning money. Five-year plans are nothing new, hon. members, in fact one board actually produced this year, at estimate time, a five-year plan, notably the Health Services Board; it was introduced by Mr. Catlin, who for his sins was severely reprimanded by, of all people, the Chairman of the Finance Board, who eight months later comes back and says "Will you provide a five-year plan?" Now let that be a warning: if you are reprimanded in the spring time by the Chairman of the Finance Board, by autumn you will become the darling of his eye and you are doing everything right! But that aside, I believe this document is, in effect, about earning, and therefore it becomes even more important, because you then have to look at the facts that are placed before you; and the facts are, of course, that light industry produces 18 per cent. of our wealth, tourism 11 or 12 per cent. of our wealth, agriculture and fishing 11/2 per cent. of our wealth, and the big earner is the finance sector, and my word, there has been a dearth of discussion with the finance sector. I wonder why? I can understand why—far be it from me to put a cloud in the sky. What I am saying is that when we are looking at how we can earn our living in a very depressed economic world, I think you have got to look at where we are actually earning it and not wear blinkers. I can say, Your Excellency, as the leader at this moment of the tourist industry, that the tourist industry will earn more money for the Isle of Man the moment that this Government gives its equal, not special, treatment as industry and agriculture. I will not say finance, because finance does not get any special treatment, only the climate to work in. I am saying that as a fact. The Chairman of Executive Council in moving this report did say, touching on tourism, that there were perhaps splinter groups—if I misquote him I am sure he knows what I mean; I think I put it down as splinter groups and individuals who were at variance with the Tourist Board, and whilst I would like to say that in any industry you must get dissident voices there are certain people to whom change is anathema, but I believe the tourist industry has got to change and is changing of its own volition, and I believe that the Tourist Board's "open door" policy in inviting people in to discuss with us, before the decisions are made in policy, is the right one. I would say this to Executive Council: beware of people who come to you giving sob stories as a first line of communication and not a last line. The first thing I think Executive Council ought to ask everybody who comes to them is: have you been to the people whose job it is? That is what I like about this document, it recognises the role of boards and the proper way of dealing with things. I believe that this document is one of hope; I do believe it is one of directing members' attention to facts, and where we are earning our living and how we can best improve it in the years to come, and for that I support. I think the two architects deserve our congratulations, and I would say this to Mr. Speaker, because he made a very valuable contribution yesterday, and to Mr. President of the Council when he has doubts as to whether we are going to be hung by our own petard, saying that we will be told if we agree to this as proposed, "Never mind about

Government Policy Objectives— Debate Concluded. T212 TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982 that, you agreed to this." But paragraph 7.3 is quite explicit. It says "The overall conclusions of the committee are that Tynwald should, taking account of the information supplied in the Policy Planning Programme, commit itself to several strategic goals," and then illustrates it over the page, but the operative there, hon. members, is not "shall," but "should take account," therefore you do have that elasticity that I think is important. As I said, Your Excellency, it is all about creating an opportunity. I do not believe that you can dot the i's and cross the t's of over single item in Government for the next five years; that is not the aim of this particular document. I believe it is the vehicle to get us to a promised land and, as the hon. member for Middle said, the best model I have seen for a long time, and I congratulate the authors.

Mr. Anderson: Your Excellency, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat almost spoiled what I wanted to say, in that he was referring to something which in a sense was touching an area with which I have some concern; but if he wants to draw any comparisons he can turn this document up to page H3, and the comparisons are all laid out there for what they apply to each sector, as far as government assistance is concerned. I appreciate that there has got to be some across-the-Court discussion on a document like this, but I would seek for it to be a little more constructive than I think we have been. I think it is the easiest thing in the world to get us and knock, and I think there is a very real danger of our trying to tear ourselves apart rather than work constructively. I was thinking: if I were somebody who had listened to this debate sitting in the gallery, potentially an industrialist or a financialist who was going to set up an institution in the Isle of Man, I would be very confused as to what direction the Government was taking. What I want to do is to appeal to hon. members of this Court to forget their own little patch, their own board's importance, and to take a national view. I think it is so easy to see our own area, wherever it happens to be, being somewhat endangered by something new, and if it is Executive Council that is moving in some direction and giving a lead that was prior to this being given by a board of which I have been a member or chairman, then I maybe see that as something that is endangering my position as a member of Tynwald. I believe that our politics have got to rise above our personal ambitions, whether it is in the Keys or the Council or in the boards which we serve. I think we have got to take a national outlook; we have got to look to ways in which we can encourage all these sectors to establish and have confidence in the fact that we have got a grip of the problems that exist in the Isle of Man in relation to the development of its resources for the future; unless we have a policy which can create wealth, there is no way in which we are going to tackle the problem of unemployment to which the hon. member for Michael and others have referred. We have got to have resources; we have got to have the capability of uniting in an effort to attract the sort of people to the Island that are going to set up industry. If we are going to be looked upon as a town council or something like that, if there is wrangling amongst ourselves, then the people who have got the potential to give us the development are not going to have the confidence in us, and I believe that the success of this document, of the future policy for the next five years, rises above the office, the position or the board in which I or any other individual am going to serve. I think we have got to look at a national policy, a unified policy, and let us make a ladder to dig ourselves out of the hole, not bury ourselves deeper in it. I regret very much when individuals within the Court or outside the Court undersell the Isle of Man; there were

Government Policy Objectives — Debate Concluded. TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982 T213 some at a public meeting the other day who were saying how we were bankrupt, all sorts of rubbish like this. This is not the sort of thing that is in my view going to establish confidence in the Island in the future. We have got a very sound financial base, Your Excellency, a base on which I believe we ought to build, a base which should be widened and strengthened. Other people might write documents about us, and there are some we have seen that I do not think we have given too much credence to, but I think what we have got to look at is the situation as we see it, and as we see it we should give our whole backing to the Executive Council or whoever is going to lead in this way. I have been privileged to be a member of Executive Council for teens of years, and when we are dealing with any problem —and I hope Executive Councils of the future will do this— in relation to any board whatever, that board should be brought in and consulted fully with and given the opportunity to put every aspect of their case. It is co-operation, it is confidence, that we want to build, and I appeal to hon. members of the Court to forget our personal differences and work for the good of the whole of the Island.

Mr. MacDonald: Your Excellency, in rising I would like to say first of all that as a Council representative on Executive Council I wish to reassure the Court, and specifically the hon. member for Ayre, Mrs. Christian, that in fact what you have before you today is 100 per cent. backed by Executive Council. The sub-committee produced the paper; this was discussed in Executive Council, Executive Council went through the policy document, Executive Council I believe quite rightly said to take it to Tynwald, because if we had not taken it to Tynwald we would have been accused, probably today or next week or the week after, of not telling Tynwald what we were up to. This is why it has come to Tynwald right at the very beginning of planning. We brought it back to Tynwald and this is very important. Your Excellency, if I could just go through a few items that members have raised, with regard to Tynwald not always being in the picture I would suggest that perhaps we could look at it. Why not Tynwald sit once a fortnight? As a certain colleague of mine with a long experience here said, things happen at the late tail of the day which are rushed through, not properly considered, agreed, and a bulldozer comes in and we find later on that we should not have done it or we have done the wrong thing. So there is nothing to stop Tynwald, if they decide, sitting fortnightly, and I am quite certain that the Clerk of Tynwald's department can handle it. It may be that we will not get so much stuff on the Agenda. We will hack it away so that we do get the chance to quietly and properly discuss and look at what we should have before us. With regard to the unifications of boards, if I could answer this for my chairman. I sit on a particular committee and we have recommended unification of boards of Tynwald ever since we came into being. Two boards we think should be amalgamated, and amalgamated fairly soon, into a National Health and Social Services Board. Health and Social Services—they are part and parcel of the same thing in the United Kingdom; they could be here. They are often dealing with the same people. People who are ill need assistance. This could be done. I agree, airports and harbours could be done, nothing to stop it. Lots of boards could be amalgamated, but again it is up to Tynwald. We will come forward and I hope we will get the backing, which is obviously here today, to do it. With regard to the school-leaving age, I sat with the hon. member for West Douglas on the Board of Education when we came to Tynwald, and recommended to Tynwald that the school-leaving age should be increased and we were

Government Policy Objectives— Debate Concluded. T214 TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982 chased out of the door. We knew this would happen. Mr. Kneale has always said this would happen. It has happened, but not for want of trying on the part of the Board of Education; he tried, Mrs. Hanson, member of Council, tried; we have tried this for years and years, but we have been told that some people would want their children out of school at 14 if they could get it. It is Tynwald who will decide the school-leaving age, and I believe that it should be done and done very quickly. That is now a difficulty to cope with possibly, but I still think that under Mr. Kneale it could be done. With regard to unemployment, one of the problems I find, Your Excellency, is the wage structure in the Isle of Man. The wage strucuture is low; let us not kid ourselves or the public that there are good wages in the Isle of Man, because there are not. For large sectors of employment, the wage structure is low. In fact we tried to employ a man, a reasonable job under our agreed and allowed salary, we got 12 people who applied and no-one was interested. They are just as well off, with a family, drawing what they can draw from the Board of Social Services as they are working for the Harbour Board. This is the lower paid labourer, and this is another thing Tynwald, if they feel like it, can decide on. We cannot as a board do this, but Tynwald can do it. Someone has got to find the money, admittedly, but I think it should be done. I think the differential between the lower paid and the higher paid is getting far too far apart and we must carefully look at this. If Tynwald had a special day to sit and discuss this and nothing else, it would be worthwhile doing it, because these are the people who are suffering, not us, not the higher paid, not the wealthy new arrivals, but the ordinary Manx labourer and the Manx working people. With regard to new industry, what I would like to know there and I would like to suggest something to Tynwald: at the moment some boards of Tynwald submit reports every year, though one board I remember being on was something like 12 years behind in its report. We could do with a report certainly to Executive Council every quarter. You could stagger the boards' reports quarterly, but we could do with this, I would suggest to the chairman and to Tynwald, quarterly as to what they find their problems are, what they are progressing and how they are progressing in already agreed plans and schemes, because Executive Council must know what is going on. At the moment we do not know. We do not really know what individual boards are doing or how they are working, how they are progressing and how far they have got with already agreed plans. It is no big effort, and I am certain that boards could do it rather than try and sit down at the end of the year and do the lot. Another thing is the 12-mile limit; this is an international problem, it is a difficult one and I am quite convinced that the committee of Tynwald looking into this will get this as quickly as we can get it. We must get it because our fishing industry depends on it and lots of other things depend on it, but one thing I would warn the Court about: let us not be kidded into giving concessions to anybody in the 12-mile limit. Think carefully of what our brother islanders, very much our brother islanders, in the Orkneys and Shetlands did: £100 million in the bank or no concessions; a guarantee in the bank or no concessions. "Put your money where your mouth is, and then the Manx people will look at it and pick the best people for the job." It is very important that we do this, otherwise we can find ourselves giving concessions which will be used to give concessions to somebody else. The people who could do it must be the people capable of doing it and we must reap a large proportion of the benefits from it, and this is very important. Your Excellency, with regard to industry itself, I would like to know why we are not getting more industry. We talk about it, but there must be very good sound reasons. In an island with

Government Policy Objectives— Debate Concluded. TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982 T215 a 20 per cent. taxation structure, unemployment and very many advantages, we are still not getting what we want. Is it that they need bigger concessions? Is it that they need tax-free years, if necessary, to get them here? Is it that we need more skilled labour? I do not know, but I would hope that we could be told what the problem is by our consultants, because we have got to get them. Other countries offer tax-free concessions for years. What does it matter if everybody is working? If they are providing employment, this is what we need. The finald thing: I would ask the Lord Bishop, who seems to have had a problem shifting furniture—this is with my other hat on—if he would let me know the ship, the time, the date, the company that was operating it and what ports they were sailing from, and I will sort it out. Thank you very much.

Mr. P. Radcliffe: Your Excellency, I will be very brief because my hon. colleague by my side has clarified a lot of the points. I would like to emphasise from the very beginning that when we started on this project, the idea of the committee was not to specify in detail the policy. As the document says, it is a Policy Planning Programme, and we in Executive Council have no authority to actually decree what a policy is. Many members in this hon. Court have said, not only yesterday and again this morning, but many times before, that Tynwald is the government of the Isle of Man. The hon. President of the Council took the point earlier on, when I think he was the first to speak, that in this report there was nothing positive put forward to say, for example, that we would look at our European Economic Community agreements. If he would cast his mind back to 13th October 1981, when the Common Market Committee put their report to Tynwald, it said in that case that "In these circumstances the committee is of the opinion that the relationship as set out in Protocol 3 of the Treaty Accession should not be changed," and that was only agreed one year ago. The policy regarding agriculture has been accepted and agreed by Tynwald that in agriculture everybody will get comparable assistance as they get in the United Kingdom. Many other policies have been agreed. What we are saying is that we want to have the agreement of Tynwald to go ahead with approval of this policy system and the support that Executive Council should give a lead in doing it. I am very delighted indeed with the actual result of our discussions that have taken place yesterday and today. To see nearly every member in Tynwald participating in this discussion I have welcomed very much indeed. I would hate to be standing here in a situation whereby, as we do not have party politics, everybody said "agreed," as one hon. member tried to do before we ever started this discussion. To me that is going to get us nowhere. We want to face up to realities and accept the principle that has been put forward. I do not think there is a lot in detail that I want to comment on, except for one point that was made specifically by the hon. member, now my colleague on the Council, who referred to the dearth of comment in reference to the financial sector. To me there is no need for any dearth of comment. The financial sector has been a boon to the economy of the Isle of Man. It has helped all other sectors, and what we are saying at this moment is: how do we solve the problems of the other sectors? I certainly think that the financial sector is one that needs very little comment. It is going ahead and progressing and is in the very capable hands of our Finance Board who are looking after it through the Treasury, and I am certain it will continue to progress, but the other sectors do need attention and these are the things that we have got to be concerned about. The Lord Bishop also made a comment as to

Government Policy Objectives— Debate Concluded. T216 TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982 whether or not those people who had come to the Isle of Man to reside with us, people whom I support wholeheartedly, are getting the opportunity to put forward their case. Now on Friday of this week the Stability of Economy Committee of this hon. Court will meeting with representatives from the Chamber of Trade, and we spelled out to them very clearly that if we were going to co-operate with the Chamber of Trade we wanted a unified report from a specific committee of the Chamber of Trade: we were not prepared either as the Stability of the Economy Committee or as Executive Council Committee, to have an influx of splinter groups, as they have been referred to, coming before Executive Council and wishing to put their case. We wanted a co-ordination, and they in the Chamber of Trade have established a committee of which all or a large number of these people that my good friend the Lord Bishop mentioned have been brought into discussions, and I think this is one thing that we should be proud of within the Island over the past few years: we have co-ordinated the advice and benefit of nearly everybody that is available to us, and we do not want to set ourselves up as a Government thinking we know the answers to everything and ignore outside information. I think what has been said by many members gives me the impression that they do want Executive Council to give a lead, they do want it to be strengthened. I welcome very much their support; I do not support the amendment proposed by Mr. Speaker, I think if you support that idea we are not even going to get off the ground, which we want to do immediately to progress some of our very important factors that this committee want us to get on with. I wish, therefore, to move the adoption of this report and I hope for all your support.

The Governor: Hon. members, I will put the amendment which has been circulated standing in Mr. Speaker's name. Will those in favour please say aye; against, no.

A division was called for and voting resulted as follows: -

In the Keys—

For: Dr. Mann, Dr. Teare and the Speaker-3. Against: Messrs. Quirk, Cannan, J. N. Radcliffe, Mrs. Christian, Messrs. Catlin, Maddrell, Payne, Walker, Cringle, Brown, Ward, Martin, Kneale, Dr. Mci,ore and Mr. Cain— 15.

The Speaker: Your Excellency, the amendment fails to carry in the House of Keys, three votes being cast in favour and 15 votes against.

In the Council —

For: Nil.

Against: The Lord Bishop, Messrs. MacDonald, Moore, Radcliffe, Lowey, Kerruish, Anderson, Mrs. Hanson and the President of the Council-9.

The Governor: In the Council nine against and none in favour, the amendment fails. I will now put the substantive motion. Will those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it.

Government Policy Objectives— Debate Concluded. TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982 T217

PROCEDURAL. The Governor: Hon. members, in view of certain comments that have been made with reference to the subject of the Agenda, particularly for the benefit of our new member I read out the title of the item, and if anybody says "Agreed" this does not mean that the mover if he wishes to move the motion shall not stand up and move it and have it seconded if he so desires. Equally, any member who has a question he wants to ask that motion is entirely entitled so to do, but first the mover must move the motion. If nobody speaks at all but members are agreed, the assumption is that the mover does not particularly wish to move the motion, nor does anybody have a question to ask. I hope that this is the best way of furthering business without in any • way steamrollering the procedures. MANX DECIMAL COINS (TWENTY PIECE PIEDFORT COINS) ORDER— APPROVED. The Governor: Item number 8: Manx Decimal Coins Act 1970. I call upon the Chairman of the Finance Board.

Dr. Mann: Your Excellency, I beg to move: - That the Manx Decimal coins (Twenty Pence Piedfort Coins) Order 1982, made by the Finance Board on 27th October 1982 under section 2 of the Manx Decimal Coins Act 1970, be and the same is hereby approved.

A Member: I beg to second. The Governor: Is that agreed?

It was agreed.

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE ACTS (APPLICATION) (AMENDMENT) (No. 3) ORDER 1982—APPROVED. The Governor: Item number 9. Customs Er Excise Acts (Application) Act 1975 I call • upon the Chairman of the Finance Board. Dr. Mann: Your Excellency, I beg to move:— That the Customs and Excise Acts (Application) (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 1982, made by the Finance Board on 27th October, 1982, be and the same is hereby approved.

A Member: I beg to second. The Governor: Is that agreed? It was agreed.

Procedural. —Manx Decimal Coins (Twenty Piece Peidfort Coins) Order—Approved. — Customs and Excise Acts (Application) (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 1982 — Approved. T218 TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982

HIGHWAYS—SEVERE WEATHER-DAMAGE—SUPPLEMENTARY VOTE APPROVED.

The Governor: Item number 10. Highways, Supplementary Vote. I call upon the Chairman of the Highways and Transport Board.

Mr. J. N. Radcliffe: Your Excellency, I beg to move: - WHEREAS in the Budget on 18th May 1982 Tynwald approved of the expenditure by the Highway and Transport Board of f1,400,000 on ordinary maintenance and surface dressing of highways. AND WHEREAS during the current year exceptionally severe weather has resulted in extensive damage to numerous properties, the maintenance for which the Board is responsible. NOW THEREFORE Tynwald authorises the Treasurer of the Isle of Man to apply from the General Revenue of this Isle during the year ending 31st March 1983, a sum not exceeding £400,000, being the additional amount required to meet the cost of the more essential works of restoration. Your Excellency, I think I will have to go into this in reasonable detail to set the picture. The board's estimated expenditure under this heading in this financial year amounted to—and we put in in the estimates—£2,400,000, and this was in order to provide adequate funds for the repair of numerous roads which suffered severe frost damage last winter. Now this £2,400,000 was reduced at the budget time to £1,400,000. This vote was insufficient for the board's needs, because various roads were in bad need of repair, and I would mention in particular sections of the T.T. course and they were found to require complete reconstruction. This work is very expensive materialwise, because materials account for some 80 per cent. of the cost whereas the estimates for ordinary maintenance is based on 30 per cent. being material costs. Then we had in addition the exceptionally severe weather of late September last which caused extensive damage to numerous roads and some main rivers, and the sea wall at Gansey was subsequently breached during a gale on 17th October. This additional money is to enable the board to continue the work of repairing the frost damage caused to the roads last winter and also to undertake some of the more urgent repairs arising from flood damage as a result of the recent heavy rainfall. I would take this opportunity to forewarn this hon. Court that the estimates of the Highway Board must show an considerable increase next year in order to provide for repairing the remainder of the damage that it is not possible for the work force to deal with this year.

Mr. Brown: I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

Mr. Quirk: Your Excellency, I only wanted a clearer explanation of what this is all about, and I am glad that the hon. chairman did say that there will have to be an increase in the estimates for next year. One thing that does worry me is a private matter, and I really want to acquaint the House with a situation where a small farmer has had his road decimated where actually it interferes with his business. The Highway Board are partly responsible, the farmer who adjoins him is partly responsible because of falling hedges, et cetera. I did intend moving that we have an extra £2,000 on the estimates for this particular purpose, but I find I cannot do this. I would like to find

Highways —Severe Weather-Damage — Supplementary Vote Approved. TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982 T219 some way to help this young farmer in some respect, and I am in great difficulty as to know how it can be done. But there is a case here where we should do something about this, and if I can get some ideas from this Court or some assurance that we can at least use £2,000 of this £400,000 to do something in this respect I would be very grateful indeed.

Mr. MacDonald: Your Excellency, could I rise to support my colleague? This is a farm in the west of the Island. I am not blaming the Highway Board or blaming anybody, but it is partly as a result of action by a Tynwald authority. Here we have high sloped hill land, sloping very steeply down onto a main road. Now our ancestors built hedges in terraces across the hills to control the flow of water and also to control the movement of soil. In our wisdom— I do not know who did it or when it was done—a roadside hedge was opened up to create an extra entrance to a high farm. The result of this was that during the heavy floods the water poured down the road, turned left, went down the new road, washed away a stubble field completely, burst through a hedge and went down into what is a farm road and swept it away completely. It completely destroyed it, and went down onto the main road below and down into the river Neb. Not only that; another board of Tynwald which I am a member of does give money out—and this is a thing we should know about—to assist in improvements to farms, but in doing it it assists with money to take the hedges away. Now in this particular case a very large field has been created and five hedges, I believe, have been removed. Once again the result of this on a very steep slope: the water poured down across the fields, tore down the lane, and also created a very bad situation for this very Manx farmer, Manx generations back, and he cannot get help at the moment. It is not a new road that he is asking for help on, it is a road that existed which, due to the policies of Tynwald, has been destroyed. Your Excellency, there is at the quarry for the breakwater a vast amount of stone which we will never use. In getting out the large stone there are hundreds of thousands of pounds of smaller stones available and I think if any board, I do not know which board can do it—the Highway Board or whoever can do it ...

A Member: The Harbour Board.

Mr. MacDonald: "The Harbour Board" he said! Unfortunately, we do not own the stone at the moment, it belongs to the Forestry Board, and the people who look after roads are the Highway Board but, here again, it is what I have listened to this morning in Tynwald, people getting together and helping out people who are our own community, our own people. Surely we can pay for the wagons to convey some of the small granite down to fill in these deep rifts—some of them are 10 feet deep and they have been hacked right through this farm road—to get this farmer back in action. At the moment he cannot get his cattle to the main road unless he knocks through somebody else's hedge. He has got to take them all the way up to the top road and round almost to St. Johns and back up again. I am pleading with Tynwald Court and backing my colleague from the west to see if some board—and I am hoping the Highway Board— can get something done about it.

Mr. Anderson: Your Excellency, I would rise in support of the hon. member of Council, Mr. MacDonald in what he has said. This is almost a unique situation which

Highways—Severe Weather-Damage—Supplementary Vote Approved. T220 TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982 has been brought about completely by other people's actions, and somebody is in a position in which he just cannot help himself. I do think, though people may say it is setting a precedent, that it is a most unusual situation, and I appeal to the Chairman of the Highway Board, as he is aware of the problem, in case there is anything at all he can do. I am fully aware of the problems he has got in relation to the total road situation in the Isle of Man and especially in the west of the Island and, quite frankly, I think that the money before us today is completely inadequate, and at budget time he, or whoever is chairman of that board at that time, will have to come forward with larger sums of money. As I did say here yesterday when we were talking about the unemployment situation, rather than our creating jobs to give people to do which will be of very little benefit to the Island, to me it would seem the most reasonable thing that, where such need does exist and where such devastation to road exists, we should be diverting our manpower and resources to remedying those positions rather than jobs which are totally ineffective as far as costing is concerned in the Isle of Man. I feel the hon. chairman and his board should do what he can in this particular case and I would support him entirely as far as this project and problems in relation to the highways are concerned.

Mr. Maddrell: Your Excellency, a lot of money has been spent by the Isle of Man Highway Board and I respect that they have a lot of work to do, but what I cannot understand is why the Highway Board do not put out work to tender. There are people who can do this kind of work. I am not talking about the major construction of roads, but there are people who can build bridges in the Isle of Man and there are people in the Island who can reinstate footpaths, and they have people that are becoming unemployed as well. In the present day the price of things is very competitive, and I am sure that you can put out a tender to do a certain distance of footpath and get a very fair return. Is it the problem that the Highway Board has got that we have foisted upon them that they will employ all their staff? I do not want to see any Highway Board staff out of work, but if they have extra money then I would like that money used in the most efficient way possible, and that is in competition with other people that can do the work.

Dr. Mann: Your Excellency, there are some people in the Ballasalla area who suffered considerable flooding from the river which, if I understand correctly, the Highway Board was responsible for, Is it the intention of the Board to do any reconstruction work or clearance working in this river with this voted money?

Mr. J. N. Radcliffe: Your Excellency, if I can start with the Chairman of the Finance Board first of all—the answer there is that we are very well aware of the problems with the Silverburn. Work is being done at this moment on a part of it and a considerable amount of work is needed to be done, but at this moment a fuller survey is required. It is no use doing this here which is affecting something else further on, so a proper survey is required, and as soon as that full survey has been done and presented to the board, then we will be able to get moving, but I must say that it will not happen tomorrow; we must give a chance to our staff to do a proper survey of the whole thing. The hon. member for Middle, Mr. Maddrell —work out to tender. Well, had the Highway and Transport Board got the extra £1 million they had asked for at the start of the year there could well have been more work put out to tender. We have enough cash really for our

Highways —Severe Weather-Damage— Supplementary Vote Approved. TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982 T221

own staff, and to put work out to tender at this moment comes into a new field where you would have a board providing estimates for itself as against tenders, but the position would be that we would have to sack men to employ other people to do the jobs, and I do not think that would be correct at all. The three members connected with the west of the Island raised the point about the farm road being decimated, which indeed it was; but we on the Highway Board are much more aware of the problems than most that we as a board are now getting where properties and other things have been built, altered, which should never have been done. We have examples where field drains and open water courses have been interfered with and never reinstated, and they are giving problems. We have instances where flood banks and rivers have been levelled with no thought at all given to any future problems which may arise. They look delightful and desirable in the spring and the summer, but when this heavy or abnormal rainfall—Oh, dear, what problems there are then! That is when we get the outcry. To go back to the decimated farm road: my board certainly have a lot of sympathy, which is not worth much alone—sympathy is not worth an ounce of practical action— but we do know that what is required is to look at the Drainage Act 1934, and I have asked for this to be started, because that is the Act the board has to work to, and I know of several instances where activities on the high side of a person's property are affecting the person who has no say as to what is happening there, and I have asked for the Act to be looked at with a view to getting some form of action against people on the higher side of properties. The normal rule in law is that if you are on the low side you must accept the water that comes down from the high side, but we are getting into situations where, because of people's activities on the high side, the person on the low side is being very badly and drastically affected. Our farm road, to my mind, is a typical case but I think, in answer to the hon. member, that once the Highway Board moves outside what are strictly its statutory responsibilities we will be creating precedents which would be hard to resist in the future. I am very sympathetic; I might say that perhaps after today with a different hand at the helm the road may well be done tomorrow, I do not know. But we do appreciate the problem and if there is any way legally that the board can do it it will be done.

The Governor: Is that agreed?

It was agreed.

GAIETY THEATRE—FIRE DETECTION SYSTEM—EXPENDITURE APPROVED.

The Governor: Item number 11: Gaiety Theatre Fire Detection System. I call on the Chairman of the Tourist Board.

Mr. Lowey: Your Excellency, I beg to move:— That Tynwald — (11 approves of the installation of an Automatic Fire Detection System in the Gaiety Theatre at a cost not exceeding £11,000; (21 authorises the Treasurer of the Isle of Man to expend out of Capital Trans- actions Account during the year ending 31st March 1983 a sum not exceeding £11,000 for the above purpose; and

Gaiety Theatre— Fire Detection System — Expenditure Approved. T222 TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982

(3) sanctions borrowings not exceeding the sum of £11,000 being made by Government for the above purpose, such borrowings to be repaid within a period of ten years.

A Member: I beg to second.

The Governor: Is that agreed?

It was agreed.

MANNIN INFIRMARY ADMINISTRATION—EXPENDITURE APPROVED.

The Governor: Item number 12: Mannin Infirmary. I call on the Chairman of the Health Services Board.

Mr. Catlin: Your Excellency, I beg to move: - WHEREAS agreement has been reached between the Board of Social Security and the Health Services Board that responsibility for the administration of the Mannin Infirmary should be transferred to the Health Services Board. AND WHEREAS Tynwald in the Budget, 18th May 1982, approved of the Health Services Board incurring capital expenditure of £50,000 in 1982/83 for the refurbish- ment of Mannin Infirmary. AND WHEREAS the operational responsibilities have been transferred to the Health Services Board with effect from 1st October 1982. NOW THEREFORE Tynwald — (1 ) approves of the Health Services Board incurring expenditure of a sum not exceeding £235,160 to enable the Board to administer Mannin Infirmary from the date of transfer to the 31st March 1983; and (2) authorises the Treasurer of the Isle of Man to apply from the current revenue of this Isle during the year ending 31st March 1983, a sum not exceeding £235,160 for the purpose of carrying into effect the above approval. Your Excellency, I would like to speak on this. Members will be aware of the moves that have led to the Health Services Board assuming responsibility for the control and management of the Mannin Infirmary. The closing of the Mannin Infirmary would have created an intolerable burden on the existing serious geriatric bed shortage and this is what the Board of Social Security were in the process of actually doing. Tynwald did approve in the May budget capital expenditure of £50,000 for refurbishment of Mannin; and now the Health Services Board is running the Mannin, Tynwald has requested to approve the revenue finance for the remainder of the year to the 31st March 1983. This will not be an additional vote to that previously allocated to the Board of Social Security, but is merely a transfer of funds. I beg to move the resolution standing in my name.

Mr. Brown: I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

Mrs. Hanson: Your Excellency, I strongly support the resolution but there are just a few questions I would like to ask. I realise that this is money voted for the staffing and

Mannin Infirmary Administration— Expenditure Approved. TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER,1982 T223

administration for the rest of the period until the new Health Services estimates to Tynwald for the ratification of the Finance Board. I would like to ask whether, in this figure which is in the resolution, provision has been made for a fully qualified nurse to be on duty now or the full hour every day in the home, and I would like to ask also if the residents of the Mannin Infirmary now are going to have medical provision from the community doctors with whom they have been previously registered or are they going to have medical attention from the Consultant Geriatrician based at Noble's Hospital? I would also like to put in a plea here that when the Health Services Board are preparing their estimates they will give great consideration to the provision at Mannin for married couples. I do know there are separate rooms there. Now we have at the moment one or two—and they are increasing— human tragedies where an elderly couple are not able to look after themselves; they are not mobile, they cannot enter our care and attention homes run by the Board of Social Security and there are only two alternatives: one is the White Hoe where they are bedridden and the second alternative is the Mannin Home, and there we do have patients who are mobile. I would earnestly plead that rooms are set aside at Mannin where the married couples can be kept together, because it is a tragedy that at the end of their lives they cannot spend the remaining time together and are separated, which is happening at this present time. I would earnestly ask the Health Services Board to put an estimates figure in to provide this facility.

Mr. Callin: Your Excellency, on the last point I will give an assurance to the hon. member of Council that the Health Services Board will give every consideration to having as many rooms set aside to keep married couples together as is possible. With regard to the moneys that are now required, quite rightly these are required to run Mannin, to pay wages, light, heating and all the rest for the rest of the financial year. As regards to a fully qualified nurse on duty, I understand that Mr. Cringle can confirm that there is a qualified nurse on duty at all times at Mannin, but with regard to the staffing this is something that the Health Services Board will be taking a very close look at. Anyway it must be remembered that we have only resumed control since 1st October. With regard to the medical control at Mannin, it will be serviced by general practitioners as it has been in the past, but Dr. Rakshit will be responsible in future to the Health Services Board for admissions and discharges. I hope that answers the questions.

The Governor: Is that agreed, hon. members?

It was agreed.

GLEN MOOAR, LAXEY—DEHUMIDIFICATION OF HOUSES— EXPENDITURE APPROVED.

The Governor: Item number 13. Houses at Glen Mooar, Laxey. I call upon the Chairman of the Local Government Board.

Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, I beg to move: - That Tynwald approves of the Local Government Board carrying out a scheme for dehumidification of houses at Glen Mooar, Laxey, at an estimated cost of f20,000. (Reference Item 15 under the heading Local Government on page 12 of the Treasurer's Estimates 1982/831.

Glen Mooar, Laxey— Dehumidification of Houses—Expenditure Approved. T224 TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982

The Local Government Board has included in its capital estimates at the commencement of this year a programme for improving and ventilation systems in a number of houses and flats. The dwellings concerned, in the main, were built some 10 to 15 years ago in a period when energy was comparatively cheap. Central heating was the usual practice, and the popular view was that solid fuel was an old-fashioned and outmoded means of heating. The prevailing philosophy was that public authority tenants were as entitled to central heating as were those in the private sector, and that they should have access to modern fuels such as gas and electricity instead of coal. The Local Government Board therefore built a number of houses and flats designed to be heated by gas or electricity which did not have facilities for burning solid fuel. The board was not alone in this, and throughout the length and breadth of the United Kingdom similar properties were built. With rapidly rising energy costs the stored heating systems have become expensive to run. In general, where tenants have maintained heating standards, albeit at high cost to themselves, there have been few problems. However, high costs have led many tenants to abandon the designed heating systems or to use those systems sparingly; many have opted instead for paraffin heaters or mobile gas heaters which can be cheaper and which, because the fuel is stored in advance, accord better with the tenants' budgetary arrangements. The disadvantage of paraffin or liquid gas heaters is that they give off large quantities of moisture and in draught-free modern houses this can result in severe condensation problems. This is detrimental to the tenants' environment and ultimately to the fabric of the buildings themselves. It is in these circumstances that the Local Government Board has resolved to seek approval to improving the heating systems in some 200 of its dwellings. In the main it is at present proposed to try and alleviate the problems by installing solid fuel heating systems, and this will provide a means of heating less expensive than the existing gas or electricity and will provide natural ventilation to inhibit condensation problems. I can tell hon. members—and I know that many members have a particular interest in this subject—that we are presently in consultation with the Solid Fuel Advisory Service on designs for working into our house types appropriate installations. There are problems in designing the necessary flues and determining where they will go within the dwellings, but these problems can and will be solved. In the meantime we propose to deal with the 29 units at Glen Mooar, Laxey, in a different way. The solid fuel option is not open to us on this estate because of the practical problem of their geographical location and because of a planning restriction. Members should appreciate that the flats concerned are located at the western end of the Laxey valley on the righthand side of "Ham and Egg Terrace" as you travel towards the wheel. The dwellings are well below the level of the main road, and recognising the problem that this can cause with smoke from coal fires the Special Appeals Committee made it a condition when approving this scheme that there should be no chimneys, and we have therefore to look for an alternative solution; de-humidification is what we have chosen. The equipment is electric and not unlike the machinery of a refrigerator. Air is drawn into the de-humidifier and cooled, and the water vapour in the cooled air condenses and is discharged as water into a drain. The dried air is then recirculated into the dwelling not only with a reduced moisture content but also at a higher temperature. The de-humidifier is not built primarily as a form of heater; what it does is dry out the air, thus enabling the tenant to continue to use a variety of inexpensive but otherwise unsuitable forms of heating such as paraffin and liquid gas. We therefore give the

Glen Mooar, Laxey— Dehumidification of Houses— Expenditure Approved. TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER,1982 T225 tenants a choice between the installed form of heating, which is electric in this particular case, or one of the mobile heating systems without them or the dwellings suffering from condensation problems. The choice of this system has not been made without trial, and during the winter of 1980/1981 mobile units were tried for short periods in various of our dwellings with very good results. In January of this year a prototype permanent installation was put in at number 14 Glen Mooar, and its performance, particularly during the remainder of the winter, was monitored. Again the results were most encouraging. Conditions inside the dwelling were greatly improved, even though the tenant continued to use high moisture fuels, and the tenant has expressed her delight at the results. I visited this property and the tenant told me that she was pleased with the system. Based on the results of this scheme the board propose to install further units in all of Glen Mooar at a total cost of £20,000. The equipment operates automatically and requires no supervision or tenant's adjustment. It will not ordinarily be necessary during summer but will provide relief from condensation during the winter. There will be a cost in electricity to the tenant which will depend on the moisture being generated within the house, the weather and so on, and that cost is likely to vary somewhere between £1.50 and £3.00 per week, but that will only be during the winter period and will be offset by the other factors: the potential saving of fuel costs from the cheaper forms of heating and also the saving of damage to carpets and clothes—which has happened—and the reduced need for internal decoration. Moreover, the electrical energy used in the appliance is not lost, it is converted into heat and given back to the dwelling. Your Excellency, the Local Government Board accepts that our tenants at Glen Mooar have a genuine problem; their installed heating system has become expensive to run because of increased energy costs and the alternative systems which they are choosing to use are causing problems for themselves and the dwellings. We need to be able to offer our tenants realistic means of living in comfort and decency, and with the option of a solid fuel installation not open to us de-humidification offers the best practical and effective solution. I beg to move.

The Speaker: Your Excellency, I beg to second and I welcome this resolution wholeheartedly. The point I would like to make in respect of it is this. This illustrates one of the most colossal blunders in planning that the Local Government Board every perpetrated. It is not the chairman's fault or indeed the fault of the Chairman of the Local Government Board of the present day, but what you have here is an extreme illustration of a group of 200 dwellings that were built in the Isle of Man without any open fireplaces. This group in particular had other disadvantages; it is sited in the bottom of a glen. The disadvantage there relates of course to, not only siting, but as you, Mr. Chairman, have said this afternoon, it relates to the inability now to install a different form of heating in these premises in an effective form. I would say, hon. members, that at the time this development was envisaged it met with the wholesale opposition of the village commissioners who knew the site. It met with the opposition of the members for the constituency at public meetings but the planners, endorsed by the Local Government Board, went on to produce this development—a colossal failure. A failure, because these dwellings are not fit for year-round occupation and will not become fit; they will be fitter with de-humidification installations and so on, they will be fitter. But I am going to make a suggestion, and I think generally speaking the Local

Glen Mooar, Laxey— Dehumidification of Houses— Expenditure Approved. T226 TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982

Government Board will probably accept what I am saying today: Your Excellency, we know there are problems in relation to this site, we know it is not a suitable all-the-year- round site, at the same time these are modern in design, they have electric central heating, they are not big houses. The Tourist Board are looking for self-catering accommodation; these are only 10 to 15 years old. I would ask your board, sir, to consider in conjunction with the Tourist Board the possibility of creating some 20 alternative dwellings in the Laxey area, in Laxey preferably, to house the people that already dwell in these homes and to transfer the property to the Tourist Board for self- catering accommodation, utilising them most effectively in that way during the period of the year when they are really suitable for accommodation purposes. It is a thought which I believe is well worth consideration, meeting a housing problem in a true sense and meeting a requirement of tourism in a setting which would be very appropriate for that type of development.

Dr. Moore: Your Excellency, if I may ask the Chairman of the Local Government Board, does he have any reason to believe that people who cannot afford electricity for electric heating will be willing to run these units?

Dr. Mann: Your Excellency, the Finance Board themselves were very loathe to agree to this resolution actually going on the Tynwald Agenda today. We did so because we recognised that the Local Government Board were trying to reach the best possible solution but, as my hon. colleague has said, these people are not using their electric central heating because they cannot afford to and because they cannot afford to take the risk of running up large bills, yet we are going to provide them with a system which then should allow them to burn other fuels but then pay electricity to de-humidify. The whole thing seems to me to be a bit unacceptable to the tenants in these circumstances. It could be that perhaps, if this is a running expense which is entirely due to the fact that these buildings were not designed correctly in the first place, the pointing of these houses could in some way be adjusted to take into account this deficiency; on the other hand there is a further worry that we did allocate sums of money to correct these design faults in, I think, three estates in the Isle of Man; we are now in November, this is the first one, and I would like an assurance from the chairman of the board that these conversions in the other ones will be achieved before the end of the financial year, because we are now getting a state of affairs where we will be installing alternatives in the middle of the winter, and ordinary people are wondering what you are up to if suddenly you start ripping the places apart in the middle of winter to provide them with alternative forms of adequate heating. Now there must be an explanation; perhaps the chairman can assure us.

Mr. Moore: Your Excellency, I happen to be living in one of these bungalows and I was just issuing a word of advice, really. It is an excellent idea that Mr. Speaker has put forward. The only problem I see, sir and hon. members of this Court, is that if you leave these premises empty during the winter months I can assure you that the amount of damage that will be done to them, not from vandals, but from the fact that they do absorb the damp, will be tremendous and this is the only warning I would give to the Tourist Board. It is an ideal site, but they would certainly have to be very carefully watched during the winter months if they remained empty. It is the greatest difficulty in the world even while they are occupied to keep the damp out of them, and this is pure

Glen Mooar, Laxey— Dehumidification of Houses—Expenditure Approved. TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982 T227 and simple condensation, not damp going in; they are right down almost on the river bed there and in these particular houses— I have seen them and I remember the Local Government Board—all the woodwork inside has to be very carefully monitored as the damp does creep on them and it is going to be a problem for somebody if they are left empty.

Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, I would thank members for the general support and certainly Mr. Speaker for seconding the motion. Whether or not there was a blunder in planning or whether there was a blunder in design of the houses when they were built, in the light of today's knowledge and energy costs that is so and I certainly would not try and argue against that. There is a real problem in Glen Mooar and we are making an attempt to satisfy it. As I said, over 200 dwellings have been built without provision for fireplaces, 200 dwellings— not obviously 200 different house types— but many different house types, and so there are a lot of different design problems to take into account when trying to wrestle with this particular problem. The situation at Glen Mooar is not ideal; it is a poor environment for people to live in. I would suggest also that it is probably a poor environment for self-catering holiday accommodation, but I would certainly gladly talk to the Chairman of the Tourist Board about Mr. Speaker's suggestion; there is a problem, though, as far as the Local Government Board is concerned in acquiring more land in that area for housing and there is a need for quite a lot of public housing in Laxey and the eastern area of the Island. The cost of running these units, I said, would be somewhere between—and it is difficult to quantify—£1.50 and £3.00 a week during the winter; averaged out over the year it perhaps will not be a very great burden. The tenants themselves will not have a choice as to whether they switch them on or not, or at least should not have, although I dare say some will try! They will actually be plumbed in and wired in to the electrical system of the house. (Interruption). I do not know what the alternative is at the moment, there is an electrical heating system and the tenants choose not to use it, and so we have problems. If they have a choice whether or not to use the de-humidifiers, the chances are that they might not, that there will be a short-term saving at a considerable environmental cost. I would suggest, and this is something my Board has considered, that if the cost is exorbitant, then we may need to adjust the points value of the house so the cost of running these units is taken into account by a lesser rent; this is something we can do and will willingly give our mind to. To do that, of course, we need the concurrence of the Finance Board, but I am sure they would not withhold that concurrence.

Mr. Ward: Your Excellency, one point that does need clarifying, I think we have established the point through the people who have spoken on this motion and the Chairman of the Local Government Board that it is quite clear the fault lies with the construction and the site of the houses and the very environment which they are in. This has been proved abundantly by everybody who has spoken, and it has never been denied by the Local Government Board. Let us, for God's sake, make a gesture here! In my opinion we should not be talking and arguing about altering points, what should be done, surely, is that this de-humidifier, if it is going to accomplish anything at all and regardless of what the cost is, should be a landlord's service which should be wired into a meter and the Local Government Board should be responsible for it apart from any rent or points or anything else.

Glen Mooar, Laxey— Dehumidification of Houses— Expenditure Approved. T229 TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER,1982

Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, I would thank the hon. member for his advice. I would tell him that this is something the Local Government Board have taken into account, and if we find that there is a problem, then we can and will adjust the rent.

Mr. Ward: Dot it now!

Mr. Walker: That is possible. It is all right the hon. member saying "Do it now," we have got 200 different types of houses with this problem and the same solution cannot be achieved for them all, so let us try and be fair about this. I would hope, Your Excellency, just to wind this up, that we will be in a position to come to Tynwald in January with a further resolution to solve the problem for some more of our tenants.

The Governor: I will put the motion. Those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes have it.

BILL FOR SIGNATURE—REQUISITE SIGNATURES OBTAINED.

The Governor: I have to announce that the Apportionment Bill has been signed by a quorum of both Branches. We will adjourn until half past two.

The Court adjourned.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE—REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE ADOPTED.

The Governor: Hon. members, we will contime with item number 14 on the Agenda. I call upon the hon. and gallant member of Council, Mr. MacDonald.

Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Your Excellency. I beg to move:— That the Report of the Select Committee on the Desirability of Establishing a Public Accounts Committee be received and the recommendations contained therein be adopted. First of all before I start, hon. members, I would like to acknowledge the assistance that the committee has received from the Parliamentary Accounts Committee in London at Westminster. The Right Hon. Joel Barnet and Sir Albert Costain, of good Manx lineage, met us; the Clerk of the committee and the Director of Establishments and Accounts offered us every assistance and let us sit in at an actual meeting which was of great interest to us and we learnt a lot from it. Your Excellency, members will receive the copy of the committee's report dated 1st November in which we sought to enlighten them—if that is the right word—on the system adopted in the United Kingdom for ensuring Parliamentary control over the usage to which budgetary grants and supplementary grants in each financial year are put. The words there I would like to stress are "Parliamentary control" —for us of course Tynwald control, it being essential to good government to ensure that moneys collected from the taxpayers are publicly seen to be applied without undue waste or extravagance and with the object which Parliament or Tynwald prescribed. With regard to pages 3 to 10 of our report, in explaining the system operating in the United Kingdom we accept that dealing with a highly sophisticated industrialised state of 65 million people does require a very highly

Bill for Signature—Requisite Signatures Obtained. — Public Accounts Committee— Report of Select Committee Adopted. TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982 T229 sophisticated auditing procedure, but this does not necessarily apply to the financial affairs of a population 1/1000 the size. However, size, we believe, does not necessarily remove the need for very strict control of public funds, and in fact it possibly becomes more important than ever where private and public incomes are lower, yet the social needs of the people are the same; Parliament or Tynwald must have a very tight grip on public expenditure. The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association study group which met in London in September 1979, when considering the performance of Commonwealth Parliaments, generally agreed that they were very inadequate and patchy in Parliament's scrutiny of public finance and the control over it. More and more the stress has been placed throughout the Commonwealth and the Western world on the Government obtaining value for money; it is very important indeed that when we vote money we do get value for money. We have briefly given an account of the system operating in our Island, drawing your attention among other matters to the fact that the government-appointed public auditor's task is to carry out simple financial and regulatory audits; although they may allow or disallow items of accounts they are not asked to comment on failure to get value for money, nor waste nor extravagance. Nor do I remember in 16 years in this Court seeing any such comments made by them. We believe they should be able to draw the attention of any failings to a Public Accounts Committee and to the Treasury. One other item which came to our attention during our discussions was the seemingly amazing fact that Isle of Man Civil Service heads of departments or secretaries of boards apparently do not get a letter from the Treasury on their appointment drawing their attention to the fact that their appointment carries with it responsibility for safeguarding public funds in their board or department and ensuring its application only for the purposes intended by Tynwald, and this responsibility rests with them as part of their responsibility for their department. Now this is a very interesting thing; I have sat on the Civil Service Commission and, quite frankly, it never entered my mind that we appoint a senior civil servant as head of a department or a board, and yet nowhere is he told what his responsibilities are in regard to finance. This was very clearly brought to my attention, when I asked a very senior civil servant whom he did think was responsible for controlling the money; he said, "The politicians, they are the board." Now, if we are spending our time watching the correct control—which we have to do occasionally— of the spending of money in dribs and drabs and small amounts ... I can remember the days when I went on to the Harbour Board initially when the chairman of the board signed every cheque because it looked good in Ramsey when it came to elections that he was signing the cheques when they were being paid out. He used to sign the lot, but it is not our job to do this, and possibly this is why we get so involved in day-to-day administration. In recommending my committee's proposals be adopted I would accept, and I think my fellow committee members would also accept, that our summary on page 18 is subject to such amendments based on experience as Tynwald or the committee itself may from time to time desire to be necessary, and these can be made by a resolution of Tynwald. It may be, for example, that you would consider in such a small assembly as ours, Tynwald Court, that the trend to make certain board chairmen, in addition to the other post holders, exempt from other duties is being taken a bit too far in recommending exempting chairmen of standing committees from other responsibilities. Possibly the committee should consist of a panel of five, nominated by the Selection Committee— I think this is important— of five members of Tynwald: senior members or those with special experience, putting

Public Accounts Committee— Report of Select Committee Adopted. T230 TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982 through any junior members for the experience; three, we believe, should be a quorum. They could elect their own chairman, which happens in other areas; in some Parliamentary assemblies of the Commonwealth the chairman is elected directly and exempt from other work, but we bplieve that it could possibly be the Chairman of Executive Council who serves on no boards at all; I believe, in a properly organised Executive Council and Tynwald, the final responsibility for good government rests with Executive Council, with Tynwald and with him. He is not on any board, so he is not involved in the day-to-day expenditure of any board, so that is a possible answer to the problem of taking une more man out of the 32 and saying, "You are exempt from anything else." I hope hon. members will appreciate that it is not the task of the Public Accounts Committee to carry out witchhunts—this is very important: no witchhunting, and this was stressed very forcibly to us in London— into any matters drawn to its attention by the public auditors or by internal Treasury auditors or an item it decides itself to investigate. Nor will the Public Accounts Committee investigate policy decisions of Tynwald, nor statutory boards, but carefully examine the way in which the policy decisions are carried out, particularly regarding expenditure control. Its reports and comments would be passed to the Treasury who would prepare the Minutes, recommending what action should be taken to avoid repetition or failings. This Treasury Minute and the Public Accounts Committee report would then be placed before Tynwald members for their information and such action as Executive Council and Tynwald may decide. In the United Kingdom this is usually done before the Christmas recess, and the debate on this, if necessary, takes place in the January. I wish to point out that the meetings of the Public Accounts Committee need not be regular but can be held as necessary and would normally be held in public, with the public and the Press able to attend. This my committee believe, as all Parliamentary Parliaments agree, to be absolutely essential in a free society. The only exception to this would be when matters of national security or commercial confidentiality are being considered. The decision as to what should not be considered by a Public Accounts Committee is always left to them freely to decide and they must be trusted to decide. Finally, it is not just simple government accounts they look at but all accounts involving the use of public funds; it is not just Tynwald accounts but any other accounts where Tynwald money has been handed out and I beg to move that the report placed before Tynwald today be accepted and approved.

Mr. Callin: Your Excellency, I beg to second the resolution put forward by the hon. member for Council. As a member of the Select Committee I naturally fully support the report which is now before you. The case in favour of setting up a Public Accounts Committee is well presented, I believe, in this report, and the obvious purpose behind the proposal would be to help cut down on waste and to ensure that the Government get value for the money that it spends. We are all well aware that the current financial situation is such that we are in very real danger of having no alternative but to cut back on essential services unless control on Government spending is tightened considerably. We just cannot afford any more to allow some of the things which have gone on in the past. Yesterday and again this morning we have been giving consideration to that very important document entitled Policy Planning Programme. The main object of that document is to improve our standard of government, to get our priorities right and to be more efficient. There were criticisms that it contained no positive proposals; some

Public Accounts Committee— Report of Select Committee Adopted. TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982 T231 even went so far as to call it weak. Similar criticisms, Your Excellency, cannot be levelled against this resolution, because it does contain positive proposals. This report, together with the recommendations contained in it, is important, in that it is an attempt to ensure that the taxpayers through Government will receive value for money by making boards and their executives more accountable. We all had to listen to a lecture on authority and responsibility by the hon. member for East Douglas yesterday; much of what he said I do not accept, but I do believe that all those in Government, either members of Government or on the staff of Government who hold positions of authority, should be accountable. A Public Accounts Committee would certainly make those in- volved with Government spending much more accountable. Whilst most Governments, certainly Commonwealth Governments, now have such committees, it is all the more important in the Isle of Man where no Government opposition as such exists. It cannot be emphasised too strongly that a Public Accounts Committee would not inter- fere in any way, as I think the mover put forward, with policy decisions of boards, but it would be a check, as has been said, I think, in the previous debate, on how policies are carried out. The Finance Board has already given notice of the financial restrictions which will have to be applied for the coming year, and so I believe the timing is right for this resolution. The more money that we can prevent being wasted, the more that will be available for the essentials, and this is what I believe this resolution is all about. No doubt there are those who genuinely feel that a Tynwald Committee of Public Accounts would be of little or no benefit, and there will undoubtedly be those who will fear that this could be the start of another Civil Service empire. I can give an assurance that I would be one of the last who would be associated with any proposal which is likely to bring about any unjustified increase in the staff of Government. The Public Accounts Committee in London has a very small staff indeed, but we were told it was very effect- ive. I feel certain that we should have no difficulty in servicing a Public Accounts Committee from existing staff. As to the benefit of such a committee I only wish that those who have any doubts could have listened to a debate entitled "Parliament and the Scrutiny of Public Finance" which took place during the recent Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference in Nassau. The main purpose of sending dele- gates to these conferences is to learn what goes on in other governments. I have brought back with me copies of four speeches which I found of particular interest, all strongly supporting the principle of scrutiny of public accounts. Obviously to read the four speeches would take far too long but I will quote from two of those speeches, the first by the Australian delegate and the second by the United Kingdom delegate. The Australian delegate did say, "I do think there is also a need for the public to be involved. As Parliamentarians, while we may not always be called to account for the actions of the Executive, we are often called to account for the actions of the public service and the departments under that Executive. It is important, I believe, that the public have access to it so there are the Public Accounts Committees, where they are operating throughout the Commonwealth. I do believe in an area where the public can become involved through a process of being a witness pro the public expenditure. I just go back as a reference to the importance of this subject, which I do believe is probably one of the most important that we will be handling during this conference, to the aspect of Parliamentary scrutiny whether it be by opposition, by the Auditor-General, by the committees helps to make the executives in their modern form of government more accountable through the Parliament to the public itself. This is connected with the

Public Accounts Committee— Report of Select Committee Adopted. T232 TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982

openness of Government in any democratic society. I just want to quote from a Canadian rule commission in connection with this matter which I think is very compre- hensive. The process of scrutiny, surveillance and public exposure and debates helps to legitimise the actions of Government to the public. The current widespread hostility to big government can partially be explained in terms of a breakdown in the public belief in the appropriateness of government spending. This in turn can be ascribed to the existing arrangements to permit Parliament on an informed basis to undertake an open, compre- hensive review of Government expenditure and a comparison of results against stated goals. This failure on the part of Parliament to legitimise government extracts a price in public trust which both Parliament and other governmental institutions are called upon to pay, which ultimately we all pay. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest there is a lack of public trust in the way that we account to them for public expenditure. I would suggest that the ones who are paying at the moment are the Parliamentarians themselves through the manner in which they are viewed by the people. I can only suggest that the forms that are now available be left open and expanded to the greatest possible extent where Parlia- mentarians are allowed their ultimate right to survey and to scrutinise that expenditure." I have just extracted a much shorter piece from the speech of the United Kingdom dele- gate. He says, "It is a pleasure also to be able to contribute to this debate, because it gives me an opportunity to pay a tribute, which I think all delegates would wish to join in doing, to the special working group which was set up after the 1979 conference Inter-Parlia- mentary Scrutiny of Public Finance. That study group was chaired by the Right Hon. Edward DuCann, a colleague of ours in the British Parliament and was composed of a number of eminent Commonwealth members of Parliament. The report was, I think, interesting, in that it concluded that Parliamentary scrutiny of public finance, while differ- ent in member states, is broadly both inadequate and patchy, and that is the thrust of the argument which I wish to place before this conference, because I believe, while there has been welcomed progress in a number of countries in recent years, we have a long way to go in really scrutinising, really controlling, not only the quantity but the quality of public expenditure. I believe this is an issue that really goes to the heart of our Parliamentary system, for while we legislate and regulate and affect people's lives in non-monetary ways the historic power of Parliament to grant supply to Government is one of our most basic elements of power. It is why we are taken seriously and it is an enormously important responsibility of trusteeship." Hon. members, by voting for this resolution today you will not be walking down an unknown road, but by voting against it you will certainly be out of step with the majority of your Commonwealth colleages.

Dr. Mann Your Excellency, also as a member of this committee I think I ought to add some comment, as there are some things that have not been mentioned so far. Firstly, I think it is true that previous Finance Boards have resisted the idea of having a Public Accounts Committee for a variety of reasons, one of them being that the Finance Board technically has the power to scrutinise boards' and departments' expenditure in any case. I think the difference here is the word "public". Secondly, it has always been assumed that any Public Accounts Committee that would be set up in the Isle of Man would also be serviced by an Auditor-General's department, that is, the government audit would be transferred from the present private auditing system to a full department of Government, to a new department known as the Auditor-General. Previous Finance Boards and this Finance Board would resist entirely the setting up of such a department because it would

Public Accounts Committee— Report of Select Committee Adopted. TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982 T233

be yet another empire growing up within Government; we are not dissatisfied in any way with the present system of auditing and I would like to underline that. The present system of auditing is a straightforward audit related to statute; that is, the government auditors carry out an audit to see if the expenditure of the boards has been authorised by the necessary statute or consent. It is not a cost-effective audit which is the new style of auditing, that is, to audit expenditure to see if it is actually cost-effective. To change from one system to the other would vastly increase the expenditure on auditing services, and it is presumed in this report that we do not set up an Auditor-General's department, and this is the first difference between this and the United Kingdom; secondly, that if this Public Accounts Committee want to make a particular scrutiny of a particular expenditure we would have to use the government auditors in a different way to the way in which they have been used at the moment, that is, this committee would have to call on the auditors to carry out a cost-effective audit of a particular function. Now in a small way this may not • be too much additional expenditure; but if it is carried out very frequently it would very considerably increase the expenditure of auditing and so one has got to consider where the benefits are against the cost. There is one other factor I think that ought to be men- tioned, and that is that in public accounts committees in general, as has been mentioned both by the mover and by the seconder, it is only the senior civil servant, the chief ac- counting officer, that has to appear before this committee and justify how the expendi- ture has been carried out. That is a fairly clear cut responsibility where you have a minister- ial system of government, but it becomes blurred at the edges where we have our present board system where a lot of boards with five members, for instance, really do carry out quite a lot of interference—if I might put that as a purely technical meaning —they act- ually take part in the direction of the affairs of the board. A minister in a large admin- istration would be responsible to Parliament for that department or ministry, but he has very little function in interfering or involving himself in day-to-day expenditure of his department, and I think that the one danger we may run into here is that we may not be able to isolate a senior civil servant; we may be able to give him the responsibility, but he may opt out of that responsibility quite validly by saying that a board or a chairman ordered him to do something or the board changed policies or expenditures and so on, and then we would be up against the difficulty of possibly having board members appear- ing before the Public Accounts Committee. I am not bringing these matters forward to ask you to vote against it, because I am actually fully in support of the report that is laid before you. This probably will be the first Finance Board that will go along with the suggestion of a Public Accounts Committee as it is proposed in this report because it does not set up a new department of Government, but I think, if it is approved, it will take some little while to work out its true function. It is very easy to say it is not going to be a witchhunt, and it will need a fairly strong chairman, I would have thought, to resist it becoming a witchhunt because anybody will be able to refer anything to it; any member will be able to refer things to it, as I understand it, and any critic of a board's expenditure obviously may well raise this matter before it. The main difference between the function of Finance Board as it exists at the moment and its responsibilities at the moment and this committee is that this committee will be in public, and I would hope that none of its deliberations are carried out other than in public and so its main deterrent effect—and I would say its deterrent effect is its greatest effect—is the fact that examination would be carried out in public. But this area of responsibility is the one that is going to be most difficult to define and the level of its operation, if it is approved, will be a growing thing as decisions are taken. I think it is

Public Accounts Committee— Report of Select Committee Adopted. T234 TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982 true to say that I would certainly support fully the chairman and other members of this committee in this report. It is really for members to decide whether in fact it is worthwhile and justifiable with the obvious areas of disadvantage which I am afraid will become evident unless the cases that are investigated are selected both carefully and responsibly.

Mr. Delaney: Your Excellency, I think members should vote for this report, not be- cause someone Australian, as quoted by the hon. member for Middle who then quoted a Canadian and then quoted an English Member of Parliament, thinks it is right; we should vote for it because a catalogue of mistakes—even yesterday at question time—were high- lighted. The honest figure and the true figure was quoted by the mover when he said 1000 to 1 ratio. When this Government squanders £100,000 it squanders a million in equality to our counterparts across the water, that is why we should vote for it, not because somebody is good at reading quotations from somebody else's speeches. I think the situation is that members will have to decide how this should be carried out, not if it should be carried out, and there is only one particular aspect I think is important: that the two members who I think should sit with the Chairman of Executive Council —because this policy follows his policy that was debated last night and this morning —should be two independent mem- bers who are not members of their particular boards, who then have to sit there looking after their own backyard and at the same time criticise other people's backyards. They have to be independent, Your Excellency, to make this work and they should sit under the chairmanship of the Chairman of Executive Council, because he is responsible with his colleagues, as we have been talking about this morning and last night, for the long-term policy. When it comes down to really sorting out the stoppage of squandering the public money, are these three, or five, or six gentlemen to turn round and call you to account publicly, as has been stated, because if that is so there are certain chairmanships in this Government which, as it is at the moment, nobody is going to want. I saw it happen after the last election in this Court and I will see it happen again: certain chairmanships are very easy to sit in, certain things cannot be criticised by the public and I will give you a list: - Health, Social Security; these will not be criticised by the public, they need them, they accept them, they deal with them. Other boards have not got the same priority or the same privilege; they are dangerous to be in if this is to be in operation. I name them: - the Tourist Board, the Local Government Board; who is going to want these jobs if some member can call them to account publicly for some mistake made by a department of his board? You have a think about it, members, and if you think like I do you will know in the long term; it is an excellent idea, but make it independent from the Court itself by putting two members with the Chairman of Executive Council in charge of it, otherwise you will be scared to look over your shoulder, you will be afraid of what you are going to see. There are certain chairmanships you are safe to be in and there are certain chairmanships you are not safe to be in, and everyone will be jockeying for those positions. When this comes into operation and when things get difficult, more difficult than they are now, an easy scape- goat will be the man they call in and ask, "Why did you spend that money? Why was it used for this purpose?" It happens at Westminster—and do not think they are all so perfect in the Westminster Parliament, they are not. Even only 18 months ago their fin- ancial institution lost how many million? and they were actually the Crown officers, and they squandered the money away, and yet they had this marvellous system in operation. £126 million, if my memory serves me right; they squandered that, no comeback to any- body. We will vote for it because we need it here in the Isle of Man. We have seen money

Public Accounts Committee— Report of Select Committee Adopted. TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982 T235

squandered and wasted: Onchan School, not a stone upon a stone was laid and we have talked about— how many thousands? £400,000? That is equivalent to £4 million in Britain, squandered! Summerland — I understand there is a large account which still has not been settled there and is not going to be paid or might not be paid: £700,000, equivalent to £7 million. I can go on cataloguing them: the Queen Elizabeth School —all the plaster fell off the walls; who came back and paid for that to be done again? Was it paid by the con- tractors? We do not know, but not to my knowledge. I suppose it was paid for by some- body; was it the public? These are the things that you will be pulled up for, and you will have to sit there and answer questions on, and if you go through the history of the last ten years of the Government because of our non-control as I said yesterday, which the hon. member for Middle disagreed with. These are the sort of things you are going to be called to task for and you are the ones who are going to answer. The Chairman of the Finance Board has turned round and said, rightly so, that certain members and certain boards have to change policies that executives do not like or do not want. But surely at some time with the system we operate that has to be done, otherwise it is not worth having the boards there at all. If they want a policy and the chairman wants a policy and his coll- eagues join him and the civil servants do not want a policy, which policy do you follow? They have said that Tynwald Court is the Government of the Isle of Man, so the members, the politicians are the people who have to make the decisions, even on expenditure. Vote for this, hon. members, because we need it, not because everybody else has got it but because we need it. I think this afternoon it will go through, but then think how it is going to be operated, and member in a few years time my remarks of this afternoon, and re- member my remarks about what happened at Onchan School when I questioned about the architectural concern in this very Court and everyone turned round and said "No, no, no!" That is how long ago? Two years ago; I questioned the whole lot ...

Mr. Callin: You were not the only one.

Mr. Delaney: I know I was not, but unfortunately I was not in a privileged position to do something about it then. I might be in the future, but you remember what I have said this afternoon.

Mr. Cain: Your Excellency, I think we are in danger of moving away from the principal purpose for which a Public Accounts Committee is going to be set up. I would read from the report on page 7, where you are discussing the Public Accounts Committee's work in the United Kingdom, "In more recent years, therefore, the Public Accounts Committee's field of interest in the control of expenditure has extended much more widely to the elimination of waste and extravagance, the encouragement of sound practices in esti- mating, contracting and financial administration generally and the need to obtain value for money." Now it does seem to me that this is the kernel of our need for a Public Accounts Committee. We know full well by virtue of the highly able auditors that Govern- ment has that the figures add up; we know perfectly well that the Treasury keep a very active eye on what I call the global accounts of boards. I can recall being on the Ramsey Commissioners when there were deficits and there were certain discussions which took place between the Commissioners and Treasury which were highly stimulating, but I think the most interesting point that came out of that was that, while at that particular time the Ramsey Commissioners' accounts were in deficit and the Treasury rightly pointed out that this was so and they had to do something about it, there was nobody from Govern-

Public Accounts Committee— Report of Select Committee Adopted. T236 TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982 ment actually investigating as to why the situation had arisen. So far as I can see from my experience in Government there are a number of boards where there is waste taking place, not waste because they are deliberately wasting money but waste because the control systems are quite inadequate. Waste can derive not merely from a decision which goes wrong, but it can be derived from a decision made with inadequate or incorrect information, so the quality of the information flow upon which decisions are made is of crucial importance. The waste can also happen from a dislocation of management, where in fact, as the Chairman of the Finance Board has correctly pointed out, people do not recognise their functions, and the result is a dislocation of the management systems, and the result is that bad decisions are made and good decisions which should have been made are simply ignored. So I perceive the function of this committee to be much wider than simply looking at the way the money has been spent; it must look at the way in which decisions are arrived at to spend money, the basis upon which decisions to invest are made and, if I may say so with a certain amount of feeling —and I am sure that the hon. member of Council, Mr. Moore will sympathise with this view-1 am quite certain that if the information flow system in the Electricity Board had been a little more adequate in recent years, some of the decisions that were made would not have been made and some of the ones that we nearly made would certainly never have been nearly made. I perceive that this is the most important function of a Public Accounts Committee. Turning now to the membership of the committee, we are of course in a problem area here, because of the way in which the boards are made up. It is proposed there should be a chairman to be elected by Tynwald who should not be a member of a board or other body, the accounts of which may be considered by the committee. It has been suggested that the Chairman of Executive Council should be that person. I disagree. In my view the Public Accounts Committee should stand absolutely separate and apart from Executive Government; in my view there is only one person that I can think of in this hon. Court whom I would be entirely happy to propose and see as chairman of a Public Accounts Committee, and that is Mr. Speaker. I consider that the panel of five other members should be elected by Tynwald and not be selected by the Selection Committee. I think it is very important that the process of selecting this committee be taken by this Court and should not in any way be contaminated by Executive Government. Mr. Lowey: Your Excellency, I should like to say at the very start that I support this report, I think it is excellent. I supported it when it was defeated in the last House and I was delighted to see that this House has set it in motion yet again and it has been successful, so my support is total. I only rise to my feet to have an assurance from the mover of the Bill again about the membership in the summary of recommendations. I am a little perturbed that we would appear to be putting yet another member of Tynwald in a vacuum, because the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee who has been elected by Tynwald could not be a member of a board or any other body, the accounts of which may be considered by the committee, so really I find that under our present arrangement that that is almost an impossibility, and I just wonder and would seek an assurance that the recommendations that we are being asked to approve are adequate to meet what we require, and if I can get that assurance I am very happy, but I think we ought to have that assurance.

Mr. P. Radcliffe: Your Excellency, when I read this report and I heard the comment that the Chairman of Executive Council should be the chairman of this committee my immediate reaction reminded me of the story of the chap who was once a poacher turned

Public Accounts Committee— Report of Select Committee Adopted. TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982 T237

gamekeeper, because when I was on the Finance Board I strongly objected to such a thing and, as the present Chairman of the Finance Board has said, there is ample provision under the Finance Act for this to be done. However, having said that, I am not going to oppose the resolution today for the simple reason that I visualise that when our policy plan will be implemented and closer co-operation will take place between the boards of Tynwald and Executive Council I would sincerely hope that the duties of this committee, if we can have one, would be almost eliminated. The point was made by the hon. member that in the past boards have possibly been doing things in isolated pockets without coming forward and making known to other departments of Government, specifically Executive Council, what they intended to do, and I think that it would be very rarely that this committee would be required. I am very pleased at the suggestion that has come forward that some other member of Tynwald, if it has to be a member of Tynwald to do this job, will be doing it and not myself, because I think that in the future in Executive • Council our job will be to look at overall control and not to do this situation. I will support the resolution; I sincerely hope they will never be required and I have confidence that it can be done under the present situation that we have.

Dr. Teare: Your Excellency, I support all that my colleague, Mr. Cain has said, and with that I cannot resist the temptation just to point out that the proper implementation of the system of planning, programming and budgeting is expressly designed to prevent the squandering of public money. To quote the cost of Onchan Shool only strengthens this view because a fuller appraisal of the educational needs before starting a policy of building a school at Onchan might have prevented the loss of any money.

Mr. MacDonald: Your Excellency, I would thank the hon. Court for taking this so easily today. We have spoken about it twice before, and I would specifically like to thank my two colleagues, Mr. Callin of Middle and Dr. Mann of Garff, the Chairman of the Finance Board. I think we see eye to eye on what we want; it is a very difficult subject trying to bring this organisation we require down to our Lilliputian size, but we still believe it is necessary and it should be done. With regard to my colleague for Douglas East, Mr. Delaney, I think he got a bit off track here, he started to get into the realms of policy and, as I said at the beginning, policy decisions have nothing to do with the Public Accounts Committee; these rest with the boards and with Tynwald. Naturally, I did expect the sup- port of Mr. Charles Cain of Ramsey because he sees what goes on more clearly than most of us; he spends most of his life looking at things like that. I think that this committee when appointed should draw up a set of rules which they can give to Tynwald as to the way they intend to proceed. We are merely deciding today on the principle of the issue. We still • have got to decide who are the people on it and perhaps by a little bit of experience, the best way of running it in the Isle of Man. One other thing that did come up is what happens when a board takes no notice at all of the secretary or the chief executive of the board, who gives him advice that what they are intending to do is contrary to good public accounting and good financial control. I once had this situation myself; this was a minister in a ministerial system, where my minister thought he could spend money galore in a new colonial free territory and thought money was there for the having and the burning, and when I pointed out to him that when he would not take my advice he would have to sign a piece of paper for me to say that he had overruled the advice I have given him and what I was advising him, he decided he would not go ahead with the project. This is where the civil servant has the get-out and this is what he should be given. If he is responsible for

Public Accounts Committee— Report of Select Committee Adopted. T238 TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982 advising his chairman and his board on the correct procedure and method of going about a particular project, from the finance point of view, he should have the right to ask the board, or the chairman,to sign a little bit of paper on behalf of the board, saying that without any regard to that they intend to proceed; then it is on their heads. But normally the Public Accounts Committee are not involved in policy, they are not witchhunting. What they have got to do is look at a thing and say, "Where did we go wrong?" and let Tynwald know how they thought we went wrong so that mistakes can be corrected. They are not going to criticise people, dragging them in front of them saying, "You did this, you did that and the other," they are merely going to say, "We have made mistakes, let us not make these same mistakes again," and this is why I do believe, as I said earlier today in another debate, that if we do not learn from history we will never learn from anything and the same mistakes will be made over and over again. This is where the Public Accounts Committee can obviate. I would say to Mr. Lowey and my colleague on the Council: I agree the membership of this committee is a very difficult one. It may be that Tynwald and the Selection Committee may agree to appoint a member of Tynwald as chairman and recommend he be exempt from all other duties; we did not wish to say one way or the other because I know if I came with one scheme Tynwald would decide another one, so all we have got to do today and all I am asking you to do is to agree to this principle. Let the Selection Committee have a look at this, select the members they think should serve on it, come back to Tynwald with a list and then let us get on with it. Thank you, Your Excellency.

The Governor: I will put the motion. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it.

PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLES (BRITISH ISLANDS AND REPUBLIC OF IRELAND) REGULATIONS 1982—APPROVED. The Governor: Item number 15. I call upon the Chairman of the Highway and Trans- port Board. Mr. J. N. Radcliffe: Your Excellency, I beg to move: - The the Public Service Vehicles (British Islands and Republic of Ireland I Regulations 1982, made by the Isle of Man Highway and Transport Board under the provisions of section 30 of the Road Traffic (Public Service Vehicles) Act 1964, be and the same are hereby approved. I will go into this one in a little detail if I may, because I think that what we as a Highway Board are proposing today will have far-reaching effects on certainly the whole tourist industry of the Isle of Man. Hon. members will recall that last July regulations were approved which only permitted the United Kingdom vehicles to convey passengers between Douglas harbour and their holiday accommodation, and those regulations ex- pired on the 31st October last. The board are informed that at least 12 coaches visited the Island as a result of this measure, the interests being limited for two reasons: the extent of the operations permitted and the lack of time to enable operators to advertise. With regard to future measures relating to the operation of United Kingdom coaches in the Island, it is obvious to my board that a decision had to be made as soon as possible if the tourist industry was to gain the maximum benefit from the United Kingdom package coach holidays being allowed. The initial step taken was that my board convened a

Public Service Vehicles (British Islands and Republic of Ireland) Regulations 1982— Approved. TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982 T239 meeting on 11th October last for the purpose of ascertaining the views of various parties on the question of whether or not coaches registered in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and the Republic of Ireland be permitted to operate in the Isle of Man either conditionally or unconditionally. We could not invite the whole world to this meeting, but we did invite representatives of the Tourist Board, Harbour Board, National Transport, Douglas Corporation, the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company, Sealink Isle of Man, the Hotel and Guest House Association, the Hotels, Restaurants and Caterers Association, the Coach Owners Association and the Road Traffic Commissioners, so we felt we had a fairly representative gathering. All the invited parties were represented at the meeting and the views put forward were most informative and useful to my board. The Coach Owners Association, whose request for a separate meeting with the board had earlier been refused, immediately prior to the meeting submitted a confidential paper setting out their views and then, when invited to state their position during the course of the meeting declined; as the representative said, they were only attending in a listening capacity. With the exception of two, all the other parties strongly favoured the admission of United King- dom coaches into the Island, but my board met subsequently and, after having carefully evaluated all the views submitted, concluded that the interests of the Island as a whole would be best served if the conditional operation of United Kingdom coaches within the Island was permitted. The regulations, which are this item on the Agenda will, if approved, enable a public tourist vehicle registered in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands, and the Republic of Ireland, to carry visitors between a place of departure in those countries to any hotel or guest house, holiday or camp accommodation in the Island subject to authorisation in the forms set out at the back of the Schedule. A fee of El 0 will be charged for the authorisation, which will be issued by the Road Traffic Commissioners, who are the body appointed by Tynwald to administer the law relating to the licensing of public service vehicles. The board has also provided in these regulations for camp accommodation in order to cover the situation of a coach bringing, for example, a military band which could be staying at Jurby, and in addition to this traffic movement the coach operator will also have the option of using his coach whilst in the Island through an extension of the authorisation, and he can do either of two things: he can do one full day and two half-days tours within any seven-day period, or he may travel to events and performances in which his passengers are participating. Consequently, the coach carrying, for example, a military band or a football team will only be able to carry the participants from their accommodation to their engagement; it will not be possible for that vehicle to undertake tours and excursions, and whilst a United Kingdom coach is here it can only carry passengers which it brought into the Island. This is the full extent of the operations which this regulation will permit, nothing further. Coaches cannot ply for hire, and should the passengers brought into the Island wish to undertake further tours, then the services of the local operators must be used. The boards accepts the possibility that some diminution of the local operators' trade will result from the effect of these regula- lations, but this must be balanced against the likely benefits to the Island as a whole, particularly tourism, by inclusive coach holidays being able to operate to and from the Isle of Man. There is a likelihood, we feel, that this diminution will be offset by a spin-off from the anticipated additional visitors undertaking further trips. The Highway Board itself, I may say, has in recent weeks received several enquiries from United Kingdom coach operators, one from as far afield as Yeovil, indicating possible interest in running package holidays to the Isle of Man. They are now awaiting the result of our deliberations here this

Public Service Vehicles (British Islands and Republic of Ireland) Regulations 1982—Approved. T240 TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982 afternoon, and indeed two of those operators have held back from printing their bro- chures until after the result of our deliberations this afternoon, because they do desire to have inclusive holidays to the Isle of Man on their brochures for next season. Your Excellency, I think that is all that has to be said and I beg to move the resolution standing in my name.

Mr. Maddrell: Your Excellency, I personally wish that this piece of legislation had never been placed before this Court. I think that if it is passed the seriousness will not be fully realised for quite a long time; it will be too late. The change to allow public service vehicles to enter the Island and to remain for a period of up to a month as stated and to do excursions on our roads for the passengers who are brought here is a start in breaking up the local coach industry, and there are operators in all parts of the Isle of Man besides Onchan which I happen to represent —just in case someone wants to fire that bullet back! Let us look at this small facet of our society. There are at the moment 46 coaches and mini-cabs which employ at the height of the season up to about 40 drivers. They are maintained by a known seven mechanics and one apprentice and they have booking office staff. They deal with local garages for their components, and the coach owners that do not have mechanics working for them to repair their vehicles put their coaches into local garages, so it is all a matter of employment on a small scale. It is a well-known fact the coach industry has served the Isle of Man and the visiting industry excellently. The drivers know about the Island, and many of them are well-known characters sought after by the visitors who have been here before. As for the coach owners, they have been disturbed for quite a while now that this change was coming, and over the past two years there is no reinvestment in the coach industry. How could there be? It is so unstable. Should legislation be passed, the seating capacity of coaches is again going to drop and what you are doing is reducing it until it comes to a point where we do not have our own coach industry. Coach owners and buses have to negotiate with the Road Traffic Com- missioners on road journeys and on the price. The United Kingdom coaches do not, they just come and they do their excursions for a day and the two half-days whenever they want —the freedom of the world. It is a practice in the United Kingdom that a coach owner who gets a licence will ply between the points he is given; he does not trespass on other people's ground, so why are we bringing coaches from the United Kingdom to trespass here? The "Think Local First" motto in this context is an ironical gimmick, I think, because no-one is thinking local here. Would the Chairman of the Highway and Transport Board consider the following answers when I continue? (1) What authority in the Isle of Man is going to check these public carrying vehicles so that they are fit mechanically to ply on our roads? (2) Can the immigrant coaches go anywhere they wish on our roads? (3) Have our public service vehicle inspectorate any control over these vehicles as they have over our own? And (4) Can he enlighten as to whether he has informed them where they have to park? Recently a meeting of the Highway Board, Sealink, the Harbour Board, the British Hotel and Guest House Association and the Tourist Board met the coach owners. The intention was to tell the coach owners, in my estimation, what was going to happen, and their representatives knew that anything they had to say was going to be overruled. They were convinced of that, hence they put their evidence in writing; at least they got a written statement on the floor. A number of members tried to dissect them, but they could not get through that night and the members who tried were quite upset. The High- way Board seems not to mind the disarray of the local business; the Board has been

Public Service Vehicles (British Islands and Republic of Ireland) Regulations 1982—Approved. TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER,1982 T241 cajoled and undermined, in my estimation, by the argument that hoards of visitors are going to pour into this Island in immigrant coaches. I think I can prophesy the overall total will not materially change, but the Island's coach business is already aware that changes are happening to their coach business because subsidies are being offered to those who travel by our packet, that is, they are being told, "You come with us, fellows, they are not getting a subsidy if you go by them." I think that is despicable. Is it not obnoxious that a number of private companies, who range from directors and cleaners who pay taxes subsidise our already subsidised buses and coaches, and those that will arrive here get a "travel anywhere" and an entry-free ticket within the Isle of Man? This Island is far too small to have the United Kingdom operators here, but I do not stand up to knock some- thing down without saying there is some we will allow, and I would permit the coaches to land. The Minutes of the Defence Committee of the States of Jersey, which is a com- parative one to where we live, say "The lack of coach parking facilities, the extensive island knowledge required by the local drivers and in an effort to refrain traffic generally the committee have imposed a ceiling on all categories of public service vehicles. It is their entire policy to exclude entry to all vehicles engaged in public service activities. They would consider a vehicle capable only of carrying disabled persons into their island." In the Road Traffic Commissioners' report of the 31st March 1982 may I read out: "In December the Commissioners considered an application for an Excursions and Tours Licence from a new coach operator in Ramsey. Objections were received from all other coach operators and the Isle of Man National Transport Ltd., who expressed the view that there were already sufficient public service vehicles licensed to serve the needs of the Isle of Man in an already declining industry, i.e. the tourist industry." So the Road Traffic Commissioners gave considered opinions, refusing local applicants, but in this Court we are being asked to allow them to go contrary to that opinion. Have the Road Traffic Commissioners been invited to authorise the document which is on page 5 of the regu- lations? If so, are they free men of decision or are they just doing what they are told? In summing up, Your Excellency, I would ask the Court to oppose this legislation on two important counts: (1) they have a good efficient coach industry which should be sus- tained and (2) there is the livelihood of Manx employers that are in need of protection.

Mr. MacDonald: Your Excellency, if I could give some information which I think is necessary for the Court to know: this service which has been proposed came before a meeting of the Highway Board and, as the chairman said, certain people attended. Everyone was prepared to speak; there was no such thing as Tours (Isle of Man) Ltd. not being able to put their point of view. They did not wish to, they said so at the very end; they would not say anything. They were asked what did they wish to say before anybody else had spoken. They were not prepared to speak, so we did not really know what they wanted to say. The other members attending the meeting had not seen the paper they had sent in and we still have not seen it. We do not know, but they would not speak and tell us themselves what their view was, so how are we supposed to know? However, in order to give the Court the current situation, up to last Friday the 12th November, I did ask Manx Line to give me information on how they were getting on, because they did tell us, subject to Tynwald's decision, that they had gone out to the coach operators in the United Kingdom to say they would take bookings, and from the 1st November to 12th November, last Friday morning, through Preston Sealink they had 25 definite reservations, through Heysham Manxline 10 definite, through Douglas Manxline

Public Service Vehicles (British Islands and Republic of Ireland) Regulations 1982 — Approved. T242 TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982

10 definite, and these include such operators as Charterplan, Nationalplan and the United Northern. This will bring in round about 2,250 people; they are 50-seat coaches. Now the operators have said they will hold on but not for too long, because there are other places in the United Kingdom they can go to. The other thing I would like to say is that Manx- owned coaches have gone out of the Isle of Man and traded in the United Kingdom from Morecambe, yet no-one shouted about them in the United Kingdom. As one of the operators intending to make the Isle of Man one of his key places has said, "You are either in the free-trade area of the European Economic Community or you are not in the free- trade area. You are either trading freely or you are not. If you are not, well all right, live on your own, keep yourselves to yourselves, but we certainly are not going to bring pass- engers we can take elsewhere if we cannot operate our coach tours to the Island." In addition to these definite demands, there are 18 other operators; I have all their names but I cannot give them because obviously other people will try to get in on them. They are waiting for this decision; they will not commit themselves until they know. Over 1,400 coach firms, private and commercial, have been informed through the vast Sealink organ- isation that the Isle of Man may this summer, for the first time, allow organised coach tours to come to the Island. Most of them apparently accept one day tour and two half- days, and the rest of the period open to the local tour operators. Now, Your Excellency, my whole board believe that one thing we have got to face up to in the Isle of Man is: do we want visitors or not? Do you really want visitors? Or are you going to become so pro- tected that we will all end up in a little huddle eating ourselves? We either need visitors or we do not need them. Our trade is dropping and dropping, and every time it drops it is less for the tour operator in the Isle of Man that exists. Why has he swallowed up all the small operators? Because they could no longer operate. There are very few small op- erators left; the one we had in Peel which they are so worried about wound up; they put it into liquidation, having got it. The people of Peel were not consulted; it just went into liquidation because it no longer paid, and I can remember sitting on the Transport Steer- ing Committee saying to the Isle of Man Road Services and the coach owners that we would take the lot, but they said, "No, we are not going to give them the lucrative part, you have got to take all the loss leaders," in other words, "Taxpayer, you can have all the loss leaders but all the profit-making ones you must not operate on," and they even opposed National Transport at one stage operating tours. You know, we cannot be as protective as this, Your Excellency. We have got to face up to the hard, economic real- ities of life. If we want a tourist trade we have got to open the doors to tourism and not say, "You can come, send us your money and stay away" or "you can come, but on our conditions." Tourists do not go with conditions. You can go to Russia or Yugoslavia without these conditions; they do not say you cannot bring your coach across the border as you might be bringing bombs in! You can go to Moscow, but in the Isle of Man "you must not come because we do not want you;" this is the message I am getting.

Dr. Teare: Your Excellency, I do hope that this hon. Court will support this resolution totally. The hon. member for Middle is quite right, the coach operator from Ramsey tried to get a licence and he was refused. He wanted amongst other things to run from Ramsey to the Sulby dam, a journey not normally done from Douglas, but the coach owners' cartel said that this was not necessary and that they would do the journey, but having got him flattened they then decided that that was not the sort of journey that was necessary, so now poor Ramsey and the North do not have a coach of any sort. The other point which

Public Service Vehicles (British Islands and Republic of Ireland) Regulations 1982 — Approved. TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982 T243 must be stressed too is the fact that the people who come over on the coaches are not going to come to the Island if they cannot come in their particular coaches. They will go to Scotland or Wales, who knows, but the whole fascination of getting on the coach is starting in your home town and you are taken by your coach and you land, hopefully in Ramsey, because I happen to have a constiuent there who already has 18 coaches to bring people to his hotel for a week, and these are people that possibly may not have heard of Ramsey if this coach owner had not found out that it was a reasonable place to bring people over to by his coach. It is no use talking about cutting across local coach owners; they do get benefit out of this because they are getting people who are going to come over here, are going to have a restricted number of coach trips they can make and so, if there are other coach trips available, they can go on them to the benefit of the locals. I think we must support this resolution.

Mr. Payne: Your Excellency, what I am going to say is not going to make me many friends, nevertheless it needs to be said. A very unhealthy attitude exists in this Island today, and that is an attitude of protectionism. The thinking behind that attitude is: if we cannot compete, block it, make regulations to stop it, prohibit imports, hide behind protectionism, in other words. That is the attitude that existed and perhaps still exists in one of our shipping companies and to some extent in agriculture although, I am pleased to say, not in horticulture—we have a very optimistic feeling about horticulture and a good future because they have faced up to the situation and are now ready to compete. I was reading a letter from the baking industry; I was pleased to see that the workers in the industry, although wanting help from Tynwald, do accept free trade. We cannot hide behind protectionism, and until we develop an attitude that we can take on all comers and beat them we are doomed to failure. Hon. members may well wonder why I have set down this motion if I think this way. I can appreciate the arguments put by the hon. Chairman of the Highway Board; we do need change. I also appreciate the ideas put by my hon. colleague. We should use our regulations to give local businesses time to adjust, and that is the only excuse we have for making regulations. In this case I believe we have gone too far too quickly. I would be happy to see the parts of the section which allows the two half- day tours removed; I am sure my hon. colleague would want a little bit more removed. I believe we should give our local coach operators time to make arrangements to change the present direction of their business, in other words, time to adjust; therefore, Your Excellency, I beg to move: - That consideration be deferred to permit the regulations to be referred back to the Highway and Transport Board.

Mr. Callin: I will second that, Your Excellency. Mr. Brown: Your Excellency, as a member of the Highway Board and the Tourist Board I am very much involved in this, and I can assure members that great consideration has been given to this and no rushing in whatsoever has been done. I would just like to say, regarding Mr. Payne's amendment, that he says they should be given time to adjust. Two years ago this was discussed, and at the beginning of the summer it was also brought in that there would be a temporary order made which would give time for everybody to consider their position and situation and, as has been said, discussions did take place after that as was promised by the Highway Board at that time. What concerns me is that, if the Government of the Isle of Man are really concerned in encouraging tourists to our Island

Public Service Vehicles ( British Islands and Republic of Ireland) Regulations 1982—Approved. T244 TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982 and are serious in their intentions, then the hon. members must support this Order, because to delay this Order will be disastrous to the Isle of Man. It will mean that the operators cannot make arrangements which they have to make now to plan ahead, advertise and look for customers to bring here to the Isle of Man, customers that we do not get at this moment, and that means jobs for the people of the Isle of Man and income that we need very much. The Highway Board met with the people involved previously as we had promised, and at that meeting there were 10 different bodies represented to give a broad view, as stated by my chairman: 21 persons representing those bodies, and that excludes the Highway Board members who were there to give views. A full and frank discussion took place that afternoon with the exception of one body which has already been mentioned—the coach owners, and quite honestly, I did say at the meeting to the representatives that I felt that they had gone out of their way to be very awkward and I felt that their attitude towards the meeting was totally unfair to all the representatives who were there, they had purposely left until the end, after questioning everybody at that meeting, why they wanted this, why they wanted that. At the very end when it was their turn to put their case they said, "Oh, no, we will put ours in a private and confidential memorandum to the board," and therefore sat back and said nothing. This is no way to be fair to everybody or their own operators, I would say. They should have put their case on the floor at the opportunity they were given which was at that meeting. I would like to cover some of the comments that were made at the meeting and go through them in the order they were put down: the Tourist Board fully support the admission of United Kingdom coaches into the Isle of Man, as the board was convinced that this would be of value to the tourist industry in the long term and that this measure would result in new business. Whilst on the Island, coaches should be permitted to undertake at least one full day or two half-day excursions. Sealink—the only buoyant market in tourism is the coach business. It does not seem to be the case in the Isle of Man. The Road Traffic Commissioners give in their report at the end of March: — coach operators: in 1980, 53; 1981, 50;1982, 41; The passenger seating capacity: 1980, 2385; 1981, 2314; 1982, 1921; so what seems to be a buoyant market in the United Kingdom is drastically declining in the Isle of Man, and this is why I support this. I believe the spin-off in introducing people to the Isle of Man must in the long term benefit the Island. Also Sealink says, "Following the relaxation of controls on the operation by the United Kingdom coaches in July last some 12 coaches were transported to the Island and recently 12 written and 35 verbal enquiries have been received. As to the situation for 1983 the company are not looking to dilute the existing level of business, rather to supplement this form of untapped source," and I think that is one of the important parts— it is an untapped source. "This would not in any way be detrimental to the local operators who should benefit from the spin-off of additional visitors. Ideally there should be no operation restrictions," so that was what Sealink wanted. Douglas Corporation's prime concern was over parking facilities; that is what we are all concerned about and is something that would have to be looked into, but if we had to fill the Promenade with coaches, then would we not all be delighted! The Corporation favour the admission of coaches into the Island; National Transport: "With the exception of coaches not being permitted to ply for hire, there should be no operational restrictions." The Road Traffic Commission were there, only in attendance as a listening capacity. Hotels, Restaurants and Caterers Association: "During the past decade the tourist industry has been in a state of decline. A drastic rethink of the whole of tourism is required as the customers' requirements are not being taken into account, "and this is one

Public Service Vehicles ( British Islands and Republic of Ireland) Regulations 1982 — Approved. TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982 T245 thing that certainly says that if we throw this out. To ignore the coach trade would be at our own peril; the change must be made and the admission of coaches into the Island is fully supported. The Harbour Board: "The sea route is just another road and must be looked upon as such. The greatest problem for the Harbour Board during the visiting season is the movement of luggage and this would, of course, remain on the coach from departure point to destination if United Kingdom coaches were allowed in." It must not only be a problem for the Harbour Board; I would say that it is a major problem for people coming here on holiday when they have to walk sometimes a quarter of a mile with luggage, struggling along piers in the pouring rain or whatever it may be— or the sunshine if we are lucky! The Steam Packet Company: "In a small economy such as the Island's, protective legislation is vital. Accept that there are advantages of coaches coming in, but they would have a very damaging effect," and I then ask the question: would they take this view if they had a Ro-Ro vessel capable of carrying coaches and passengers? The answer to that one is "No." I must say that the Chairman of the Highway Board con- ducted the meeting very well; he let everybody have as much say as they wanted and was searching to get the views of all the people. We then came to the Coach Owners Assoc- iation, who, as I have stated, sat back and questioned some of the comments that were made and then, "We are not commenting, you have got a letter from us," and so on. The result of the meeting, Your Excellency, to allow coaches in: Tourist Board—yes; Sealink — yes; Douglas Corporation—yes; National Transport—yes; Hotels and Restaurants Association—yes; Harbour Board—yes; Steam Packet—no; Coach owners—no. An overwhelming decision in favour of allowing coaches in. The Highway Board, taking into consideration this and all the views that were put and the letter from the Coach Owners Association which was fully discussed, and after seriously considering the effects on our industries, fully agreed that allowing coaches into the Island is essential to our tourist industry, and they will be controlled, as the Order states. It will have a long-term sub- stantial effect on our tourist industry which can only be of benefit to this Island. We were asked by some of these people to make no restriction whatsoever, but after looking at it we felt that was unrealistic. We have to protect to a degree, and I think that is the thing to get the balance right. I do not want to put people out of jobs in the Isle of Man, nor coach firms, and I do not think anybody else in this hon. Court does; but there is also the other side of the coin where we have to create jobs, and to create those jobs we have to look at the long term. There may be a short-term pick up, but in the long term we have to do what I think we have to do. If the Government of the Isle of Man is to look at this in a fair way they have to open their eyes wide and look at it in the full context of its case. We have a big world out there that needs to be catered for. We can cater for a lot of people a lot more than we do. If our tourist industry, our hotel industry and this Island are to survive, we have to support tourism to the full, and this is one way by which we will take steps to support it. I hope that members will not agree to any amendments. It is essential they do not agree to amendments because this Order has to be made today. Delaying it will be disastrous as I said before, therefore I hope that hon. members will look at this in a broad and fair term and will support the Chairman of the Highway Board in this Order. Thank you, Your Excellency.

Mr. Moore: Your Excellency, I am a member of the Highway Board and therefore I have to stand up and be counted. All I can say is that it almost all has been said. Two points that I would like to make are that, having heard what the Douglas Corporation did

Public Service Vehicles I British Islands and Republic of Ireland) Regulations 1982— Approved. T246 TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982 say with regard to parking, they went to the trouble of producing a plan of Douglas showing suitable overnight parking sites for this particular traffic, so I think that when we looked at the situation we decided that Douglas Corporation were prepared to accept this parking problem. The other point has already been made: the main base of this thing is tied with the fact that they are only allowed the one full day and two half-day trips. From my own experience in travelling —and I am a lazy traveller like a lot of the elderly people that you will be dealing with in this kind of traffic —Ilike to throw my luggage into the back of the coach and not see it again until I get to my hotel, and the same when I return. But I found, when my wife and myself went down on a recent tour to Torquay —and I take up the point made by the hon. member for Middle, Mr. Maddrell —part of that was tied up with just one full-day tour and one half-day tour by the people who were taking us down there. That was a tour organised from the Isle of Man, and they said, "We do not want to interfere with the traffic in Torquay, we will advise you of some very good tours operated by the local people, we take you one full day to Longleat and we do a half-day trip to Broadlands. Now that is the extent of the coach tours we will be doing during the whole of the eight days that you are here with us but there are excellent tours locally and we would advise you to take up some of those," which of course we did and everybody else coming over here would do. Two days out of the seven taken up the coach operators coming over here and the market is open then for our own people to pick up any of these people and see the rest of the Island. I think we have got to be fair. I had this problem 20 years ago when the Sheffield United Tours Group were at odds with the Corporation on this question of what they could do, but eventually we agreed, even in those days; they brought the people over in their own coaches, coaches were on the Island and they were restricted to one full-day tour and one half-day. Even in those days that was allowed, and I was Chair- man of the Health Committee and, strange enough, the Health Committee at that time were responsible for all licensing of coaches. I think it was an excellent venture. I do not know where all of that traffic now goes to, but it does not come to the Isle of Man.

Mr. Delaney: Your Excellency, no doubt the Chairman of the Tourist Board will give all the reasons why we should have this. There is only one, and I would like to address my remarks through you, sir, to the Chairman of Executive Council. What you have heard this afternoon is going to be the major problem that Executive Council is going to face in the future, After spending nearly seven hours talking about the long-term future, the planning and all the rest of it, you hear of the small "parish pump" politics that stop us ever being anything as far as our long-term policy is concerned. We are looking in- side instead of outside. The legislation to do us real benefit should have been on the statute books and working before the summer ended. We cannot carry on like this, trying to put the spoke in the wheel, particularly where we have got services to market, and all horticulturists and agriculturists will know, you must be there at the right time with your goods if you are going to sell them. It is now November; by the time we get this message through we might be in time to start catching the market we are after, but if we leave it any later it will not be worth us going for it. I hope the chairman will take my kind remarks in the way they are intended, to point out one of the problems you have got to face. Every time you come up with some decent system or something to improve the. Isle of Man, somebody will be looking at the half dozen guys at the end of the road, and the whole policy of the Isle of Man will be based on what is good for that half-dozen instead of what is good for the whole Island.

Public Service Vehicles (British Islands and Republic of Ireland) Regulations 1982— Approved. TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982 T247

Mr. Lowey: Your Excellency, I do not really need to develop very much more. What I will do is remind the Court that a protected market—if I can use that term, not emotively—the protected market that the local coach owners have enjoyed, has not protected or saved jobs. I am not just talking over the past two years either but over the last five or ten years, a period of steady decline, and rapid decline in the last two years, because this wanted to be introduced two years ago and orchestrated opposition pre- vented us at that particular time. In May of this year one of the largest tour operators came to the Tourist Board and offered the board its entire fleet of coaches and also its garages at a valuation. The board declined, and they re-jigged their operations anyway, so the point must be borne in mind that the protection that has been afforded to the industry has not saved that industry from economic reality. The hon. member Mr. Maddrell said about hordes of coaches coming in; I am not giving a guarantee that there will be hordes of coaches coming in. What I will say is that it gives an opportunity for the trade. The Tourist Board cannot bring them in, it is the trade themselves that will attract people here, and it will create an opportunity for the trade to take up —and they are waiting to take it up. There is no doubt about it; market research shows that the only buoyant part of the travel trade today happens to be the coach industry and therefore, for the Isle of Man to shut its eyes to that potential is really what I call being King Canute with a vengeance! I know the hon. member for Ramsey says one of his constituents has 18 coaches waiting for today's decision to come. The early part of the season and the late part of the season are the months that we are trying to build up. Remember we have already got this privilege of allowing continental coaches in and we know the difficulties of getting them in; they have no restrictions at all. Now as has been pointed out, Manx coaches can and do leave the Isle of Man and go away. There has got to come a time . . . you are talking of numbers of 41 coaches, the total in the Isle of Man; really and truly, how much slimmer can that industry go? It cannot go much slimmer, and all I can say is that really we will be doing the long-term interests of the Isle of Man a disservice if we try to stop the progress which is contained in this Order before us today. Your Excellency, it is hard, and Mr. Maddrell is quite right to say that it is not just people living in Onchan because it is the headquarters of one of the bigger ones there; in my own constituency I have three separate firms, in Port Erin, Port St. Mary and in Castletown, all small family concerns, employing a lot of part-time labour as and when required. I believe they have a valuable part to play and will continue to play it even with the com- petition, because it is creating new traffic that we are interested in in the Tourist Board, creating new opportunities and new traffic, not sharing out existing traffic. This Order allowsthat to happen. You cannot refuse it. Mr. J. N. Radcliffe: I would just like to reply briefly, sir, because the hon. member for Middle raised one or two specific points. I think I would start off by saying that I would thank the supporters of the motion for their support and as usual, being from the north of the Island, I work backwards on my notes! The hon. member of Council, the Chairman of the Tourist Board —I would confirm that continental coaches do not have any restric- tions on them coming to the Island and, as he rightly said, what we are after in helping the Tourist Board and tourism in general is to generate new traffic and give them the opportunity to come. The hon. member for Middle, Mr. Payne, and his amendment- ! would ask the Court firmly to reject that amendment because time is certainly not on our side. Mention was made of the events of two years ago, and it is still a cause of regret to me and certainly, I think, to the members of the board at that time that a similar reso-

Public Service Vehicles (British Islands and Republic of Ireland) Regulations 1982— Approved. T248 TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982 lution was withdrawn at the then Tourist Board's behest, and I think, had that gone through, it would have been well established now that this was the right thing to have done at that time. Mention was made of the drop in numbers and it is a fact, hon. members, that since 1975 tha coach and mini-coach numbers available on the Island has dropped by at least one-third: — 69 in 1979; 46 at this moment in 1982, so it is a sub- stantial, steady drop and the coach owners obviously, although they will not admit it, have seen trouble coming, or at least so-called trouble for themselves, for a long time. The hon. member, Mr. Maddrell, mentioned that coaches when they come in could take excursions anywhere. Well, that will not be the case. They will be subject to routes laid out by the Road Traffic Commissioners, and the drivers of the coaches when they come in will also be issued with a list of forbidden routes—shall we call them that? — roads which coaches must not go on and will not be allowed on. Indeed, I would add here that there is a possibility for local employment for some people as couriers travelling with these coaches, to say that this is the road that you go on, that this is the road you do not go on, so it could be a small spin-off there for a courier service for these visiting coaches. The hon. member again raised the point of who checks the mechanical condition of the coaches. All vehicles which are subject to regulations under an international convention agreement of Geneva of 1949 which was extended to the Isle of Man have to comply with certain prescribed mechanical conditions, therefore there will not be coaches coming in without brakes, or with loose steering and the Lord knows what. The hon. member also asks: have our Public Service Vehicle Inspectors any control? Yes, we will have control. Our Public Service Vehicle Inspector will be travelling about and will be reporting any transgressors, and I would add that would mean, certainly in the present Highway Board's thinking, that any person who has transgressed will not have his licence renewed. His licence to come to the Island would be revoked. It will be a pretty harsh one. Mention finally was made of parking. Well, as one of the supporters said —I think it was the hon. member for Council, Mr. Moore—sites were shown on the map of Douglas which would accommodate 14 coaches. There is also the possibility of using the old Rail- way Station with National Transport agreement, to contain a few more. So no-one need be unnerved by the thought of having coaches sitting on the roads at all kinds of odd places. Finally, Your Excellency, I was interested to hear the hon. member for Ramsey, Dr. Teare, saying that there are 18 coaches already booked for Ramsey if this goes through. It would be a bonanza for the North and it might well be worth while opening a café out there somewhere! Your Excellency, we all pay lip service to advancing the cause of tourism, and I would ask the Court to do something positive here today by rejecting the amendment in the name of the hon. member for Middle, Mr. Payne, and passing the regulations as I have presented them this afternoon.

The Governor: Hon. members, I will put the amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for Middle, Mr. Payne. Will those in favour please say aye; against, no. The noes have it. I will now put the motion. Will those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it.

ISLE OF MAN HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORT BOARD (CONTROL OF BUILDERS' SKIPS) BYELAWS 1982—APPROVED. The Governor: Hon. members, we will just see what we can get through before tea! (Laughter). Item number 16.

Isle of Man Highway and Transport Board (Control of Builders' Skips) Byelaws 1982 — Approved. TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982 T249

Mr. J. N. Radcliffe: Your Excellency, I beg to move: -

That the Isle of Man Highway and Transport Board (Control of Builders' Skips) Byelaws 1.982 made by the Isle of Man Highway and Transport Board under the provisions of section 21 of the Highway Act 1927 be and the same are hereby approved.

Mr. Lowey: I beg to second.

Mr. Duggan: Your Excellency, I am very concerned that skips are being placed in very dangerous places, often without lights. Today a funeral has taken place due to a motorist coming into collision with a skip. Can the hon. Chairman of the Highway Board ensure that there will be suitable enforcement in the placing of builders' skips so that they do not present a hazard in future?

Mr. J. N. Radcliffe: Your Excellency, can I say first of all that the funeral which • took place today would have happened if we had these regulations anyway, because it was not on a road for which the Highway Board is responsible, and we would have had no control on it at all. But the regulations do call for certain prescribed conditions as to the lighting, the marking and so on. I think I had better just give a run-down for the benefit of the hon. member. Byelaw 3 prohibits the deposit of builders' skips on the highway without the permission of the Highway and Transport Board who may attach to its consent certain conditions as to the lighting, the marking and the removal of the skips, and those are mandatory. Byelaw 4 places tha main liability upon the owner of the skip. Byelaw 5 excludes the Highway Board from any liability. Byelaw 6 complements Byelaw 3 by giving powers to the board or a police officer to require the removal or the repositioning of a skip, even though it was deposited in accordance with the board's permission. The skips, of course, must be lit, and that I think is one of the main hazards: that we are getting skips with no lights on; that is one of the provisions of this legislation.

Mr. Duggan: I thank the hon. member for his reply, Your Excellency.

The Governor: I that agreed? It was agreed.

TAKING OF HOSTAGES ACT 1982 (UK PARLIAMENT)— EXTENSION TO THE ISLE OF MAN—APPROVED.

• The Governor: Item number 17, the Taking of Hostages Act. I call on the Chairman of Executive Council.

Mr. P. Radcliffe: Your Excellency, I beg to move: -

That Her Majesty be requested to direct, by Order in Council, that the provisions of sections 1, 2, 3(2), 4 and 6(1) of The Taking of Hostages Act 1.982 of Parliament shall extend to the Isle of Man with appropriate exceptions, adaptations and modifications.

A Member: I beg to second.

The Governor: Is that agreed? It was agreed.

Taking of Hostages Act 1982 (UK Parliament) — Extension to the Isle of Man — Approved. T250 TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER,1982

BRITISH NATIONALITY ACT 1981 (UK PARLIAMENT)— EXTENSION TO THE ISLE OF MAN—APPROVED. The Governor: Item number 18, the British Nationality Act. I call on the Chairman of Executive Council.

Mr. P. Radcliffe: Your Excellency, I beg to move: -

That Her Majesty be requested to direct, by Order in Council, that Section 39 and Schedule 4; section 52(7) and Schedule 8 so far as they relate to the Immigration Act 1971 of Parliament; and section 52(8) and Schedule 9 so far as they relate to provisions of the Immigration Act 1971 of Parliament other than Schedule 1, of the British Nationality Act 1981 of Parliament shall extend to the Isle of Man with appropriate exceptions, adaptations and modifications.

A Member: Your Excellency, I beg to second. The Governor: Is that agreed? It was agreed.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1982 (UK PARLIAMENT)— EXTENSION TO THE ISLE OF MAN—APPROVED. The Governor: Item number 19, the Criminal Justice Act. I call on the Chairman of Executive Council.

Mr. P. Radcliffe: Your Excellency, I beg to move: -

That Her Majesty be requested to direct, by Order in Council, that section 63 and Schedule 10 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 of Parliament shall extend to the Isle of Man with appropriate exceptions, adaptations and modifications. A Member: I beg to second.

The Governor: Is that agreed? It was agreed.

MANX RADIO—DECLARATORY RESOLUTION DEFERRED. The Governor: Item number 20. I call on the hon. member for Council, Mr. Lowey. Mr. Lowey: I would, Your Excellency, with the Court's permission, seeing the lateness of the hour, beg to withdraw this particular resolution at this time and leave it until perhaps next month.

The Governor: Item number 20 has not been moved but deferred until the December Agenda.

British Nationality Act 1981 (UK Parliament) — Extension to the Isle of Man — Approved. — Criminal Justice Act 1982 (UK Parliament) — Extension to the Isle of Man — Approved. — Manx Radio — Declaratory Resolution Deferred. TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982 T251

PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCE OF MR. G. CUBBON—REFERRAL TO HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORT BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION AND REPORT— APPROVED.

The Governor: Item number 21. I call on the hon. Mr. Lowey.

Mr. Lowey: Your Excellency, I beg to move: -

That the Petition for Redress of Grievance of Gordon Cubbon be referred to the Highway and Transport Board for consideration and report within three months.

Your Excellency, I think it is incumbent on me to that I do move this, and I will be very brief. This Petition for Redress certainly places a moral duty on this Court to give justice to a constituent of mine who has a right to feel aggrieved and worried about the future prospects by virtue of the poisoning and laying waste of prime agricultural land that he owns and works at Ballalough in the parish of Malew, which has come about through no fault of his own but certainly by the actions of others, and notably an agency of this Government itself. The Petitioner has taken every step open to him to counteract the progressive deterioration of his property by extra drainage and by drawing the attention of the Local Government Board, the Highway Board and the Board of Agriculture to his plight since 1976. Whilst this dialogue has resulted in extra water troughs being installed and plenty of sympathy and condolencies, the poisoning and flooding is continuing apace, and the unequal battle is resulting in a steady deterioration which is sterilising large tracts of the best agricultural land in the Island. It would be easy for me to highlight the recent difficulties and tragedies caused by flooding throughout the Island, and in particular in my own village, to underline this call for action. However, it does not make the call for action to remedy this invidious violation of the land any less because of its being caused by a regular, steady pace rather than by immediate and sudden assault, but the end result is the same. I know that my friends in the Highway Board are aware of the real problem and are very conscious of their new and immediate problems as I have reiterated, but this Court cannot allow an acknowledged injustice to be ignored, and it matters not if it concerns just one or 1001 people. The Dumb River is no longer dumb, and I know that many members are alive to the fact that the problem certainly cannot be shelved and fitted into a convenient time slot in any five-year plan. Already the time factor has made the restoration work immeasurably longer and more difficult. This is the supreme Court for the citizens who feel aggrieved, Your Excellency, and my total sympathies and endeavours are given to this Petitioner in his plea, which he made at St. John's in July of this year. The time for pleading is over, the time for action is now, and I hope this Court will not fail.

Mr. Brown: I beg to second, Your Excellency, and in seconding I would just like to reiterate what my colleague from Executive Council said with remarks to this river. It is a problem. I have been down there to see it and I am sure that he has, and this problem has gone on for a while, and I hope and am sure that something will be sorted out. It is causing major problems there and should be of concern to us all.

Mr. P. Radcliffe: Your Excellency, whilst speaking from the other end of the Isle of Man, may I support this resolution as well, in case it is thought that the hon. member who moved it and the hon. member who has supported are the only ones referring to it

Petition for Redress of Grievance of Mr. G. Cubbon — Referral to Highway and Transport Board for Consideration and Report—Approved. T252 TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982 because it comes from their area. It is an area that is badly in need of attention and it is time that it was done. I inspected this, along with the owners of the land, and I was amazed to see the situation there. I certainly hope that the Highway Board will take some action to have it implemented very quickly.

Mr. J. N. Radcliffe: Your Excellency, could I just say very briefly that the Highway Board has a comprehensive dossier on the Dumb River, and in fact it is one of these rivers which I would have liked the board to take over in its entirety. We are aware of the problems, we have a large and complete dossier on it and I can assure the hon. mover of the item on the Agenda that the report will certainly be available within three months, probably within two.

The Governor: Is that agreed? It was agreed.

The Governor: Hon. members, that leaves after tea item 22 and the Supplementary Agenda. We will adjourn for 20 minutes. The Court adjourned.

COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION—INVITATION TO HOLD 1984 PLENARY CONFERENCE IN THE ISLE OF MAN— DECLARATORY RESOLUTION APPROVED.

The Governor: Hon. Members, we now move on to item number 22, I call on the hon. President of the Council.

The President of the Council: Your Excellency, I beg to move:

WHEREAS the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is an association dedi- cated to the promotion of knowledge and education about the constitutional, legislative, economic, social and cultural systems within a parliamentary democratic framework with particular reference to the countries of the Commonwealth of Nations and to other countries having close historical and parliamentary associations with it.

AND WHEREAS the Isle of Man is a member of that association and has participated fully in the association's activities over many years. AND WHEREAS the association pursues its objectives by arranging Commonwealth • Parliamentary Conferences which shall be held annually and in such countries of the Commonwealth as the association may determine in response to invitations received from branches.

NOW THEREFORE Tynwald welcomes the decision of the Commonwealth Parlia- mentary Association to accept the invitation from the Isle of Man Branch to hold its plenary conference in the Isle of Man in 1984.

In moving formally item 22, I would say that this item has been given full publicity in the Press. The Executive Committee did call together the branch and had a discussion on this matter, so members are fully familiar with what it is all about; different departments of

Commonwealth Parliamentary Association — Invitation to Hold 1984 Plenary Conference in the Isle of Man — Declaratory Resolution Approved. TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982 T253

Government have been advised, and subsequently we were advised that it should be put on the Tynwald Agenda in order to get the principle agreed, that is that we welcome the decision of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to accept the invitation from the Isle of Man branch to hold its plenary conference in the Isle of Man in 1984. I am not going to elaborate on the many advantages that are associated with this, or the many advantages of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association; sufficient for me to say is that this has received a very good airing, and this is the formal resolution now going forward. It will require subsequently, before the event comes, a money vote to come before Tynwald. That will subsequently have to come, but it is true to say that if members agree to this, which I am sure they will because at the branch meeting of the Common- wealth Association in the Isle of Man, which was very well attended, it had overwhelming support in the branch. Admittedly there was some opposition, but very small, so we will come forward subsequently with a resolution regarding the money, and that might well • be the time for people to inquire about the details. So I am going to say no more than to formally move the resolution number 22, that "Tynwald welcomes the decision of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to accept the invitation from the Isle of Man branch to hold its plenary conference in the Isle of Man in 1984. Iso move. Mr. Callin: Your Excellency, I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

Mr. Kneale: Your Excellency, the opposition may be small in stature, but I can assure you it will not be small in fact, and it will come as no surprise to hon. members that I am opposing this resolution. I warned of my intention to do so at the recent meeting of the branch. I am opposing on several grounds, the main one being the way the whole thing has been arranged without proper consultation or thought. My resolve to oppose was strengthened when I read the ridiculous article in the Isle of Man Examiner last week, containing what purports to be a government statement. Now I do not know who wrote that statement, but it is a deliberate attempt to mislead the people of this Island into believing that the Isle of Man succeeded against strong opposition in bringing a prestigious conference to the Isle of Man. This is not true. As everyone here knows, the countries of the Commonwealth have become more and more reluctant to host these conferences because of the cost, and no-one had offered to host the 1984 conference. The Executive Committee of the local branch of the Commonwealth Parlia- mentary Association, in what I can only describe as a bit of one-up-manship, decided to offer to host the 1984 conference in the Isle of Man. When we got that idea they should have consulted Tynwald, but they did not. Now we are told by the President of the Council that all we are asking for today is to get the principle agreed. You have • gone far beyond getting the principle agreed. They did not even consult the Executive Council. We are told that after consultation with members of the Tourist Board the Executive Committee sought financial concurrence of the Finance Board to the pro- vision of the necessary funds in the financial year 1984/85, and this concurrence was given. The truth is that the Finance Board have no power at all to give approval to anyone to commit Government to expense on this scale for 1983/84, let alone 1984/85. without the approval of Tynwald, and even this resolution today is not a money resolution, as it certainly cannot be for the financial year 1984/85. We are not talking about the peanuts we have heard so much about in recent debates, we are talking about spending nearly £100,000 to bring 280 delegates to the Isle of Man, and this is a time of severe recession. About one month ago all boards received a letter from the

Commonwealth Parliamentary Association — Invitation to Hold 1984 Plenary Conference in the Isle of Man— Declaratory Resolution Approved. T254 TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982

Government Treasurer spelling out the financial situation. We are told that Govern- ment's ability to finance capital works is going to be severely limited, and as regards revenue estimates we are told that preliminary income forecasts indicate that the amount of cash available for 1983/84 will require reductions in standards and services. We are warned that in no case should a board or department estimate the nett expen- diture in excess of 21/2 per cent. above its 1982/83 Budget vote, even though it is rec- ognised that this will only be achieved by a reduction in some services and the elimin- ation of other non-essential services, and it is in the light of that financial climate that the Executive Committee sent the invitation to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to hold its plenary conference here in 1984/85, which could mean a much tougher financial year for us than 1983/84. Now I would remind this hon. Court of the Budget speech made by the Chairman of Finance Board on 18th May this year, when he talked about maturity and the financial restrictions that it was necessary to put on boards of Tynwald. Most boards co-operated fully with his request and no board more fully than, the Board of Education. I would suggest to the Chairman of Finance Board that he read his budget•speech again, and also the letter from the Treasury dated 14th October, 1982, and then ask himself how he can even have hinted a financial concur- rence to this proposal. I am sure that he realised now that it is not in his power to give that concurrence without the approval of Tynwald. We have been hearing a lot about five-year plans and have discussed the Government Policy Planning Programme earlier at this sitting. What is the sense of talking about such plans and programmes if we are going to keep going off at expensive tangents like this one? I can think of many better ways of spending £100,000 than by hosting the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference. It would provide work for some of our unemployed. It would stop the curtailment of essential services. It could even help the visiting industry in a much better way than bringing in 280 Commonwealth Parliamentary Association dele- gates in late September to the Isle of Man. Now turning to the nonsensical so-called government statement which appeared in last week's "Examiner" this is an obvious misleading effort to justify the spending of approximately £100,000 to bring 280 Commonwealth Parliament Association delegates to the Isle of Man in late September. Just let me read "Although the Isle of Man succeeded in attracting a number of prestigious conferences to the Island, the presence of the Parliamentary Conference puts the Island into a class ahead of the many other conference centres with which it is competing. To attract such a prestigious and important conference to these shores is a considerable achievement". This is absolute rubbish. No-one else appeared to want it! The statement goes on: "The Island has much to show delegates during the three days preceding the conference, leaving seven days for the preliminary sessions. The period at the end of September and the beginning of October has been chosen as being the time when the Island's hoteliers, restauranteurs and coach operators are anxious to attract business". Now for one of the choice bits, "Obviously the presence of some 400 people drawn from the highest spending sections of the population will be a considerable benefit to many Island businesses, not just hoteliers". This claim was repeated in a report circulated to local members of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, where it stated that politicians tend to be drawn from the higher, socio- economic classes and thus spend money". Who are these big spenders? They are fellows like Victor Kneale, Matty Ward, Eddie Lowey et cetera (laughter). At the con- ference I attended in Australia in 1970 the majority of delegates I came into contact

Commonwealth Parliamentary Association— Invitation to Hold 1984 Plenary Conference in the Isle of Man— Declaratory Resolution Approved. TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982 T255

with were just ordinary folk like ourselves. I did not notice many big spenders. The government statement ended with these words "The bold gesture of the Isle of Man branch in hosting this conference will succeed when every delegate leaves the Island at the end of the conference, having enjoyed the most successful Commonwealth Parliamentary conference ever staged". And what kind of a programme is suggested to make the most successful Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference ever staged? On the Friday evening of their arrival the delegates will be taken for a cruise around the Island on a Steam Packet ferry (laughter). On the Saturday and Sunday they will be taken in coaches for a tour of the Island. The conference opens on Monday morning and continues throughout the week. There is a reception by the Lieutenant-Governor in marquees at Government House on the Monday evening and another provided by the ratepayers of Douglas on Wednesday. There is a visit to the theatre on Friday evening and a junior Tynwald, and a visit to the long house at Peel ()for a third of the delegates on each of three evenings; the rest stay in their hotels for dinner. Now I wonder what time is left for these big spenders to get spending? We are talking about the end of September, not the end of April or May when the Island is at its best. In case hon. members have forgotten what the weather is like in the Isle of Man at the end of September I suggest that they get in touch with the residents of Ballasalla, Foxdale or the other parts of the island (laughter) and I am sure they will remind them of what happened this year between the 18th and 30th September. According to the Examiner article the securing of this conference holds the promise of publicity to all parts of the world, and the President of the Council, Mr. Nivison, is reported as saying "The visit of all the top politicians will put us well and truly on the map. The world will get to know all about the Isle of Man." Now this gives the impression that countries all round the world report extensively on these Common- wealth Parliamentary Association conferences. This is not so. In fact, very little is reported unless some kind of row breaks out. Even in the country hosting the con- ference the news coverage is not very great. I was the Island's sole representative at the 16th Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference held in Australia from 18th September to 10th October, 1970.

Mr. Delaney: It has never been the same since! (laughter).

Mr. Kneale: You are dead right, and I will tell you why! I collected all the newspaper cuttings from the Australian newspapers which referred to the conference and I still have them; they are here, and they do not take up much room, and much of the head- •lines were taken up with an accident in which the Zambian flag was blown down in a high wind. The Zambians insisted that it had been cut down and their delegation of four packed their bags and went home (laughter). That incident kept the journalists occupied for several days to the exclusion of conference reports. There were also two derisory cartoons showing the complete lack of agreement of delegates generally. At that conference I successfully put the case to the Executive Committee of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in support of the Isle of Man's claim to increased status. I will quote from that statement, "The Isle of Man can claim to have done our share, comparative to our size, in the work of the Commonwealth Parlia- mentary Association, we being constant hosts to representatives form other Common- wealth countries. I have looked up certain details of the various Commonwealth

Commonwealth Parliamentary Association — Invitation to Hold 1984 Plenary Conference in the Isle of Man— Declaratory Resolution Approved. T256 TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982

Parliamentary Association visits to our Island during recent years and find that since 1961 we have had visits each year except 1964 and 1970. The number of delegates from all parts of the Commonwealth has varied between 18 and 28 each year and the period has usually been about four days. All together during that period some 150 delegates from all parts of the Commonwealth have been our guests, so although we have never been host to an annual conference and could not afford to be, you will note, I am sure, that our contribution has been equivalent to much larger branches than ours who have". Since that date we have continued to act as hosts to visiting Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegates on many occasions. We have done more than our share in this way. We should remember that the Isle of Man branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association has no funds of its own, and our annual subscription-of 50p per member does not go very far. All the entertaining we do is paid by the Manx people, through the Government, and it is the Manx people who a will be paying to host this proposed conference, paying to the tune of approximately £100,000. We are told by the statement in the Examiner that all this money will be spent on the Island. The majority of it will in fact go to three hotels, and I can think of a host of other organisations who are more in need of government support before them. I have asked the Chairman of the Finance Board how he could possibly have concurred with expenditure like this in view of all his pleas to boards to co-operate with him in getting the Island finances right, and he tells me that the Finance Board has not agreed to provide any money for this particular conference. He tells me that it will have to come out of the Tourist Board vote for that year, at the exclusion of something else. I would like him to confirm that. I know there are several members of the Court who feel they have been conned into giving support for this resolution, but it should be made quite clear to the public that the vote has already been taken at a meeting of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association branch. The opinion has been expressed that although the Executive Committee accept that they are wrong to issue the invitation before getting the support of Tynwald, for Tynwald not to support the resolution now will cause the branch embarassment. Now I do not consider that a valid reason for supporting it. This resolution is not a financial one, and cannot in theory guarantee any money for 1984/85; in my opinion it will be better to accept the slight embarrassment now than tie up approximately £100,000 for the year 1984/85 which will be required for much more important things. There will certainly be embarrassment trying to entertain over 400 people cruising round the Island on a Manx steamer at the time of the 1984 autumn equinoctial gales. That should destroy Commonwealth relations completely, and when members of the public or the Press have made reference in the past to members going junketing around the world to Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conferences, we have pointed out that this does not cost the Manx taxpayer anything, as the travel costs come out of the central fund. We will no longer be able to claim that if we agree to this resolution today. The cost of entertaining 280 Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegates in 1984 will be equivalent to the cost of sending delegates from the Isle of Man for the next 25 years, and despite the claims that have been made, and which will be made forceably today about the advantages of hosting this conference, they do not exist and we should not try to mislead the public that they do.

The Governor: Would the hon. member like to reply?

Commonwealth Parliamentary Association— Invitation to Hold 1984 Plenary Conference in the Isle of Man— Declaratory Resolution Approved. TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982 T257

The President of the Council: Yes, I would like to, Your Excellency, and to say to my hon. friend, Mr. Kneale, that I did anticipate that he might make some statement and I do think really that he did not intend to be amusing, but he was highly amusing in some of the statements that he did make. Incidentally, he quoted from the pro- gramme. It was a tentative programme that was purely suggested and not in any way finalised. In fact it has not been discussed by the Executive Committee of the branch at all, it was a kind of suggestion. I want to say too that the hon. member knows, as do all other members, that it was not the intention of the Executive Committee of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to keep the members in the dark in any way. We did advise the Finance Board, and at the same time copies of the correspondence we sent to Finance Board should have been conveyed, although we have learned since that something went wrong. These should have been conveyed to the Chairman of Executive Council and it states distinctly on the letter 'Copy to the Chairman of Executive Council'; something slipped up there but subsequently a further copy was made. We have tried to be as open as we can. I do say to the hon. member that as far as the release that went to the Press goes it was, I think, an error on behalf of the Press to say that it was a government statement. The statement came from the Executive Committee of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and was not a government statement, and I would like to make that abundantly clear. So far as the visit to the Isle of Man is concerned and whether delegates have enjoyed it, I do say in all sincerity, Your Excellency, that of all the delegates that have been to the Isle of Man for various functions, if you meet them at any time in any other conference they will always make reference to their visit to the Isle of Man, and particularly their visit to the unique things, like the Peel Viking house and seeing the various things in the Isle of Man which are Manx; this is our Manx heritage, and these are the things they speak about. When they go back from Britain they do not speak in great terms about some of the wonderful places there are to be seen in England, but the Viking Longhouse does stand out in their minds, and I believe that we could well house a conference of this kind. Mr. Kneale made great play on the 280 delegates. We did in fairness say that it was 280 delegates plus spouses and officials and so forth, which would be considerably more than 280, and I would say that there has been no intention of the Executive Committee of the Isle of Man branch to keep anything in any way from the members. We have tried to advise the members, but so far as the big spenders and the reference to Victor, Matty and Eddie going off to these conferences and being big spenders, I do know that each of those gentlemen did go on these conferences, and they came back in full appreciation of the system whereby members were able to get •to know how other people in different parts of the Commonwealth did their particular function in Government. The value is quite enormous, associated with members who do visit a Parliamentary Commonwealth Association conference. It has been agreed, too, that we should not have these luxurious kinds of conferences that have been given with great cruises in various places and so forth; many people have wished, and have stated so, that they did not have those kind of things. Even that last delegation that went off to the Bahamas came back with messages of that kind. I do hope that the Court will support this with the full knowledge that when the time comes we will advise you of the cost involved. We have given you some indication and it was just an indication. Mr. Kneale has perhaps lifted that a little bit, but that is the prerogative of a person who is in opposition sometimes, to state his case in his own particular way.

Commonwealth Parliamentary Association— Invitation to Hold 1984 Plenary Conference in the Isle of Man— Declaratory Resolution Approved. T258 TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982

I move the resolution standing in my name.

The Governor: I will put the motion. Will those in favour please say aye; against, no.

A division was called for and voting resulted as follows: - In the Keys— For: Messrs. Quirk, Cannan, Radcliffe, Mrs. Christian, Dr. Mann, Messrs. Catlin, Maddrell, Payne, Walker, Cringle, Brown, Ward, Delaney, Martin, Dr. Moore, Mr. Cain, Dr. Teare and the Speaker-18. Against: Messrs. Duggan and Kneale— 2.

The Speaker: Your Excellency, the resolution carries in the House of Keys, 18 votes. being cast in favour and two votes against. In the Council— For: The Lord Bishop, Messrs. Moore, Radcliffe, Lowey, Kerruish, Anderson, Mrs. Hanson and the President of the Council-8. Against: Mr. MacDonald-1.

The Governor: In the Council eight in favour and one against, the motion carries.

PERMISSION UNDER STANDING ORDER 27—APPROVED.

The Governor: Hon. Members, we now turn to the Supplementary Agenda, and I call on the Chairman of Executive Coun cit.

Mr. P. Radcliffe: Your Excellency, I beg to move that permission be granted under Standing Order 27 (6) for the following business to be considered. A Member: I beg to second.

The Governor: Is that agreed? It was agreed.

BALLAUGH CRONK BRIDGE—EXPENDITURE ON RECONSTRUCTION- • APPROVED. The Governor: Item number 2 of the Supplementary Agenda. I call on the Chairman of the Highway and Transport Board.

Mr. J. N. Radcliffe: Your Excellency, I beg to move:— WHEREAS the Ballaugh Cronk Bridge was demolished by floods resulting from heavy rainfall which occurred in September 1982. NOW THEREFORE Tynwald— (1) approves of the Highway and Transport Board reconstructing the above Bridge at a cost not exceeding £18,000;

Permission under Standing Order 27 —Approved. Ballaugh Cronk Bridge— Expenditure on Reconstruction— Approved. — TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982 T259

(2) authorises the Treasurer of the Isle of Man to expend out of Capital Trans- actions Account during the year ending 31st March 1983 a sum not exceeding £18,000 to meet the cost of the above scheme; (3) approves of and sanctions borrowings not exceeding 18,000 being made by the Government under the provisions of the Isle of Man Loans Act 1974, such borrowings to be repaid over a period of 5 years.

A Member: I beg to second.

The Governor: Is that agreed?

It was agreed.

SELECTION COMMITTEE—CONSIDERATION OF REPORT—DEFEATED.

The Governor: Item number 3, I call on the Chairman of the Selection Committee:

Mr. P. Radcliffe: Your Excellency, I beg to move:— That the provisions of Standing Orders 175 and 176 be suspended to permit consideration of the Report of the Selection Committee. Hon. members may be aware, if they are not I will make them aware, that Standing Orders 175 and 176 mean that there should have been five clear days given. Unfortunately that was not given at the time but we hope that you will agree to the suspension of Standing Orders so that matters can be progressed.

Mr. Lowey; I beg to second.

Mr. Kneale: Your Excellency, I wish to speak on this. On Saturday morning I received a copy of the Supplementary Agenda containing the recommendations of the Selection Committee. Of course that Agenda did not comply with Standing Orders because it should have been, as the Chairman has pointed out, in members' hands at least five clear days before the sitting on 16th November. To try and get over that item 1 of the Agenda was asking for permission to be granted under Standing Order 27 (6) for the business on the Agenda to be considered. To achieve that the support of a quorum of both. Branches would be required, but of course that Standing Order is all right to deal with the items dealing with Ballaugh Cronk Bridge that we have just dealt with but cannot be applied to the Selection Committee's report. Obviously someone else spotted that, so we had a new Supplementary Agenda put on our desks yesterday morning referring to the correct Standing Orders which are 175 and 176. The resolution now asks for the suspension of these two Standing Orders, and this is covered by Standing Order 206 and requires the support of 16 members of the Keys and six members of the Council. I fail to see the need for this. I understand that the Selection Committee met last Tuesday afternoon and made their recommendations. That allowed ample time to get them to members by Thursday morning to comply with Standing Orders 175 and 176. Why then was there the delay until Saturday morning before circulating them to members? Was this a mistake or was it intentional? In my opinion we should have had the full list of proposals for change put before us, not just the chairmen. The movement of members to fill these chairmanships has left vacancies in

Selection Committee— Consideration of Report— Defeated. T260 TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982 board memberships and we should see just what is proposed. The fact that we will be having three new members of the Keys in a few weeks time should not prevent this. Spaces could be left for them. I am not supporting the suspension of Standing Orders because I do not feel it is justified.

Mr. P. Radcliffe: Your Excellency, if I could reply to the comments made by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, as far as the Selection Committee is concerned he quite rightly says the Selection Committee met and made their recommendations apart from one board chairmanship which concerns the chairmanship of the Tourist Board, and as hon. members know, when a member is elevated from the Keys to the Council they have a period of 14 days in which they can decide whether or not they are accepting the nomination to be members of the Legislative Council. We felt it would be more appropriate to come forward with our recommendations on all the various boards than to put a certain block forward excluding the Tourist Board situation, because we were not aware at that time whether or not Mr. Lowey would be accepting his recommendation to be nominated to be a member of Legislative Council. We did it with no intention of deceiving anybody. It was done with the full purpose of trying to get a full sheet of recommendations, not to have to come back at a later stage with one chairmanship to be proposed at that time. The committee felt that as far as the other memberships were concerned, we would defer that matter until we were clear as to whether or not Tynwald members would be prepared to accept our recommendations. That is the simple, straightforward answer, Your Excellency, and why I hope that members today will approve what we are trying to do.

Mr. Delaney: A point of clarification, Your Excellency, from the chairman please? Why is it that the senior member, the member for the Finance Board, comes afterwards? Is it a general policy that we follow or is it laid down rules? I would have thought it would be more appropriate in the running of a Government that the member of the Finance. Board who would have control of the purse strings of the Government would have come before the other chairmanships, in case there is a move and that particular person is changed and it would mean a juggling about of all the chairmanships.

Mr. P. Radcliffe: Your Excellency, I would also answer that one. It was decided by the Selection Committee that they were put in this order for the simple reason that under Standing Orders the Chairman of the Home Affairs Board is automatically a member of Executive Council, and until we can get that point clarified, we are all aware of the situation that Mr. Anderson carried out his duties as Chairman of the Home Affairs Board, he was elevated as a new member of the Legislative Council, and as Legislative Council members have already been nominated only a year ago and the situation regarding the two members of the Legislative Council on Executive Council were already filled, we felt it appropriate that before we could progress this situation that it would be better to have an idea of whether or not the nomination for the Home Affairs Board was acceptable, because if it was not and there was any move to have that altered we would have to reconsider the whole situation. As far as the membership of the Finance Board is concerned, accepting the point that the hon. member has made, this is normally the priority; but we wanted to get clear in our minds whether or not the first move of the Home Affairs Board, because of the membership of Executive Council, was acceptable.

Selection Committee— Consideration of Report— Defeated. TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982 T261

Mr. Delaney: That answers the point, but it has not clarified the position of the Government, Your Excellency. What I am saying is: would it not have been more sensible to put that first and if, for example, I wished to move Mr. Anderson for the Finance Board, that would not cause the problem it would now cause, for the simple reason that we would now have to reshuffle right through again?

Mr. P. Radcliffe: I do not think, Your Excellency, that would make the slightest bit of difference, because the Chairman of the Home Affairs Board has to be, at the present moment, a member of the House of Keys. There is nothing whatever to stop any hon. member moving any of the other alterations as they think fit, because it does not define in any shape or form that the three members of the Finance Board have to be members of the House of Keys or, vice versa, members of the Legislative Council. They are members of Tynwald.

Mr. Kneale: Your Excellency, a further clarification: I believe that we should be dealing with the Finance Board first as is normal practice, because if we change that it could shuffle the whole pack round. I believe that it is just as important to establish that one even before the chairmanship of any other boards.

Mr. Radcliffe: It is entirely up to the hon. members. If they want to have a change in the procedure we have put forward and if anybody likes to move this because this is what hon. members wish, it is entirely up to them.

The Governor: We have not got to that point yet. The motion before the House is the waiving of Standing Orders. I would like to ask the Clerk of Tynwald for the clarification and benefit of members: is it correct that members had their nominations in their hands four days beforehand as opposed to five days?

The Clerk: Yes, but the Agenda could not be sent out until Friday and so it was in members' hands on Saturday.

The Governor: So they have had three clear days. I will put the motion that the provisions of Standing Orders 175 and 176 be suspended to permit the consideration of the report of the Selection Committee. Will those in favour please say aye; against, no.

A division was called for and voting resulted as follows: -

In the Keys — For: Messrs. Quirk, Cannan, Radcliffe, Mrs. Christian, Dr. Mann, Messrs. Catlin, • Maddrell, Payne, Walker, Cringle, Brown, Dr. Moore, Mr. Cain, Dr. Teare and the Speaker-15. Against: Messrs. Duggan, Ward, Delaney, Martin and Kneale-5.

The Speaker: Your Excellency, the resolution fails to carry in terms of Standing Order 206, 15 votes being cast in favour and five votes against in the House of Keys.

In the Council— For: The Lord Bishop, Messrs. MacDonald, Moore, Radcliffe, Lowey, Kerruish, Anderson, Mrs. Hanson and the President of the Council-9. Against: Nil.

Selection Committee— Consideration of Report— Defeated. T262 TYNWALD COURT, 17th NOVEMBER, 1982

The Governor: In the Council nine in favour and none against, the motion fails. Hon. members, that concludes our business. Council will now withdraw and leave such business as the Speaker may wish to put to the Keys.

The Council withdrew.

HOUSE OF KEYS

The Speaker:Hon. members, the House of Keys will stand adjourned until Tuesday next in our own Chamber at 10.30 am., and the sitting will be for the morning only. Thank you.

The House adjourned.

House of Keys.