Printed (by Authority) by CORRIE LTD., 48 Bucks Road, Douglas, Isle of Man

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF TYNWALD COURT

DOUGLAS, Tuesday, 23rd February, 1988 at 10.30 a.m.

Present: The Lieutenant-Governor (His Excellency Major-General Laurence New, C.B., C.B.E.). In the Council: The President of the Council (the Hon. J.C. Nivison, C.B.E.), the Lord Bishop (the Rt. Rev. Arthur Henry Attwell), the Attorney-General (Mr. T.W. Cain), Hon. R.J.G. Anderson, Hon. A.A. Callin, Mrs. B.Q. Hanson, .Mr. E. C. Irving, C.B.E., Hon. E.G. Lowey, Messrs. W.K. Quirk and J.N. Radcliffe, with Mr. T.A. Bawden, Clerk of the Council.

In the Keys: The Speaker (the Hon. Sir Charles Kerruish, O.B.E.)(Garff); Hon. A.R. Bell and Brig. N.A. Butler, C.B.E. (Ramsey); Mr. R.E. Quine (Ayre); Hon. J.D.Q. Cannan (Michael); Mrs. H. Hannan (Peel); Mr. W.A. Gilbey (Glenfaba); Mr. B. Barton (Middle); Messrs. P. Karran, R.C. Leventhorpe and Hon. D.G. Maddrell (Onchan); Mr. B. May and Mrs. J. Delaney (Douglas North); Messrs. A.C. Duggan and D.C. Cretney (Douglas South); Hon. D.F.K. Delaney and Mr. P.W. Kermode (Douglas East); Messrs. J.C. Cain and Hon. G.V.H. Kneale (Douglas West); Hon. J.A. Brown (Castletown); Mr. D.J. Gelling (Malew and Santon); Hon. M.R. Walker, Dr. J.R. Orme and Mr. J. Corrin (Rushen); with Professor T. St.J N. Bates, Clerk of Tynwald.

The Lord Bishop took the prayers.

REFUSE INCINERATION — REPORT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE ENVIRONMENT — DEBATE COMMENCED

The Governor: Hon. members, we return to the main Agenda paper to item 18, Refuse Disposal. I call on the Minister for Local Government and the Environment to move.

Mr. Delaney: Your Excellency, I beg to move —

That the Report of the Department of Local Government and the Environment entitled 'Future Refuse Disposal — The Options’ be received and the recommendations contained therein adopted.

Your Excellency, as we point out in our report, this will be the fourth report on

Refuse Incineration — Report of the Department of Local Government and the Environment — Debate Commenced T854 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988

future refuse disposal options which this department or its predecessor, the Local Government Board, has presented to Tynwald since 1979.1 hope I will be excused, Your Excellency, if I say that we hope it will also be the last, at least for some considerable time. We appreciate the reasons for the various delays and changes in policy and we appreciate that in fact the previous major shifts in policy came from the Local Government Board itself. Nevertheless, the time has now come when, after nearly a decade of debate, a decision on the future strategy must be made so that my department, Government generally, local authorities and indeed the people of this Island know what direction our refuse disposal notices are to take so that we can all plan accordingly. Refuse disposal is an essential service. It is one borne out of necessity, not choice. The question, then, is not whether we have to dispose of our waste but how best we can do it. In October 1985 Tynwald directed the then Local Government Board to reconsider all the various options for refuse disposal and report back to this hon. Court with recommendations. This we have done. I must apologise to members for the length of our report and for the slight delay in bringing it before Tynwald. As hon. members will appreciate, however, it is a difficult and complex problem which as members of the department it has obviously taken us some time for us to familiarise ourselves with the issues involved. In our task we have obviously had the benefit of advice from the department’s own technical officers; we have had the benefit of various previous reports to Tynwald on this subject. We have also had the assistance of a report by a firm of independent refuse disposal consultants who were appointed by the previous Local Government Board to look at the various disposal options available. We have talked to other independent consultants and experts; we have visited landfill sites, baling plants, waste-derived fuel plants and incinerators. We have talked with manufacturers of baling plants, incinerators, W.D.F. — that is waste-disposal fuels — and composting plants, and with those interested in commercially operating these facilities. We have also talked with those on the receiving end — the authorities who have adopted and now have to operate those facilities. We have talked to those authorities who have gone through the same process and as we have, and asked them why they selected the options they have chosen. We have looked at what they do on other islands. The product of all these visits, discussions, advice and reports has been distilled and condensed into our own report now before hon. members which sets out the various options and the technical and economic features of those options. This is a technical subject and we have sought appropriate technical advice. At the end of the day, however, the best the technical advice can say is, ‘Here are the options, here are the economics, here are the pros and cons of each option’; the decision as to which option to adopt remains a policy decision and, as such, a decision for us as elected representatives to make. We appreciate that, faced with a number of competing options and the need, for example, to balance environmental impact against economic cost, the choice can be a difficult one; it has certainly proved so in the past. After all the analysing and consideration of the various arguments for and against the different disposal methods, however, we hope that members will now feel able to make their choice. In part 3 of our report we have tried to outline the various disposal options open to us, and a summary of our comments of these is included at Appendix 10. We

Refuse Incineration — Report of the Department of Local Government and the Environment — Debate Commenced TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 T855

looked at them with four main criteria in mind. These have been environmental acceptability, economic operation, reliability of performance and resource recovery. Members will see that we have looked at recycling, at energy recovery from waste. We have examined waste-derived fuels, oil from refuse and methane production from waste. We have looked at composting, dumping at sea, reclamation of land from the sea, shredding, pulverisation and even transport of refuse off the Island. After receiving all these possible disposal options, however, we feel essentially that the choice lies between three alternatives. They are, Your Excellency, untreated landfill, landfill of baled refuse or incineration. We deal with untreated or, as it is more commonly called, crude landfill in part 5 of our report. We make it perfectly clear, I hope, to members — and I would emphasise it again — that crude landfill would be the cheapest method of refuse disposal by a considerable margin. In our view, however, and in the view, I think, of the majority of members of this Court the environmental problems associated with crude landfill and the public opposition it arouses makes it an unacceptable option to anyone. If anyone is of any doubt on this point, however, I will be very happy to take them out to The Raggatt, where they can see at first hand the sort of problems that crude landfill gives. Of course members have circulated to them a paper by Mr. Alan Dando which takes a different view and which says that crude landfill at the Ayres is really the answer to all of our problems. Hon. members, during our look at the subject we have talked to a lot of enthusiasts for incineration and a lot for baling. We have met enthusiasts for waste-derived fuel and for composting, but Mr. Dando was the first and only enthusiast we have come across for crude landfill. Being a minority of one, of course, does not necessarily mean he is wrong so I will say a little about his proposals. I do not propose to deal in detail with his comments about baling or incineration because the points he makes are either accepted or refuted by our report. I will, however, say a little about his proposal for the Ayres. At first glance his proposal may seem to be sensible and even attractive. There are just a few little problems, however, that should be cleared up. Firstly, we do not own the vast majority of land on the site; what is more, we do not even have a short-term contract for the part of the site we are presently using. Island Aggregates could order us off the site tomorrow; we are trying to rectify that at this moment. In the past Island Aggregates have been reluctant to commit themselves to even a long or short-term agreement for the use of the site, let alone to let us buy it if we could. Secondly, that part of the site which the Government does own is designated as an area of high landscape value and scenic and coastal significance in Government’s own Development Plan and as a nature conservation area in Government’s own reports on ecological survey. Mr. Dando says that there would be no problem obtaining planning permission for this site. There are some members of this Court who may remember the huge public outcry and the opposition when this area was put forward as a potential golf course. Thirdly, Mr. Dando assumes that Island Aggregates, having sold or being forced to sell their land to us, would very co-operatively continue to extract sand and gravel from the site at the same rate as we want to dispose of our refuse. As members will appreciate, a ton of crude refuse occupies a lot more space than a ton of gravel. What happens if the demand for sand and gravel slows down while the amount

Refuse Incineration — Report of the Department of Local Government and the Environment — Debate Commenced T856 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 of refuse we have to dispose of goes up? Let us assume, however, that all these problems can be sorted out; we are still left with all the traditional problems of a crude landfill site — the smell, seagulls, leachate, methane, windblown paper,unsightly appearance et cetera. What was Mr. Dando’s answer to these? ‘They will not happen on this site’ that is the answer. Well, where have we heard that before? 1 will tell you — at Ballahott, Billown, Oatlands Quarry and at the Raggatt; that is where.

The Speaker: Who did we hear it from?

Mr. Delaney: We made it perfectly clear in our report that crude landfill is the cheapest form of refuse disposal, as I have said, by a significant amount. If that / is what you want us to do, then that is what we will do, but on your own heads be it when the complaints start piling in. In part 6 of our report we deal with the landfilling of baled refuse. Baling could be described, I suppose, as a tidier form of landfill; it helps to reduce or even eliminate some of the problems of landfill. Other potential problems, however, such as leachate and methane remain. In addition — and this is the other crucial point — the volume of reduction achieved by baling is little more than that which can be obtained by compacting at a crude landfill site, so there is little or no reduction thereof in the need for landfill sites. Nevertheless, as we say in the report, baling would probably be an acceptable option if - and it is a big ‘if - we could obtain a suitable site for disposal of the bales. I do not say that such sites do not exist; my department does not say that. What I would say, however, is that the sites we have looked at so far are either unavailable or would attract just as much public opposition as a proposal for a crude landfill site. In part 7 of the report we deal with incineration, and here there are two points which have been raised and which I would like to clarify. The first relates to the siting. As hon. members will know, the report shows a possible site for the incineration behind the Vehicle Testing Centre at Tromode and near to Ballamona Hospital, the abattoir and the creamery. As the report itself makes clear, this site has simply been chosen as an example of where such an incinerator could be sited, to show how waste heat recovery could be used and to allow us, for the purpose of this report, to make some calculations as to possible operating costs. At this stage, however, all the department is asking Tynwald to approve, Your Excellency, is that incineration is the preferred method of future refuse disposal. We are not — and I stress this, Your Excellency — we are not asking this Court to approve the site as we indicated in the report. If this Court approves of incineration as the preferred disposal method of our waste, my department will then have to select the most suitable site for an incinerator. The selected site then would have to be a subject of a planning application and a planning inquiry in the normal way. I would not like to anticipate that process, Your Excellency, but hon. members may be aware that last week we had on the Island two representatives of Volund’s, one of the largest European incinerator companies, manufacturers and constructors. Although Volund’s are only one of a number of firms who might be invited to tender for the construction of any incinerator, members be interested to learn that Volund’s preferred location was not the Tromode site but was the former pulverisation plant site at Richmond Hill,

Refuse Incineration — Report of the Department of Local Government and the Environment — Debate Commenced TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 T857 partly because of the excellent access from main roads it offered; heat recovery in the area in cases would either be by taking- underground pipeline to the power station or by generation of electricity. The second point I want to clarify, Your Excellency, is the question of emissions. In a report of this length there is always one sentence which, with hindsight, you will wish you had not put into the report. Well, in our case, it is the last sentence of paragraph 7.8. What we were trying to say in that paragraph was that even if we took the worst case of not putting any gas cleaning technology at all in the incinerator we would still produce less pollution than the current power station. Needless to say, however, that sentence has been seized upon by certain opponents of incineration as evidence that we plan to do nothing to minimise the omissions from the incinerator. I would like, therefore, to put the record straight and make the situation absolutely clear. If this Court approves incineration as the future disposal method, we will not be going out to tender for an incinerator and then seeing what standards it can meet. What we will be doing, with the help of our consultants, is to draw up a specification for an incinerator which will include the most stringent emission standards we can find anywhere in Europe. In some cases it may be the Danish standard or in other cases the relevant German standard; whatever is the most stringent standard, however, is the standard, Your Excellency, we will be adopting. We will then be going out to incinerator companies and saying, ‘Build us an incinerator which you guarantee contractually will meet those standards’ and we are satisfied they will be able to do so for the £5.5 million quoted in the report. Although these standards will be incorporated as guarantees in the contracts for the construction and operation of the plant, we will also be bringing forward legislation to reinforce those standards. I hope this makes the position clear, sir. We make no secret of the fact that incineration is the most expensive disposal option. Its big advantage from our point of view, however, is that it reduces very considerably the need for landfill sites and produces an inert sterile residue which avoids the normal problems of landfill. Incineration also gives an opportunity to dispose of a number of other problem wastes including, in particular, sewage sludge which might otherwise be a major problem in future. Other wastes it could handle include waste oil, animal waste, fish waste, hospital waste, clean water sludge and various types of industrial waste. Resources recoverable from an incinerator would include heat, ferrous metal, slag and fly ash. In the department’s view the environmental advantages of incineration far outweigh any disadvantages in terms of operating costs. Even taking the worst case, the cost differential of some £10 per ton would be worth paying for in a disposal method that would be clean in comparative terms which would reduce as far as possible the need for landfill and all its associated problems and which would also be capable of dealing with a number of other problems that we have in waste disposal. If heat recovery can be provided and utilised, and we are satisfied it can be, the cost differential would be reduced accordingly and incineration becomes an even more attractive option. I am very happy to see that incineration as a preferred option has been endorsed by both the Manx Conservation Council and the Society for the Preservation of the Manx Countryside in articles in today’s newspapers. As members will know, incineration has also been supported by Douglas Corporation, Onchan, Ramsey, Peel, Port Erin and a number of other local authorities responsible for the collection of waste on this Island. In our report we also indicate that several private companies

Refuse Incineration — Report of the Department of Local Government and the Environment — Debate Commenced T858 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 have expressed an interest in providing and operating a baling or an incineration plant on the Island. As we indicate, such an arrangement would have a number of advantages to Government: it would give us access to a wider range of professional expertise and experience; it would save Government the initial capital costs of providing the plant and thus release valuable capital resources for other projects; most of all, however, it would enable Government to carry out its proper role — one of being the policeman of the environment rather than the polluter. For these reasons, therefore, we conclude our report with the recommendation that incineration should be the preferred option for future refuse disposal on the Island and that the department should consult with interested private waste disposal companies with a view to negotiating suitable terms for the private sector provision of operating of incineration facilities. I obviously hope, Your Excellency, that members will endorse our recommendations. More important than our recommendations, however, is the need for a decision of some sort in this hon. Court. We have been trying for over ten years now to decide on what our future form of refuse disposal should be. Now is the time for us to decide, sir. We have perhaps another 12 months or so capacity at the Raggatt; we must know where we are going and, after that, where we are going. In turn it depends on the future of the disposal option. My department is recommending incineration as the best option, but we will build and provide whatever you, the members of Tynwald Court, direct. What we cannot do, however, is be seen by the public — our responsibility — to make no decision at all. I do not mind, therefore, if some members oppose our recommendations; it is natural in politics for that to happen on such a technical subject, as I am sure some will, sir, but what I would ask those members to do, however, is to tell us in this Court today, this morning, what their option is for the problem this Island is facing. Your Excellency, I beg to move the recommendations standing in my name.

Mr. Gilbey: Your Excellency, I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

Mr. Kermode: Your Excellency, I want to make it perfectly clear to this hon. Court that I have always been in favour of incineration but, nevertheless, today I am keeping an open mind because I feel the questions that I am about to ask will decide for me personally which track I should take. Some of the questions may have been answered already in the report in a roundabout way. Nevertheless, I feel there should be a record in Hansard that members of the public can look back to in the future, no matter what happens as far as incineration is concerned. My colleague in East Douglas, quite rightly so as the Minister for the L.G.E., has to be seen to do his duty for the people of the Isle of Man, to come up with an answer to a problem that has been going on for many years in this hon. Court — and fair play to him. Let us go down to some of the observations that we have had over the weeks. We have had in this report from different islands those who are for and those who are against incineration, but can we regard those observations? If I was an official, a member of Government that had approved incineration a few years later, with an election looming, would I turn round and say, ‘Yes, it is a terrible thing. We should never have done it; it has cost the taxpayers a lot of money’? No, you would not do that at all and neither would we. If we go ahead with incineration it has got to be because we believe it is right for the Isle of Man and

Refuse Incineration — Report of the Department of Local Government and the Environment — Debate Commenced TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 T859

not what is done in other places. We have been advised by officials in the past that certain things should happen in the Isle of Man, things that have turned out to be white elephants; two examples have been Summerland and Albert Terrace, which have cost the taxpayers of the Isle of Man a lot of money over the years, and I suppose you could go on with many more but the object is not to fire stones or to look back but to find a solution to what is a very serious problem. Question number one: what is the total quality of waste, excluding sewage sludge, that is produced on the Island and what proportion of this can be totally incinerated? It is fact that the domestic refuse collection in 1984/5 was 28,500 tons a year which was only 60 per cent, of the total waste disposed of — that is, for example, 47,600 ‘ons for that year. I can only assume that in 1988 the proportion is somewhere the ,ame. Will the northern collection authorities be expected to travel each day to the incinerator? I know Douglas and other areas are travelling out to that area at the moment but it is fact. If that does not happen, then the quantity of refuse available for incineration could be as low as 23,000 tons a year — that is 50 per cent, of the total waste produced and, let us make no mistake about it, there will always be a need, even with incineration, for landfill sites. To take 40 per cent, of the total waste produced on this Island — where is that going to be? You still have the same problem with landfill sites. Another important question we all must ask ourselves: if and when a serious breakdown occurs, where would all the waste produced on the Island go? To the landfill sites. And would the site be geared up to this? Would they have the equipment to deal with it if such a breakdown occurs? — Something that members may not have thought about but I have, because I have been involved with tips and seen tips in use myself. How would large awkward items that cannot be incinerated be covered on a landfill site when there would be no suitable soft domestic refuse to cover them, and also prevent damage to the site machinery? If I may explain to members what happens, the larger items like your old engines, your bedsteads' are buried on the bottom, the soft refuse goes over the top, the machines come over the top and they are flattened and it is underneath. You will not have that with an incineration. Let us move on to sewage sludge. What is the quantity of dry sewage sludge that requires disposal? The incineration plant site — you have heard of one site; where is there a suitable site for an incineration plant? And questions that need to be asked: what will be the size of the building? What would be the height of the chimney? Bear this in mind — we have Pulrose Power Station, where people in a built-up area have been complaining for many years of the discharge from those chimneys. I mean, make no mistake, incineration is going to cause that same problem. We have a cremation site — of which I was the cremation operator at one time — in the middle of a condensed populated area, and on certain days you could smell that incineration taking place, and that is in no way the quantity that is going to be talked about with refuse incineration. The running costs a year are given to us in tons. Well, I think the quantities could be disputed depending on the type of refuse that is going to be disposed of and I think we must ask the question — and it has got to be precise, it has not got to be an approximate as it is important — what are the running costs going to be here?

Refuse Incineration — Report of the Department of Local Government and the Environment — Debate Commenced T860 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988

If I may sum that up, Your Excellency, what happens if there are insufficient quantities of burnable refuse to make it viable? Are we going to be left with it? There will be a continued need for landfill sites to dispose of the remaning 40 per cent, of the waste. You will always need landfill sites. Dry sewage would not present a problem on landfill sites because, as we have already seen in the report, there was one company saying that for £4.5 million they could provide the necessary equipment to dispose of sewage sludge, but I still feel that that is an area where they would still need to drain it, to deal with it, which would also increase the site on which incineration is going to be performed. I have not seen the estimates for the building and the stack. Certainly I have seen a picture in the paper but in that picture in the paper of an incineration, whether it was done deliberately or whether they could not get it in, certainly the chimney/ stack was omitted from that picture in the paper, and there were other guidelines in that building — the size of the building, there were certain pylons behind the building in that picture — that would give you maybe some idea of the size of the building; it is very important. Whether it is economical or not I do not know. I am hoping the minister will give me the answer to those questions so that I can, as before, support incineration, but whatever happens today, you are talking about £5'/2 million, which at the end of the day the taxpayer has got to pay for. One other comment I would like to make Your Excellency — and this is what really worries me most of all — it says in paragraph 13 that one suggestion is that this Government might license a refuse disposal option in the same way as it licensed the telecommunications system with Government then paying the agreed cost per ton for refuse delivered to operators by local authorities. This is a responsibility of Government: to turn over to a private individual that then, finding it not a viable operation — could he hold this Government to ransom? Will there be something set out in the agreement that says that if they fail to live up to their promises, if they fail to do the job that they are leased to do, will Government take it back and we will not be held to ransom so the taxpayers will have to suffer in the long run? I hope the hon. member will give me the answer to those questions. Thank you very much, Your Excellency.

Mr. Barton: Your Excellency, I rise to support the motion of the Minister of the Department of Local Government and the Environment. Four reports since 1979( and all come up with the same answer — incineration. What stopped it last time? One and only one reason: cost coupled with a cheap, temporary alternative, a short­ term decision. Surely we must call a halt to the primitive disposal which we have at present. I congratulate the minister and the officers of his department and their comprehensive presentation to members and the representatives of all local authorities on Thursday, 11th February. It is encouraging that both the Braddan and Marown Commissioners, the Sheading i represent, were impressed with that presentation. Those present noted his comments that the site proposals contained in the report were examples for costing only and I think this went home on that day. Mr. Delaney repeated — for costings only and not the proposed site — and this morning we have been given details of one of the proposed sites and I am certain the Braddan Commissioners will continue with their support in this area. Your Excellency, I noticed with interest within the report comments on animal

Refuse Incineration — Report of the Department of Local Government and the Environment — Debate Commenced TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 T861 by-products. Members at the presentation also heard further comments on this, very detailed comments. At present, work in this area does not solve some of the current problems, or there is a breakdown; here is a possible improved alternative. The report, which we have all received, is good and comprehensive; it supports and updates previous Government reports and recommendations. It answers most of the questions posed this morning by the junior member for East Douglas. Yes, expensive, but with the protection of the environment to the fore, and it was good to hear yesterday, and again this morning in the papers, the Isle of Man conservationists, both bodies, are fully backing the department’s proposals for further consideration. I support the report; I support that the options be received and the recommendations contained therein adopted — incineration. It will enable the department to give an in-depth examination of this option and then to bring it back to Tynwald, being followed with a blueprint given by the minister last week in the report by the Public Accounts Committee.

Mr. Duggan: Your Excellency, the last Local Government Board was very much divided on the issue of refuse disposal by members and officers. Especially two officers, in particular, attempted several times to brainwash members. My own view was for baling because it was more suitable costwise and environmentally acceptable than incineration, also because much research was undertaken by the last Local Government Board. We, Your Excellency, visited both baling plants and incinerators in the United Kingdom. It was very obvious that the baling was the ‘in thing’ as incinerators were being closed down, mainly due to environmental problems, members, also due to the fact of the high running costs. Even the Americans, sir, are opting for baling as it is a more practical and cost-effective means of refuse disposal. In 1982, sir, the Local Government Board went to Tynwald with a report supporting incineration, but after much research was undertaken, they later went back to the Court in 1984 supporting my view, which is baling. Baling is much cheaper in plant requirement and also the cost per ton. Also, Your Excellency, a baler can take all the Island’s rubbish, including old stoves, fridges, even cars if the plant was suitably adopted. Incinerators, sir, leave ten per cent, residue and cannot take your stoves, your fridges etc., which you will still be left to landfill, and this will amount, members, to about 20 to 25 per cent, of the Island’s rubbish, so it will still be a costly exercise. I feel it would be much cheaper to buy the Isle of Man Steam Packet than get involved with incinerators; you are talking about a lot of money. Incinerators can cause untold environmental problems, especially as todays refuse contains so much plastic; the fumes emitted could be toxic. I refer to the Royal Commission Report dated December 1985 on environmental pollution from incinerators and emissions of chloride and sulphur dioxide. It states, sir, that Edinburgh incinerator was recently closed down to hide running costs and toxic emissions. Controversy also surrounded the Recam International at Bonnybridge, Scotland, now also closed. Another plant, sir, in Wales at Pontypool, was shut down, not to mention many other incinerator plants closed down mainly due to the possible dioxin formed during combustion of municipal refuse. The Royal Commission Report recommended that the Department of the Environment set up a review group to prepare standards for the operation of incinerator plants. The U. K., Your

Refuse Incineration — Report of the Department of Local Government and the Environment — Debate Commenced T862 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988

Excellency, has also got the added safeguard of having a Clean Air Act. Mrs. Hanson and I have pushed for years to have this put in the Public Health Bill and I will be glad when Mr. Delaney presents this to the House of Keys. As for the utilisation which the hon. member for East Douglas, Mr. Delaney, did mention about incinerators, the Energy Committee of Tynwald, Your Excellency, looked into this matter and reported it was not feasible, due to the cost of extra plant requirement, and also that we would not have the put-through throughout the year. I would also like to refer to the 1984 report which Mr. Walker brought to Tynwald — ‘Refuse Disposal — Long-Term Options’ during 1984 and it states, regarding the baling plants, ‘The baling plants themselves were without exception clean and efficient, there was no appreciable noise or smell outside the building in which the , plant was housed and there were no serious problems with vermin or birds. As regards the disposal sites, these were well managed and environmentally acceptable. None had problems with leachate from their sites polluting water courses or with windblown refuse contaminating adjacent land. Good management was plainly necessary but, given that management, the tipping of baled refuse at these sites was shown to be perfectly acceptable. It is clear to the board that, given a satisfactory standard of management, a landfill site dealing with baled refuse could be operated on the Island without leading to unacceptable environmental problems’. We also went to Leeds, Your Excellency, and in Leeds... it is okay the Local Government Board looking for holes in the ground — we saw a farm land there, sir, where the department at Leeds had a farm and they dug out certain areas at this farmland and they placed the bales and covered, over each site and there was not a problem of seagulls and leachate and the problems that members say could possibly occur. (Interruption) So it is a fact, Your Excellency, that we could acquire a farm on the outskirts of Douglas somewhere and pack these bales there; it would be a lot cheaper. Incineration, Your Excellency, I think would prove to be a burden on the taxpayers, a folly for Tynwald and I think they would long regret it, sir, and I am totally opposed to incineration plants because it they are too costly and I think they are environmentally unacceptable. Therefore, Your Excellency, I would like to put an option before the Court and to move an amendment to the effect:

That for the words after “received” substitute - “and the Department be requested to submit for the approval of this Court a scheme for the baling o f refuse”. ”

I think is a more practical idea, Your Excellency. I beg to move.

Brig. Butler: Your Excellency, the Local Government Board has once again continued the commendable procedure, I think, which they have been adopting throughout this Government of giving plenty of notice of the proposed solution to long-running problems, of circulating as much information as they can, consulting as many interested parties as they can and finally bringing the subject into this hon. Court for debate and resolution. I must say I would like to rush forward and support them and say ‘Here is your positive answer’. Unfortunately I do not feel I can at this time, although I am going to listen to the debate with interest and make up

Refuse Incineration — Report of the Department of Local Government and the Environment — Debate Commenced TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 T863 my mind in the end which way I am going to vote, and indeed there may be some amendments that attract my attention, but I want to be constructive and I meant what I just said about the L.G.B.’s approach, and I congratulate the hon. minister and his colleagues and his staff on the way they do this and many other things. I do not like incineration very much for a number of reasons. Quite honestly it has not got a very good track record, in my experience, and I am talking about incineration of rubbish, but most places which I know that use it have not had particularly successful results. In many cases they have had very serious defects and problems and some of those, indeed, are mentioned in this report, so we have to be slightly suspicious about the effectiveness of incineration, and I think this is particularly true when you are using it in a relatively small situation, and the Isle of Man is a small situation. Then again, it is very expensive. I suspect, but of course we will find out when the full details come, that it may be more expensive than this report envisages. I hope I am wrong, but I just suspect the costs as laid out there as being the full costs of what is involved in incineration. It is definitely vulnerable in many ways, it is quite complex to maintain and continue — I mean, in the extreme case if the incinerator goes out you lose the walls and really you have got to build youself a new incinerator. But, far more than that, there are many minor problems and major problems involved in the running of an effective incineration apparatus, and it would be the only one we have; we would be directing all our rubbish to one outlet. It is also a little bit final, is it not? If you build your incinerator at vast cost you have really committed yourself to that solution. There is nowhere else to go without a tremendous waste of money — so much for your white elephant the hon. member for North Douglas said; it is a black elephant, I think, in this case but it certainly would be a very ugly elephant. This leads us on to the question of siting. Quite honestly, whichever site you come across there are going to be problems and opposition, and if you think this debate might be a fierce one, just wait until we get down to where it is going to go. I mean, it is a terrible, terrible problem.

Mr. Kermode: Ramsey.

Brig. Butler: It is certainly not going to Ramsey, Your Excellency, and I do not know whether there is anywhere which would happily accept it. I am certainly strongly opposed, for instance, to the suggestion of Tromode; I think that would be an awful place to put it. But it is very difficult — and I am not being disruptive — to think of anywhere, and I ask any member who has got a bright idea of a site on his own constituency ground; I would be very interested to hear it. I am sure the subject of pollution will be raised in greater detail. I am not quite so worried about this. There are these days some very good precautions that can be used to filter the gases and I think probably that particular problem is less of a threat than we think it is. However, I would suggest that the whole philosophy, the whole temperament of populations these days, because of all the emphasis on pollution and threats to our ecology, is to be very suspicious about anything like this, and even if it were effectively technically safe it might well be that that would not be the perception of the public, so we might be facing a very considerable pressure group against incineration. Now I have given a number of reasons why I am worried about incineration,

Refuse Incineration — Report of the Department of Local Government and the Environment — Debate Commenced T864 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988

but of course the problem is coming up with a constructive alternative and I certainly do not think that untreated landfill is that alternative. I did find Mr. Dando’s letter very interesting, very well laid out and very sensibly argued, but I do think there are too many problems in any solution which involves the general use of untreated rubbish landfill. Baling is another matter. I think baling is a sensible solution; it is not a cheap solution but it is great deal cheaper than incineration in putting things into bales. The question is, what do you do with the bales when you have got them? I think there are a number of solutions but certainly we would be very short of landfill sites on the Isle of Man to take care of all our bales. Some thoughts have gone through my mind in this letter from Professor Thrower circulated this morning. There is a suggestion of bottle banks and we have heard that before. One likes the idea of a bottle bank because it is a way in which the community can take part in something which actually is cleaning up the place and also providing a self- supporting method of waste disposal. Our problem, of course, is we are sitting on a small island and we have got to get it somewhere, we have no glass works here which can use it. There are some in Yorkshire; I do not know of any in north-west England which certainly could. I think probably some of our hard waste could be used for infill of sites where we have got to infill anyway. One of my constituents suggested the road from Kirk Michael to Peel; it has got several corners where some work needs to be done and maybe hard waste such as compounded cars could be used for that, which would reduce the overall volume, perhaps. I think there is one aspect that I would like, whatever the resolution today, the minister to consider or look into, and that was one which was written off in this report, and that is the question of transporting some or all of the waste across the Irish Sea. (Laughter) I know this is a popular concept anyway; we would all love to send our rubbish to the United Kingdom — Heaven knows, we get enough from them! But I am talking quite seriously, because having just recently been wrestling with the problems of getting stuff backwards and forwards across the Irish Sea, one comes to realise that there is about five times as much stuff coming from that side to here as is going from here to there, and that is exactly the way we want to send the rubbish. I am not trying to suggest that this is an easy solution, I am just saying it might be worth a little bit more of a look than has been in this book, because I cannot help feeling that some of the barge type of boats bringing containers and general stores across could in fact take bales of rubbish back at a relatively cheap price, because if you are moving boats which are one-fifth full all the time, it ought to be possible to do a deal which gives you a very cheap price on filling up the empty space with bales of rubbish. There are problems, because obviously, if the rubbish was untreated completely, then it would be not ruin the boat but it would make it very difficult to bring something opposite back, but I do believe there is a solution on these lines where you could bale the rubbish in such a way that it could go on an ordinary barge type of boat which, for instance, is much used by Mezeron. Anyway I think we ought to look into that. Of course there is the problem of what you do when you get it to the other end; I cannot just see us stacking it at Glasson but I would have thought that our rubbish is probably about a fiftieth of what the north-west of England is disposing of somewhere and I would presume that some sort of deal could be done with them and indeed, that must have been thought of in this book with a view to perhaps taking, anyway,

Refuse Incineration — Report of the Department of Local Government and the Environment — Debate Commenced TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 T865 a quantity of rubbish from this Island. All of this adds up to no positive answers. I am only suggesting there are alternatives, and I think the way I feel at the moment is that I would like the hon. minister to proceed with the incineration solution and produce a fully documented and researched proposal — and I am not criticising him for not having done that so far. I think he should go ahead. There will be a cost in this, but I think we all agree that has to be done, because we have to be moving on towards a solution, so I would not like to say the solution is not in incineration; I have outlined a lot of problems for incineration, but it may be the best alternative from a very poor selection, but I would not like to see us at this stage say incineration is the solution and we disregard everything else. I would like one or two of the lines that I have mentioned to be investigated. The bottles, of course, could also go across in much the same way, although there is the problem that it would be difficult to bring the empty containers back again from the other side and we would have to think of some way of using something that looks very much like an ordinary container, but I think there is some mileage for a further investigation along those lines. So, Your Excellency, I would not wish to say that baling is the solution; I would not wish at this stage to say that incineration is the solution, but I would wish us to proceed along perhaps two parallel lines to come up with more details.

Dr. Orme: Your Excellency, inextricably bound up in this debate today is the issue of how this Government takes advice and how it uses it and, in addition to that, how it is presented before this House. Now before I start, I am afraid I am going to talk at length, so I ask for excuse to do so before I begin. I would like to quote something that we discussed last week when the Public Accounts Committee reported, and I would like to remind members that this was all unanimously agreed. The part of the report which we unanimously agreed was that before embarking on any major project the department should: (a) take all possible steps to identify and define the probable scope and nature of the project, including proper estimated costs both direct and indirect, e.g. maintenance; (b) to define areas in which technical advice would be necessary in the extent of the requirement; (c) to discover what similar schemes have been progressed elsewhere and how; (d) to make full enquiries to ascertain who, in all the circumstances of the case, were the people best fitted to provide the necessary expertise given the likely cost of the project; (e) appoint qualified experts with no possibility of bias or, as appropriate, a project manager to carry out the steps listed in paragraph 3.36; (f) work on a set development plan, ensuring that all necessary applications such as planning are made in good time. Now, I am sure I do not need to remind members that this was praised last week and was the point of being raised to the status of omnipresence, and indeed the proposer of this amendment described it as a blueprint for future projects. Now Tynwald is being asked to make a decision today, and I am not happy at all to make a decision based upon the evidence which we have before us. Now, to reply to the proposer’s question, no, I do not have the answer but sometimes the first question is how to avoid the worst choice, how to avoid a ghastly mistake. Now, in the matter of how we take advice we all, I am sure, admit that none of us are experts, but we have also got to keep clearly in mind, I feel, that the quality of the decision we make is primarily dependent upon the quality of the advice which we receive. Now in that light I would like to examine the evidence which we have

Refuse Incineration — Report of the Department of Local Government and the Environment — Debate Commenced T866 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988

in front of us. 1 am sure that the author of this report will not mind me revealing his authorship, in the sense that I am so familiar with his writings from his previous occupation that I could recognise it from the first sentence. Now, Mr. Savage — those of us who have come in contact with him have a considerable respect for him and no one here would denigrate him in any way but he is not an expert on this subject, and I think he would accept that. However, the report which we have in front of us — its authority is based upon its authorship. There are very few references in here, there are appendices, I agree, but there are very few acknowledgments to the various reports that the proposer alluded to that have led to this recommendation. It is my assertion, therefore, that the report which we have before us suffers from a flawed approach and a number of fundamental omissions. The first omission is that there is no attempt to make an inventory of landfill sites. The second, which has been referred to previously, is, I think we should ( have started with an evaluation of getting rid of the stuff; that should have been the datum with which we compared everything else, an evaluation of the costs of shipping out. Third, plans for the utilisation of the energy produced — after all, we have before us a proposal for incineration with energy recovery, so it is very important to see how we use the energy. Fourth, an examination of the environmental considerations. And fifth, evidence of the advice taken. I hope you will bear with me while I go through some of these in detail. Almost not stated in this report is that we are short of landfill sites — landfill sites not available, landfill sites are a major problem. Now I am sure that landfill sites are a major problem, and members have alluded to the problems of planning permission. Maybe the discussion should have been on the basis of not how but where, and then, having decided where, we might have discovered how. But, nevertheless, the primary claim for incineration that is being made in this report before us is that it offers high volume reduction plus the option for energy recovery and therefore reduces the landfill site problem, but no case has been made at all for the shortage of landfill sites, and I have referred, in looking at this report, to in my opinion a very good report entitled ‘Resource Recovery’; it was a report for the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, it was published in 1985 and was prepared by a private company called Environmental Resources Limited, and I hope that people would listen while I recite some of their conclusions. In terms of the economics of incineration with downstream energy recovery, their conclusions are these — ‘In broad terms we are able to conclude as follows: energy recovery would be attractive under the following conditions: the waste authorities handling relatively large amounts of waste and there is no available local landfill site; (b) there is a potential user of a low grade refuse-derived fuel or landfill gas prepared to guarantee to take the fuel from a disposal authority for a lifetime’. In addition they say, ‘our calculations suggest that it is very unlikely that incineration with electricity generation or heat transfer would prove financially viable. The cost of incineration per ton of waste handled could easily prove to be double the cost of transfer landfill. Our calculations suggest that because of the additional cost of recovery systems, the nett cost of incineration with heat recovery may at best be only ten to twenty per cent, less than the gross cost of incineration’. Now those conclusions are completely at odds with what we have before us today and I return, therefore, to the claim that a starting point for this report should have been evidence put before us today that landfill sites were not available, in other words, an inventory

Refuse Incineration — Report of the Department of Local Government and the Environment — Debate Commenced TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 T867 of available landfill sites. Now, we have had an attempt to compare us with other locations and I cannot really see that a relatively large island like this with a low population density is in any way equivalent to a small island like Jersey with a high population density and with obvious problems in terms of finding landfill sites. Now, the second point in which I consider an omission, the evaluation of shipping-out options, I think has been adequately covered by a previous speaker. I agree completely that the advantages of contra-flow should have led to this option being given a quite considerably higher weighting than it was given in the report. Now, we come to the plans for the utilisation of energy, and I can see why this part of this scheme was very seductive. After all, we have very, very high energy costs — that is one of the pre-requisites — and we have to import all of our fuel; yes, all those things make sense, but no plans have been presented as to how this energy is going to be utilised. Now at this point I would like to remind members that sitting in Pulrose already we have a considerable amount of money, taxpayers’ money, going into another scheme to recover energy. On the exhausts of these enormous engines that are going into the Pulrose power station is heat recovery from the exhausts of the diesel engines. A considerable amount of energy can be recovered from the exhausts; it is very costly, the money has been spent, it is there, at present we have no plans as to what to do with the energy. Now I think that needs to go into our thinking. I would like to quote once again from my Environmental Resources Limited report which, in examining the marketing factors for the energy that could be produced from incineration, concludes that ‘evidence from throughout Europe would suggest that one of the key factors in the success of energy recovery schemes lies in the hands of the end user of the energy’. Now, before us today we have a few ideas about high pressure pipes crossing considerable distances and going to heating various buildings, but the overall plan for how that energy is to be used is not clear. Now, we also have an omission in this respect in the sense that the analysis of the nature of the refuse that we deal with on this Island has not been done, so some very considerable assumptions have been made about the calorific value of the fuel that we would receive as rubbish. Now, I accepted these as being a rough approximation that our calorific values are roughly the same as in the United Kingdom until I read something in a report that I picked up which says that ‘the calorific value of municipal waste in the United Kingdom is estimated to be 25 per cent, higher than Germany and the Netherlands’, and it presents a whole range of calorific values in a table. Well, therefore I would say that that is a very, very considerable assumption. One of the proposals that I have heard mooted has been that a single large user would be the recipient of the energy from this incinerator station, and I think that members need to consider very, very carefully the inefficiencies that result from that sort of situation. The demand/supply balance with a number of large users is far more difficult to administer than with a whole range of users and efficiencies of utilisation as low as 60 per cent, come with having that sort of supply of energy from the incinerator being continuous and the demand being very erratic, and that would mean the dumping of large amounts of energy and considerable costs, in addition to which we have the obvious problem for us that our maximum refuse production, we hope, will continue during the summer time when the tourists are

Refuse Incineration — Report of the Department of Local Government and the Environment — Debate Commenced T868 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 here, and that obviously coincides with the minimum demand. The fourth omission, in my view, is the omission of a proper examination of the environmental issues. Now primary in this, in my mind, is the question of why no advice is contained within this report from the Environmental Health Officers of the Department of Local Government and the Environment. There are 11 officers and a Chief Environmental Health Officer, they are there to serve the public, to give advice; no real analysis of the situation from them is forthcoming. In my view a proper examination of the environmental factor would necessitate (1) a proper evaluation of the claims for incinerator plants. We have heard very, very grandiose claims — I went to a meeting where the Volund technicians and sales persons were there, and there were some very, very fine claims made, but that is it, we only have before us claims. Therefore I would want (2) some evidence of the performance of such units in service, particularly in respect of their ability to meet performance or reliability targets with respect to emission levels. Now nothing like that has been presented in here; we only have the claims. Now third, and probably the most important issue and principle, is, to my mind, the issue of the desirability in principle of the introduction of a new, large combustion source potentially — and I agree it is only potentially — in the Douglas valley. Now surely, before we contemplate this step, some preparation work has to be done and that preparation work must be an examination of the datum levels which we begin with. What are the levels of the various toxins in the air at the moment in the Douglas valley? What are we starting with? It is no good saying that because a plant may work in the middle of Birmingham and may not create any environmental disturbance in the middle of Birmingham, or many of the other sites that has been claimed, that therefore it is going to meet the requirements of the Isle of Man. Therefore I would call for a proper examination of the existing situation, the establishing of datum levels now for nitrous oxides, carbon monoxides, sulphur oxides, hydrocarbons and dioxins, impurants. Now, we also have in the plan the addition of a 75-metre chimney. We have had this discussion before — the discussion on the inversions in Douglas valley versus the performance of chimneys, but still before us we do not have any evidence which says that we have considered the climactic conditions, we have considered the special topographical conditions that exist in the Douglas valley and here is the evidence that shows that a chimney will deal with the problems that occur, and none of that has been contained within this report. Now, we have plenty of examples of incinerators that work quite satisfactorily, and I did some investigation on one of them that seemed to be the largest and, well, it brought to light all sorts of interesting things. It was in Cologne, it sat alongside one of the largest Ford plants in Europe and provided energy to the Ford plant, which worked 24 hours a day and provided a tiny fraction of that energy. Well, Cologne is in an intensely industrial area; the addition of a new combustion source within the centre of Cologne probably would not raise any datum levels at all, and I think we have got to ask ourselves, what standards are we aiming at in these circumstances? Are we aiming at being no worse than Birmingham or Cologne? Or are we going to aim at better standards? Now it is not good enough for the proposer to say, ‘Well, we are going to bring ourselves in line with the best standards’. Maybe they are not good enough, maybe we have got to decide precisely where we aim and, in that respect, one comes back to: where is the advice from

Refuse Incineration — Report of the Department of Local Government and the Environment — Debate Commenced TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 T869

our Environmental Health Officers? I think that it is surely incumbent upon the proposer of this to account to this House for the omission of the opinions of his Environmental Health Officer and to also address once again the problem of whether it is time to take environmental protection out of this department and give it some autonomy so that it may function without fear. Now, the fifth omission that I considered was the evidence and advice taken. It came to my attention that only this year, in March 1987, the Isle of Man Government had received the report which the proposer alluded to, which was requested after the Tynwald motion in October 1985, and this was produced by the M.R.M. Partnership, who are a leading company of consultants, specialists in the field. Now I have to first say that as soon as I asked for this report I was given it; at no time was there any desire to withhold this report at all, and considering its contents I can only comment upon the generosity of the proposer who was prepared to avail me the information which contradicted his own conclusions. The terms of reference given to this group were quite clear. It was an appraisal of solid waste disposal systems for the Isle of Man with particular attention being given to the two main options of baling and incineration. Now, this report was very, very comprehensive. It, I think, made a correct assessment of the situation as it saw it at that time but most important of all it called for subsequent investigative work to be done. Now this was submitted in March 1987 and I would like to read you one of its conclusions concerning the nature of the waste that we are dealing with, and I would remind you that there was no information contained whatsoever in this future refuse disposal of the options which we have before us. ‘The existing data relating to waste arising in the Isle of Man is limited and therefore an in-depth waste survey is required to define with a far greater degree of certainty the following: the quantities of waste arising in the Isle of Man including domestic, commercial, industrial and on a daily, weekly, monthly and annual basis — very, very important because the peak flow is going to define the size required of any plant, especially when we are dealing with only one. Second, seasonal variations in waste quantities and quality related to tourism-induced population fluctuations. Third, projected quantities of waste arising on an annual basis over the next 15-20 years. 1 see no extrapolation of the figures at the moment in this report, especially as we are considering, surely, population changes. Fourth, the nature of the waste and, in particular, the percentage of putrescible and combustable refuse and, where appropriate, its calorific value. Now I must stand here and ask, why has that report’s recommendation not been carried out? Why has that not been done before any subsequent representation was made? Now, in the recommendations, the final recommendations of this M.R.M. report of March 1987, this report comes down on the side of baling and I quote ‘On balance, therefore, it is considered that the most suitable option would be the disposal of baled refuse to landfill. Whilst being rather more expensive than the disposal of untreated waste to landfill, baling is still considerably cheaper than incineration. Furthermore, many of the potential problems associated with poorly operated landfill sites receiving untreated waste can be easily controlled with the introduction of baling pre-treatment. It is fully appreciated that viability of the baling option is entirely dependent on there being adequate suitable landfill space on the Island. Therefore, in order to prove the viability or otherwise of the baling option, it is strongly recommended that (1) a study be undertaken to identify potential suitable landfill

Refuse Incineration — Report of the Department of Local Government and the Environment — Debate Commenced T870 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988

sites in the Island. Sites which are considered suitable should be the subject of a brief engineering pre-feasibility study.’ Now there are two examples there of the recommendations and conclusions of this firm of consultants, both of which it would appear no further work has been carried out upon and no evidence is presented in the report to us. I return to where I started — if we are going to pay for specialised and expert advice, then let us decide beforehand whether we are going to take it, because there really is no point in this whole procedure unless some attention is going to be paid to it. Now, given this report, given that this exists, what new evidence has been put before us to overturn (a) the advice on the conclusions and recommendations, but (b) the recommendations for further investigation, which, after all, this report reasonably suggests? One is led to speculate whether this report we have in front of us is an avoidance of the ‘where?’ argument and just dealing with the ‘how?’ 1 in order to remove attention from the inevitability of considering ‘where?’ somewhere in the procedure. I would urge members to consider very carefully how important the competent decision-making processes are for this Island’s economic survival and to consider, as we talked about last week, that greater and greater use will have to be made of external consultation, and some way will have to be found of dealing with the issue of taking advice from experts. I have had put before me the argument, ‘well, you could find experts and experts’ — well, fine, but the point is, we cannot possess all the information necessary to deal with the complexity of the decisions in front of us; it is impossible for us to be experts and we must find a way that is acceptable to all parties of dealing with advice and not dealing with it in a way that this M.R.M. report has been dealt with, which is ‘put it on the back shelf and maybe we will think about it one day’ I would just like to talk very shortly about conservative decision-making. Sometimes, when all the experts have had their say, one can only conclude that one does not have enough information on the positive side to make a decision; there is no clear winner. However, it is possible to make an assessment of what one does not know, a fear of the unknown, and sometimes the decision has to be made based upon an instinctive concern for those dangers which one may well be entering about which one can receive very little advice, whether it be from experts or otherwise. Now, it is my belief, having spent some time in studying exhaust pollution from automobile engines and having spent a lot of time reading information concerned with the then problem that everyone faced — because dioxins had not become as fashionable as they are now — of the carcinogenic, toxins that are released from all combustion processes, that there should be a fundamental resistance to introducing new major combustion sources in any society. Now that can only be taken so far, I accept, and there has to be a counter-balance of the benefits such as we require electricity for warmth, we require transportation, we make exchanges, but incineration is not the only option. The chemistry of incineration is fundamentally different. It is a fast aerobic process; it produces oxides. The chemistry of landfill is completely different; it, provided it is done properly, is an anaerobic process. It produces decay in the absence of oxygen. Therefore the production chemistry is completely different, and it is my feeling that the risks contained inherently in the incineration chemistry and atmospheric pollution are greater than the risks contained in landfill and its anaerobic chemistry. I would like quickly to say something about three subjects, and I will promise

Refuse Incineration — Report of the Department of Local Government and the Environment — Debate Commenced TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 T871 to close. Dioxins — the discussion which I attended when Volund came and presented their case for incineration to us gave a very interesting figure which 1 have not seen quoted before, and it was the maximum tolerable daily intake of dioxins, which was five picogrammes per kilogramme body weight per day. Now a picogramme is 10-'2 grammes, so a hundred kilogramme man standing in this room can receive safely one ten thousand millionth of a gramme of dioxins safely per day. Now, in the days when I was involved in exhaust gas chemistry, these where considered to be microtoxins, and the rough evaluation was, if you breathed a matchboxful you were a goner? And I am afraid that is the level one has got to consider about. It is not like the argument with carbon monoxide in the exhaust of car engines where you are dealing with percents by volume, which you have to breathe long enough to accumulate in your body to displace the oxygen absorption ability of your blood. It is not that sort of chemical, it is not a slow absorbent build-up chemical, it is a very, very dangerous chemical in tiny microscopic quantities. I think that we have got to pay a great deal of attention to looking at the claims that Volund and other producers will inevitably make compared with the real operating parameters that can be established; after all, there are 40 plants claimed by Volund in Denmark alone. Sewage sludge — one of the claims that have been made for the convenience of this process has been all the other things it can burn, and I can see the attractions of that, but I would remind members, before they give too much thought to that, that the rough estimation at the moment of 20,000 metric tons per year of sewage sludge which would be produced if we, thank God, start to deal with not throwing raw sewage out into the ocean, is 97 per cent, water. Now before anything can be done with that, whether it is to be combusted or whatever, the water content has to be removed. That is difficult ancl requires a certain amount of energy and, once it is reduced down to an incineratable level of 25 per cent, water, the 20,000 tons a year becomes approximately 2,000 tons a year. So we are not dealing with the same dimensions of problem, one has got to think about it in terms of being 2,000 tons per year of dried sewage sludge that could be used for other purposes with a degree of treatment. It could be used for crude fertiliser purposes. Now one of the third claims that I think has been misrepresented in the report is the claim for volume reduction. Several times I have seen claims for a reduction of ten per cent, of the previous volume for incineration. Now that is a total guestimate at this point until the analysis of the nature of rubbish has been carried out. The end landfill claimed on the present analysis is approximately 3,000 tons a year maximum. That is a guestimate; it cannot be anything else. Until the analysis has been carried out of the nature of the rubbish we are dealing with, I do not see that that claim can be sustained. So, to conclude, my evaluation of the proposals before us, based on the evidence that we have available today, is that incineration with energy recovery has one grave problem. It has to be in a populated area for energy usage, therefore the environmental considerations are more critical. It is also more expensive, it can be unreliable, or it requires highly trained or expert staff to maintain reliability, and, most important of all, by its very nature it imposes a significance percentage of the local population to a potential public health risk from environmental pollution. In comparison with that, landfill with baling cannot really be addressed, because we have not got before us the evidence that goes ‘is there an adequately researched and publicly acceptable area available?’ Accepting that that battle could be thought,

Refuse Incineration — Report of the Department of Local Government and the Environment — Debate Commenced T872 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 then I think that it must be accepted that landfill with baling is cheaper, is generally more reliable and is a lower public health risk than incineration, if only because it takes place where people do not live — if only because of that, nothing else. But I have to stress that for my own purposes there are too many questions unanswered, and I am unable to make a decision one way or the other, and therefore, I beg leave to move the amendment standing in my name:

That for the words after “received” substitute —

“and that the Department do submit an additional report setting out further particulars o f the proposed scheme.

Mr. Radcliffe: Your Excellency, like everyone else in this hon. Court and outside, I read with great interest the report from the Department of Local Government and the Environment, but I must confess that I was disappointed at the conclusions eventually arrived at. At first glance, of course, one could well agree with the conclusions which were reached but, on reflection, a quite different conclusion could well be in your mind. The proposal for incineration will be probably applauded by most people — ‘A good scheme’, they will say, ‘aslong as the incinerator is riot sited close to me; Put it somewhere where I will not see it or smell it, and then carry on’. And those areas in the Island to do that, Your Excellency, are just not there. Hon. members, if this scheme is to be — I talk about incineration here — of any use at all, it has got to be sited not too far away from the points where waste heat could be utilised and of course where the cost of transportation would not be too high, and that would mean inevitably — and indeed as the report acknowledges — it should be sited fairly close to town. Now if that were to be attempted to take place, there would be a furore when it came to the planning, because, as I said before, everyone says, ‘Yes, fair enough, put it anywhere but not by me’ and that is where the problems would arise. The various portions of Douglas and their representatives would be crying hard and long. The capital costs of incineration will be major. Indeed, the report itself suggests £5/2 million pounds; that is the quoted figure, but I feel that that would be a minimum figure, and the on-going costs, of course, of the operation would be high. I feel too that the estimated resource recovery figures as given will be probably over estimated, probably an optimistic figure, and I think the balance as presented, perhaps, could be a little bit loaded, to say the least. So we actually come to the other option, the baling, and the pros and cons of this are set out in table 8.1 of the report, and, quite honestly, Your Excellency, there is everything in favour of baling. There are lower capital costs; in fact you would probably get two baling plants, one for the South and one for the North, and still have some change in your pocket. The operating costs are lower, there is a higher capacity and the plant would have the possibility of installing a vehicle dismantling facility as well and as important or probably more important than anything else is the question of reliability. It is acknowledged that the baling plants are fairly reliable and, when problems arise — and they must inevitably arise with any sort of machinery — the problem will be comparatively easily overcome and managed and the costs will not be exorbitantly high. With an incinerator, once the thing is burnt out it is burnt out, and that is it. The biggest point against, as is seen

Refuse Incineration — Report of the Department of Local Government and the Environment — Debate Commenced TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 T873

in that table, is the lack of new landfillsite or sites, and the cost of million pounds has been quoted for a site. But, Your Excellency, that need not necessarily be the case. Every member in this Court will stand up and declare in the loudest possible terms that they are all for conservation, that they are committed conservationists, and yet, at the same time, they are complacently sitting by and allowing acres and acres of the Isle of Man to be eaten away, and I refer, sir, to coastal erosion. From Michael to Ramsey the elements are working away at our coastline. The only effort at all to be made in recent years has been by the Michael Parish Commissioners at Glen Mooar and I applaud them for it. They are demonstrating right now that with a little bit of initiative it may be possible to protect our coastline, and — my goodness! — it really does need protection. Drive along from Peel to Michael, and stop your car at certain points and have a look over the edge and see what is happening. If erosion continues at the present rate, I can see the time coming where certain departments will be parading before this Court, the cost of moving a main road back onto new ground and all the services that are under that road, and then we will be talking about a massive figure. Drive along from Ramsey to Bride, along that road, and in the Dog Mill areas stop and have a look — just get out of the car and have a look. It should make you think, and, if one walks along the shore line in any of these areas in winter note carefully the part of the face that you are looking at, the portion of the cliff, and better still, take a photograph and come back in a couple of weeks or a month and it will surprise you, if indeed it will not frighten you at the amount of land... the change has taken place and the land has gone — the tons of land that have collapsed and been washed away, and, Your Excellency, no effort has been made to arrest this. It has gone on for years; just let it carry on the despoliation of the Island on the northern side. ‘No landfill sites’ they say, and yet, as you drive from Peel to Michael again, there is a ravine at Glen Cam, as at the Devil’s Elbow, which will take years, I think, to fill up, and there are other ravines of a similar nature round about which could be utilised. They would do quite as well. At this moment in time, Your Excellency, when Government is looking at options for refuse disposal, it is being presented with a golden opportunity to do something positive. As I drove in this morning, Your Excellency, I counted eight vehicles coming north — and this was in the space of a 25-minute journey — travelling empty to the North of the Island; they had been carrying aggregate, of course, to the South and they were heading north again to fill up with sand and gravel aggregate from the Ayres — every day, these vehicles, after they had negotiated that damned silly roundabout at Bride, Your Excellency, (Laughter) do probably four round trips and they could well be carrying loads both ways, and I ask the department, have they looked seriously at the prospect of using baled refuse for coastline protection? I have been told that it is not an impossible suggestion to use baled refuse in this way, and I urge the Department of the Local Government and the Environment to take this opportunity, a once in almost a lifetime opportunity, of examining in depth the possibility in using refuse in this way. The options, as I see it, Your Excellency — and I would urge the Court to support the amendment which I am going to second in a minute — is to go for baling, which is cheaper, and some full use could be made of the bales after — you could even have two baling plants, if you like. And there is, Your Excellency, enough area available for placing baled refuse; you could take a portion of coastline and really

Refuse Incineration — Report of the Department of Local Government and the Environment — Debate Commenced T874 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988

attack it and get the feel of what could happen. And if this is done, at least it would afford or should afford some protection to our coastline, and let us try and ensure that we still have some land left in the north of the Island, anyway, for our successors to enjoy. I second the amendment as moved, Your Excellency, by the hon. member for South Douglas, Mr. Duggan, and I do earnestly ask this Court to support that amendment and let us have some hard facts about the baling of refuse.

Mrs. Hanson: Your Excellency, as a member of the former Local Government Board, I understand fully the problems faced now by the department. Refuse has to be burnt or buried. Where and how? Where? That is the big question, that is a debatable question. We may have enough holes to bury it, but nobody wants it near their homes and it would have, I suppose, to be by compulsory purchase. The 1 past problems of landfill have not helped the situation. There are protests from people living on the refuse waggons routes. We already know that there are three options. We know what they are: landfill, baling and incineration. A few years ago I visited incinerators in Jersey and in the Midlands and also, later, baling plants. They each have their merits. As regards cost, baling is the cheaper, but as I have already said, how does the department get the necessary pits to fill which are freely available? We have heard this morning, and from my hon. colleague here, about coastline erosion;: now this may be something, perhaps, that could be further considered — it is a good point. Your Excellency, I was very much against incineration in 1979, primarily because of the site chosen, that of a built-up area in Pulrose and adjacent to a built-up area in West Douglas, and at that time the better technique of pollution control and monitoring were not so widely in use. Those where the main objections. But, there was also the high cost but, in my opinion, sir, the cost is secondary to the health of people. We hear of approximately £5'A million pounds for an incineration plant and about £31 per ton for the operation. Now it has been suggested that steam heat or electricity could be generated which could be sold and would offset some of the cost and bring it to a more reasonable level. But here again the location is the most important factor. The recommendation is incineration, which no one can argue with — it is clean, it is final and will dispose of problem waste which can not be baled or landfilled. But there will also have to be a landfill site to take the surplus. There is also another problem — if the surplus heat, whether steam or electricity, is sold, the peak months will be the summer, when the refuse load increases. Now how will the surplus heat be dispersed? Can it be stored, or alternatively, has it got to be run to ground? Perhaps the electricity will be easier to handle. Your Excellency, there is just one hazard that I would like to mention. Environmentalists warn us that incinerating plastics releases toxic chemicals including dioxins into the air. The ash also produces tons of ash often contaminated with lead or cadmium. One way to reduce pollution would be to cull the refuse first. In the United States there are states which have mandatory recycling as they do in Japan and also in parts of Germany. The Japanese recover up to 65 per cent, of their refuse, but still have to burn or bury the rest. In the U.S.A. plastics are melted down and made into garden furniture and boat furniture which are sold in the U.S.A. and exported. In Germany all glass is recycled; no glass can be put in to waste bins — it is an offence punishable by a fine if this is done. Recycling glass

Refuse Incineration — Report of the Department of Local Government and the Environment — Debate Commenced TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 T875 could be a small industry on the Island, drinks could be imported in bulk and bottled on the Island. Now I raised this point a few years ago and it was looked at very carefully but found to be too expensive to operate. But things and outlooks now, sir, have changed. People are now environment-conscious, and it is worthy of further consideration and appraisal. Your Excellency, the recommendation is incineration. The big and most important question is location, but I understand, of course, that that is a planning matter.

The Speaker Your Excellency, I am very concerned about this resolution, sir, because I find the report bland, premature and frankly unacceptable. We are dashing in to try and get a solution to a problem that has bedevilled us over a long period of years, and frankly, hon. members who have contributed this morning — I refer to the hon. member for Douglas South, Mr. Duggan — have portrayed the background, so essential, I think, for hon. members to recognise when considering this issue because, let us face it, we have been over this track before and we did come to conclusions, and those conclusions, Your Excellency, still rest as positive conclusions of the former board and administration. The hon. member for Rushen has clearly indicated the shortcomings of the proposal before us and the failure, really, to carry out an in-depth examination of the problem that besets the Island. Frankly, Your Excellency, you come again here to what the hon. member has referred to as a ‘Public Accounts Committee situation’, a point I too was going to make in the nature of this proposal this morning. I feel, Your Excellency, the one good thing and the new thing which appears in this report is to be found in paragraph 8.27-9 — private sector involvement. This is something I very desperately welcome and find attractive, irrespective of the course we are going to follow for the future. But given that, Your Excellency, I will not be supporting either the amendments or the resolution today. I want the whole issue to go back to the department itself for a better examination of the issue and to come forward relating to the paragraphs 8 and private enterprise involvement with a much more detailed proposal on, hopefully, the options not necessarily on the incineration, which I regard probably as the last option of all, because I have been through this particular issue over the years with the Energy Committee, I have been to Denmark, I have been around the whole scene, Your Excellency, and, believe me, incineration is a path that prickles. Your Excellency, I will not be supporting the resolution or the amendment.

Mr. Quine: Your Excellency, it is difficult, of course, to crystalise an issue such as this, because there are many imponderables and costings, of course, by and large, are based on rule of thumb. Nonetheless, I feel that we must strive to do so if we are to at least advance the issue here today. I accept that the issue comes down to being baling versus incineration. I accept that we have to move from the present position in regard to crude fill. Crude dumping is unacceptable in this day and age, and the bottom line of looking at the alternatives will inevitably be the matter of relative costs. Now the move from crude dumping to baling would represent an increase in the order of 100 per cent, in the cost of our refuse disposal — £20 a ton for disposal by baling is no mean commitment for a community of this size. However, I accept that perhaps such a figure for baling, at least, is unacceptable and that may be the minimum that we can get away with at this point in time. If

Refuse Incineration — Report of the Department of Local Government and the Environment — Debate Commenced T876 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 we are to go for incineration, what do we get for the extra £10 a ton? That is what it boils down to; we would be jumping from £10 for crude fill to £20 for baling and, beyond, another £10 for incineration. What would we get for our money? Well, we would be getting reduction in landfill sites by something in the order of 70 per cent. That is questionable — there seem to be different figures being floated but, taking what we have here, it is something in the order of 70 per cent. But there would still be a need for at least 30 per cent, of what we are presently committed for. This advantage would be substantial, I suppose, in environmental terms, not to mention political terms — the taking of decisions which are politically very sensitive. However, I do feel that in practical terms, what it boils down to is that we would be substituting a permanent monumental blight, an incinerator, for a smaller number of temporary blights, landfill areas. What else would we get? Well, we would acquire the means to deal more effectively with sewage residue, waste oil, animal and fish waste, tyres and so forth. However, as regards sewage residue, I feel that there would be substantial costs above those identified in this report if full advantage were to be taken of incineration. There would need to be very substantial alterations to the main sewerage framework for us to take advantage of that element of disposal. Thirdly, I suppose, we would achieve the conversion of waste to a sterile form, obviating possible problems such as leachate, methane and vermin, if you wish. These are worthwhile, unquestionably, in environmental and health terms, but the bottom line remains — are these advantages worth, to the community as a whole an additional cost factor above those of baling of £10 a ton? Can we carry the cost of some £400,000 a year over and above even the additional cost of baling? The department suggests that the additional factor of £10 per ton would represent the worst case, but is this so? I would be most surprised if either plant, that is the baling plant or the incinerator could be commissioned at the prices stated. On the law of averages, Government estimates invariably turn out to be unrealistic; this is a matter of record, and I am not speaking now simply of the inflation factor. Our estimates invariably prove to be very inadequate, and we are coming back here time and time again for additional sums of money. So I would take that £10 as being the minimum cost; it couid be much higher. After all, the reference in this report to the interest shown by a private concern shows that they have their reservations; they do not wish to put their money on the table until they have had a further and longer look at this in the context of the feasibility report. It is not, however, the commissioning costs which concern me so much, but the prospect that operating costs will escalate to an unacceptable proportion over the years. With £5 million-plus investment you cannot lightly change course five years hence, for argument’s sake, so I would like to know, of course, to what extent has the minister addressed that problem, although I fully realise, again, that there are many aspects of that beyond his control. Importantly, Your Excellency, we must have regard to othercompetingdemands for this expenditure,for the money over and above the cost of baling to move to incineration. Beyond the enhancement of our environment, there will be little return, really, for our money. It would hardly represent a worthwhile return in terms of employment, just to take one standard or, I would suggest, significantly contribute to our Gross National Product. It is going to be something that is desirable - in environmental and health terms, all good stuff — But it is not going to be particularly helpful in making a meaningful

Refuse Incineration — Report of the Department of Local Government and the Environment — Debate Commenced TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 T877 contribution to our society. Equally pertinent, how would the additional cost of incineration relate to, perhaps, other essential services which this Court would like to see provided for the community? Do those relative priorities measure up? Are there higher priorities for this expenditure which would benefit the community in general? I accept, Your Excellency, that this is a very complex issue, and of course it is somewhat tarnished by political overtones; that is inevitable given a sensitive subject such as this. But I think it comes down to this — is baling an acceptable solution from the environmental and health points of view? Are there sufficient landfill sites or other outlets to meet baling requirements over the next 20 years or so? If baling is acceptable and there are sufficient landfill sites or other outlets, can the additional cost of incinerating be justified in terms of what you get for your money, the priority which it commands in relation to other items of Government expenditure. Lastly, but very importantly, because this is probably the biggest question mark, are we convinced in terms of technology and reliability that incineration can produce what it has been purported to us in this report it can produce? Clearly, from reading other documents and reports, it would appear that incineration has not measured up in other places. Your Excellency, incineration is attractive but its acceptability remains, to my mind, problematic and I subscribe to the view that further and better information is called for, much as I would like to see a decision taken on this matter today. However, I shall await the hon. mover’s response to my own comments and the other very valid comments that have been made here this morning before I decide which way to vote.

Mr. Quirk: Your Excellency, I think it is right to say that we all appreciate — at least I do, anyway, I would emphasise that — the efforts that the minister and his department have made to provide us with all the information which I think is necessary to make our minds up one way or the other on refuse disposal. It is perhaps right to say that I was fortunate enough to attend a seminar which was arranged by the department and it brought in those who had the knowledge in incineration, baling and landfill, and that was very much appreciated indeed. In fact, it was a very well attended meeting and I think it brought in representatives from all over the Island, which was very useful indeed. But I think, after that, I have always been unconvinced that landfill is probably the only way that we can dispose of refuse in our Island and I do not think I was reassured on that occasion that all the options were better than the landfill sites still. The only reason why we are against landfill is perhaps because of environment and perhaps because of a doubt that we can find the landfill sites, but I believe that in the information which is given in the report, an area of something like 40 acres of landfill would carry us into the next century at least. As far as the incineration is concerned, it was a very interesting discussion which the members from Denmark gave us the other day and I think it was made clear to me that incineration without recovery was going to be a very, very costly exercise, and I felt too that on that occasion that the people that were representing the incineration there did not give me very much hope that hot water was very economical as far as incineration was concerned. In fact, although I am a layman in that respect, I have had a little experience in the Electricity Board of the endeavours to create

Refuse Incineration — Report of the Department of Local Government and the Environment — Debate Commenced T878 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 a hot water system in the Peel area, and this turned out to be absolutely uneconomical on that occasion. Now as far as electricity regeneration is also concerned, I have my doubts that there will be a great value here as far as electricity is concerned, because there is no good creating electricity unless you have a means of disposal, unless it is really needed at that time and I rather feel that incineration is creating a generation capacity at a time when there is ample capacity in the Isle of Man. Now if we could get into a situation where incineration — you were able to bring it in in generation electricity on a peak load system, I would say that could be an advantage but I cannot see that actually happening, so I feel that incineration and generation is really not going to be a valuable contribution to the Manx energy economy. The hon. minister mentioned the Raggatt tip; I think he is probably surprised that I am getting on my feet and not supporting incineration, because this has been an horrific area over the last year or more, where papers and litter have covered most of the area round about, but I think we should look at the reason why that has happened, and it has happened because the responsibility of Government and the responsibility of people has somewhere not been able to cover this area. The Government have allowed all sorts of refuse, building materials et cetera, to be carried there in an after-hours situation; everybody comes along — not everybody, but there are almost continuous streams of lorries and people arriving there with all sorts of rubbish and, to me, if there was a regulation which would say that all lightweight material — papers, plastic — could be contained, I think that would have made a situation which would have been acceptable there, and this is, to me, something that really should be done. I feel that baling, on the whole, offers a solution to the problem and I was interested to hear my hon. colleague on my right mentioning the situation at Michael which we are all aware of and the seriousness of it, and on a visit to Dublin some years ago we were told then and shown then that a large part of Dublin harbour has been infilled and that now is a place where the oil is stored for that particular area, so this is not an impossibility, and I might mention something which is vaguely in my mind — that there is a programme or a project that is used for baling in which bales can be sprayed and become permanent and used in that way, so that does create a situation where you can use bales probably in the area which my hon. colleague has mentioned. But the reason why I got on my feet, sir, is not to support incineration or baling, it is really to just mention very briefly the social implication of refuse. Now that is something which I feel we must look at very very seriously indeed. We know now that recycling — and I am particularly talking about recycling — the need to make people aware of their responsibility as far as refuse disposal is concerned, and this can only be done by operating schemes such as recycling and, although they may not be economic, they at least bring home the responsibility to the people who create the waste and their waste is what they think of this, and I think this is the way we should go about it and, as I said, although waste materials such as that are not of great economic value at the present time, it probably will come about that, as our energy resources get scarcer and probably dearer, there may be some economic return in that respect. That really, sir, is why I got on my feet, because I believe that we should involve the people, involve our community in the endeavour to lessen the amount of waste which we create every year and, by doing that, by lessening

Refuse Incineration — Report of the Department of Local Government and the Environment — Debate Commenced TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 T879 the waste, that is against the programme of incineration as well, because incineration to me is actually encouraging waste, it is encouraging people to create more waste in order to keep your incinerator going and I hope, sir, that the hon. minister will take those few comments in mind and in my conclusion, sir, I will say that, on balance, I will tend to support baling rather than the incineration.

Mr. Bell: Your Excellency, most of the main points in relation to this debate now have actually been touched on and I have no intention of covering ground which has already been referred to, but there is one area of this whole argument that has concerned me all along and I still feel uneasy about now. I have been a member of the Local Government Board for two years prior to this new Government being formed and was party to the debate which went on at that time between incineration and baling. At that time the balance was tilting towards baling, although 1 have to admit that I have always been at heart a supporter of incineration; in the past it always seemed logical to me that this is the area we should be moving towards. Now, having said that, latterly, in the last year or 18 months I must admit my reservations about the use of incineration on the Island have grown and grown with the revelation of the ecological and environmental damage which has been done in the vicinity of some of the incinerators in England in particular, but also further afield. My reservations, as a result of that, have increased to the extent now where, whilst we are being offered this resolution today to support incineration, I am still, I am afraid, teetering on the brink; I cannot quite bring myself to support outright the concept of incineration. But, locally, there is one area which I have not been convinced that the hon. mover of this resolution has got the answer to. Everyone’s overriding concern, I think, on the establishment of incineration has to be our ability to control the emission from this incinerator; the dioxins and other by-products of incineration have to be thé area that we are most concerned about. To a certain extent I am reassured by the mover’s comments earlier on that his department will be looking at establishing the tightest controls in Europe. He refers to Denmark and to Germany, and I know Denmark in particular have very tight standards. I am bound to support to a certain extent the comments made by the hon. member for Rushen as to whether or not those standards are in fact adequate; they may well be the tightest, but are they in fact as tight as they should be? The proposal is that the incinerator would be operated by a private developer, and by the time this private developer takes over, all our eggs would be very firmly in one basket — that is incineration. The control levels of emission will be written into the operator’s contract so it is quite clear to the operator, when he takes over, what the expected levels of emission are going to have to be. Now on paper all this sounds very fine; the question that is unresolved in my mind is that this operator is clearly operating the incinerator for profit, he is not there simply to benefit the community. What is the position going to be when the operator comes to Government and says, ‘I can no long keep within these limitations, you are going to have to relax it, otherwise we can no longer continue’? Is Government then going to turn round and say, ‘Right, you have broken the terms of the contract, we are going to sack you’? If that is the case, what do we do? What is the fallback situation? How do we cope with it? It is all very well saying we can write anything into a contract, but when we ourselves positively create a monopoly situation where the

Refuse Incineration — Report of the Department of Local Government and the Environment — Debate Commenced T880 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 control of the disposal of our refuse in this manner is in the hands of one person we are constantly going to be prey to these other considerations which I think will undermine the good intentions which the department have started off with in the first place. Now, the other method of controlling the emissions from this operation which have been mentioned before by the hon. mover at his briefing is through legislation. Now that is fine again, we can bring it in and I hope in fact it will not be very long before it is brought in, but the area that does concern me considerably is, if in fact we bring in legislation controlling the emission into the atmosphere from this... or, really, bring in controls of pollution of the air, full stop, those standards have to be set at a level we would expect from the incinerator. Now, at his briefing it was mentioned several times to us that the emissions from the incinerator will be considerably less than the emissions from the power station. What is going to happen when we get to the stage of bringing in legislation which will control in the first instance the emissions from the incinerator which are going to be considerably tighter that the emissions already agreed to from the power station? How can we possibly set one set of standards for one operation and a different set for another? The power station is in the process of being constructed at the moment. We have a £25 million investment in a new power station, a power station for which emission standards have already been agreed. Are we then going to say that after this £25 million investment you are going to have to spend £x million more to tighten up your emission standards to balance what we are expecting from the incinerator? I think the whole problem of controls of emissions from the incinerator is going to open up a whole new question on pollution of the air, and I do not think we can simply say, yes, we will support incineration, we will support the setting of certain standards in the contract and rely on that as being our safeguard for the future. The problem that this raises in my mind is really quite a dilemma; I find it very difficult to support incineration outright at this stage without clear answers to these two points being raised and I think it is something we should all be very careful about, because we need to broaden our horizons slightly, not simply to the controls of this one project which is before us today — that is of incineration. We: need to look to see what the knock-on effect is going to be on the power station and perhaps one or two other areas on the Island in the future. If the hon.mover can give me a categoric answer as to how we are going to be able to control this, then I will be inclined to support incineration. If not, then I have to admit at this stage I may be inclined to support the hon. member for Rushen’s amendment —

The Governor: I am sorry, you cannot discuss that as it has not been seconded yet.

Mr. Bell: I was about to.

The Gvernor: Thank you very much, Mr. Bell. Would you do that first?

Mr. Bell: I therefore would second the member for Rushen’s amendment at this stage purely to allow it to be voted on, but I would like some very clear answers from the hon. mover before I decide which way I will actually vote at the end of this debate.

Refuse Incineration — Report of the Department of Local Government and the Environment — Debate Commenced TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 T881

Mr. Anderson: Your Excellency, I am very concerned; I just saw the hon. member who was proposing the proposition send a note to the Chief Minister — I hope it is not his resignation, because I would not be surprised because, quite frankly, this Court has given him very little help here this morning! I think it is all right everybody shot in every direction to shoot him down, and I have been in this position, I know what the problems are, I know what the problems are at the tip at the moment because we have property right alongside it. If anybody wants to have a look, go up Mark’s Lane and have a walk. It is a beautiful part of the Isle of Man; it is a disgrace to the Isle of Man at the present time — rubbish blowing all over, the trees full of rubbish and it is an absolute disgrace. I will congratulate the authority in allowing people to bring their stuff there to tip it rather than tip it all round the countryside, which I have criticised so often in this hon. Court. The trouble is that some of the people are irresponsible; it is a two-way situation, Your Excellency. They come, they bring and somebody else has put something in before and other people are taking those things away. It has become a little bit of an exchange in the west of the Island and there are quite large quantities of stuff taken away from that tipping area that is done in the evening when there is no other authority there, but I think we have got to be realistic in this hon. Court, and the very fact that here today we have had the possibility, before the thing gets off the ground, of being threatened with the Public Accounts enquiry — I honestly think the only way you are going to get anything done is to give the decision to the Public Accounts Committee people and let them do it; that is the only way you are going to get any answer to anything, because there is nobody going to put their heads on the chopper in future because they have been threatened by the Public Accounts Committee before they get even off the ground. But hon. members, Your Excellency, there is a very real problem and time is not on our side. You have just got to look at that position. I will appreciate that all that is going into that tip at the moment is not commodities which are in fact are capable of being incinerated; there is quite a lot of builders’ rubble that has got to go somewhere and there has still got to be something found for that in the future, but I honestly think that we can be so guarded... I remember sitting on the rebuilding of Summerland when we were paying people £20,000 to give us advice as to the sort of material; they were sitting there and, because of what had happened previously, they would not make a decision. We, who were not the experts, had to say, ‘Well, that material is going on the outside’ — because it was going to cost an extra £8,000 a week — ‘and if it comes off, it comes off but I think we are being a bit like that here; we are looking at the problems to such a degree that we are not going to come up with a decision at all and I do not think that is going to be the answer, because we have a chronic problem. Hon. members have mentioned places — my hon. colleague the Devil’s Elbow and places like that, but really, these ravines that exist round this Island are part of a unique countryside and if we start dumping rubbish into them I think it could be horrendous. The effect of that blowing round the countryside — and even in a baled form I honestly think I agree entirely with the sentiments of the hon. member of Council in his relation to coast erosion, but in fact there is no way in which... that sort of bale would soften, would be dragged out to sea — the consequences of that and the consequences of what other people are doing to this Island and what is being blown up on our beaches! It is horrific, Your Excellency. Dublin and even Belfast Loch, where in fact there has

Refuse Incineration — Report of the Department of Local Government and the Environment — Debate Commenced T882 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 been material put in, are an entirely different thing, an enclosed sea area; we have the most exposed coast in the north-west of the Isle of Man. That is why it is eroding, and to put that into that situation — honestly, hon. members, Your Excellency, it would be disastrous for the Island because the movement there... and I know it well because I looked after Ballagawne farm for some 13 years and I sadly saw acres of it disappear into the sea, but really, to put that sort of material there is no answer and I honestly, having been through this... and I think the hon. member for Rushen did identify — maybe it was not written down — as to what was available for open tipping or tipping of baled refuse; I was a member and we wrote to every department on the Isle of Man, every local authority, to come up with their areas in their location where they could tell us where we could tip. We did not get a single reply back! Your Excellency, it is impossible to get people to accept this and if you go round — and many of us know every inch of the Isle of Man — you can have great difficulty finding anywhere where you can put any quantity of stuff. I do not like incineration particularly, although I was in a position where I was putting it forward. I realise there could be problems with it. We did visit a lot of plants and where those plants were managed properly it was okay, but there were some that were managed badly and you could immediately tell that, and this is in fact the whole secret of it — it is keeping the correct temperatures which will control the gases that come out of those plants, and I honestly think that if that is done, then there is hope for us doing something about it. But, honestly, I am concerned, Your Excellency, at the way in which we are going here this morning, because it is no help to the department or to the hon. member, because they are getting no direction at all, we are all going in different directions, expressing different viewpoints and, really, we are coming up with no conclusions. Decision day is here, and really we are going to be in an horrendous position if we have got all the stuff and nowhere on which to tip it, and the thought of taking it to the Point of Ayre where in fact the exposure as far as wind is concerned is fantastic, it really could be... we know what is being tipped down there at the moment, but the possibility of baling is okay, I would go along with that, provided there are those who will come up and say where we are going to put those bales. I realise there has got to be some tipping of the material, but it will be vastly reduced when incineration takes place, and I honestly think, although I am not too enthusiastic about it and I had to ask some questions in relation to what was taking place in certain areas as a result of the environment round about what happened, but I have been reasonably satisfied and I am convinced, Your Excellency, if the right plant is put in, properly managed and with dealing with the gases that are going out of it, I believe that is the only honest option this Court has got before it today.

The Governor: In calling on the next hon. member to speak, I owe him an apology for not telling hon. members at the beginning of proceedings that he had asked for and received my permission to arrive late because he was attending a funeral. The member for West Douglas.

Mr. Kneale: Thank you, Your Excellency. The resolution before us asks for the report to be received and the recommendations contained therein adopted. Now the only recommendations contained in this report are given in paragraph 14 of the summary of conclusions and recommendations, and are: (1) incineration should

Refuse Incineration — Report of the Department of Local Government and the Environment — Debate Commenced TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 T883 be the preferred option for future refuse disposal on the Island; and (2) that the department should consult with interested private waste disposal companies with a view to negotiating suitable terms for the private sector, provision and operation of an incineration facility. Now, I am quite happy to support those recommendations. Before 1 record a vote in favour I want to have it made clear that supporting those recommendations does not mean support for the details of the report, especially Appendix 12, which deals with siting considerations and indicates that the department’s preferred site at Tromode adjacent to the abattoir. Now, this I am totally opposed to, a map of the area is included as part of that appendix and this is most misleading as it is many years out of date and fails to indicate the area which is now built on. On the map the area is completely clear between Johnny Watterson’s Lane and going out towards Abbeylands; most of that area is now being developed, as also is the blank space that is shown as Tromode Park. That has all been built on. If we turn over a couple of pages in this appendix we come to what is described as an ‘artist’s impression — incineration in the Isle of Man’. Now I suppose this is meant to show the view of the incinerator that the residents would see. Now of course, as Your Excellency knows only too well, the angle you get depends on where you stand, and on this drawing the artist is looking at the sides of the building. To get such a view the artist would have to stand well down Johnny Watterson’s Lane towards Tromode. Now if you look at the map again and take special note of the 100 and 200 feet contour lines you will get the true angle that many of the residents would get of the incinerator if it was built on this site. They would be looking down on it and it would require a very tall chimney indeed to take the smoke above the houses. Another consideration is the means by which the refuse vehicles would get to this site. Tromode Road is obviously unsuitable; it is already inadequate for the present traffic that is travelling on it. The Strang Road going up from Braddan Bridge is quite a narrow road and goes up past the primary school and already has a lot of traffic on it.

Mrs. Hannan: What about the T.T. access road? (Laughter)

Mr. Kneale: Coming by Ballanard Road and Johnny Watterson’s Lane also creates problems. Now for this accumulation of reasons I do not support in any way the site at Tromode as suitable. Now I hope I have made it clear that I am supporting the main recommendation but not in the detail. This morning, sir, I listened to Manx Radio and heard about a new system of refuse disposal which was being used in the U.S.A.. Four of these plants, according to the report, would be adequate to meet the needs of the Island, and as I listened I started to think back over 20 years when the then Local Government Board brought a system to this Court and recommended that we should approve it; it was the Dano system, identical to the system that these people were talking about this morning, so we seem to have gone round full circle now. Of course, when we brought that system to this Court, people said, ‘Ah, this is far too expensive and pulverisation is much cheaper’, and having remembered those remarks, I think of the remarks made in the hon. Court this morning by the hon. member of Council, Mr. Radcliffe, who said he is going for baling because it is cheaper. Now, going for the cheaper

Refuse Incineration — Report of the Department of Local Government and the Environment — Debate Commenced T884 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988

option has been proved wrong in the past. I wonder how much we have spent on getting the views of experts and debating this system and the various systems in this Court, changing our minds at the last moment because we want to remember that during the last House of Keys the then Local Government Board brought a report to us suggesting baling and we talked about sites up at Foxdale and all sorts of things, so now, having finished with baling... I have just had a note passed to me that I missed Dominic’s announcement on Richmond Hill, so if he has already left Tromode alone he is a lucky man! (Laughter)

Mr. Kneale: Now if we totalled up the amount of money we have spent over the years, I reckon we could have had not four Dano systems, we could have had about 20 Dano systems operating. It is time we made our minds up instead of continually referring things back to get some more experts to look at the things. I am supporting incineration, and, as long as they are not at Tromode, (Laughter), he has got more support than he started with!

Mr. Leventhorpe: Your Excellency, we have an easy option in front of us this morning, which is to adopt either of the amendments that have been suggested. I cannot accept that this is the way forward, and we have to go forward. Nine years this has been debated — nine long years. Even if it is approved today it will be something in the region of two years before a plant can be operating. There is about a year’s space left in the Raggatt tip. We are going to have enough inconvenience, mess, expense, for that intervening period, but to put off this for, once more, an analysis of all the options, perhaps some new system will come forward, maybe we could pack the stuff into rockets and aim it for the sun, that will deal with the incineration! (Laughter) But we cannot wait any longer for an answer, we have got to deal with it. We have debated it within the department, very lengthily, and as the report says, we have come down in favour of two possibles: The baling one has really been abandoned on the strength of that piece of paper there. That contains all the sites for refuse disposal that have been looked at; some are just outlined in red, most are shaded in red, and the shaded ones looked at and rejected. There are very few suitable sites on the Island. There are reasons for this. We live in an Island which experiences high winds and a high rainfall. Now even with baled refuse — and I have been on a site where this is being done in a comparatively calm area of the United Kingdom — there was paper and plastic blowing around, it was stuck in the fencing, some had gone over fences. But here, when we experience the sort of hurricanes that we had the other day and a steady, almost permanent gale, there is going to be more of that, not as much as at the Raggatt itself at the moment, but we will have that problem. And the other with the high rainfall — that is going to seep through your pile of refuse and it is bound to produce leachate and that has got to go somewhere, and its preferred option is downhill into the nearest water course. So we are going to have problems wherever we go with leachate getting in to rivers, various departments yelling about pollution — we are going to have problems. The other point about it is that if we do bale it and bury it, if we bale it and stack it three bales high, about 10 feet, we are still going to cover about three acres every year, and that land is not just covered over and forgotten about; for the next

Refuse Incineration — Report of the Department of Local Government and the Environment — Debate Commenced TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 T885 ten years at least, you are going to have problems of gas production within that, the removal of methane and control of that site. And that is why I firmly believe that we have got to go for the incineration option and go for all the safeguards that the minister has mentioned and try to involve the private enterprise sector so that, as he said, we are the policemen and not the perpetrators. I would like to touch on electricity for a moment, Your Excellency; it was mentioned. It is not the best way to use the energy contained in refuse, but it does make use of it to a certain extent. The Manx Electricity Authority is obligated to consider the purchase of electricity produced by any means other than the use of fossil fuels, and this of course comes under that heading, and they would, of course, look very seriously at any project which offered electricity. At the presentation by Volund’s they said that, yes, a 2Zi megawatt plant could be used or could be fairly fully utilised in the extraction of electricity from the waste. Now that over the year has reckoned to produce about 14 million units of electricity, a saving of 3,500 tons of oil. The retail price of that electricity — and I make this clear, it is the retail price, not the price that we receive for the sale of the electricity — would be in the region of £800,000, and the mere fact that that extra 2Vi megawatts of power was available would be a factor in the future closure of the old Pulrose Power Station. I think these are factors that do have to be considered when we are discussing these options. Thank you.

Mr. May: Your Excellency, the hon. member for Council Mr. Anderson said that the hon. mover of this resolution was not getting much help this morning. I would tend to agree with him, but, there again, it is right and it is proper that the arguments are identified and exponents of incineration will put their point of view and the ones in favour of baling would also put theirs. I recall the hon. member some eight or nine years ago at a public meeting in Pulrose when he was the Chairman of the then Local Government Board who were investigating this very problem. The hon. member tried to open the public meeting by showing a film about incineration, and the opening clip started with a very substantial young lady walking down the street, and that was about as far as it got because there was an immediate uproar from the people who were there, such was the strength of feeling against the proposals to site an incinerator in the Groves Road area of Pulrose alongside the power station. Mr. Duggan, the hon. member for South Douglas, was actively involved at that time in opposing those plans, and I was happy to support him in that opposition, because it was totally wrong and insensitive of the L.G.B. at that time to have selected a site in the middle of a residential area. I think that most people, including the hon. member himself, would go along with that conception. But from that we have two different departments — we have had the Local Government Board in the last House, and now the department under Mr. Delaney, and both those bodies have tried to wrestle with this particular problem. When I first came in here, the option then was bailing, and the hon. Chief Minister, Mr. Walker, was then wrapped in trying to persuade the good people of Foxdale that baling was the answer to all their problems, and baling was going to sort out all the problems of Foxdale and the ‘Deads’ and it was going to make it one in the most environmentally attractive areas in the whole of the Isle of Man. The people of Foxdale did not really appreciate that suggestion (Laughter) and it is quite understandable, so that was turfed out.

Refuse Incineration — Report of the Department of Local Government and the Environment — Debate Commenced T886 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988

Now we have the current department under Mr. Delaney. They have been given the job to do, and it is a job that is pressing. It is all right — we may all turn round and say that we do not like this or we do not like that, but there is a problem with household refuse and refuse of all descriptions here in the Isle of Man. It has been identified that the Raggatt tip has got 12 months of life left in it. I had the misfortune to drive past it on Sunday afternoon, and really, if that is part of the Isle of Man, then the sooner that blot on the Isle of Man landscape is closed down, then the better for all of us, because it is is nothing other than an absolute disgrace; that that can be permitted alongside one of the nicest roads in this Island is scandal. So therefore we have the problem, and it is a pressing problem. It is not going to go away. If we try and have split decisions here today or, say, take it back and have another look, it is still going to come back and the options are still going to be the same because there are only limited options. The question is, which one do we go for? I would turn round, Your Excellency, and say that I will along with the option of incineration, the one that is recommended. I did not like, in company with the hon. member Mr. Kneale, but I do appreciate and have regard for the mover’s remarks when he opened the debate, that the site that was identified in the report was merely for illustrative purposes only, and I am glad and relieved to hear that, because, equally as Pulrose would have been the wrong site nine years ago, that site would have been just as bad a location this time, and it would have left exactly the same type of uproar and opposition that you had nine years ago and you have faced the problem of going away again to try to resolve it. The biggest problem the department have, Your Excellency, is identifying a site. The Richmond Hill has been mentioned. That is down in a valley, and I wonder, with the height of the chimney, as to what happens to the smoke, after that. I wonder what objections there may be down there, although it has been previously used for refuse disposal, so it would certainly be a lot more acceptable than the Tromode area. But nevertheless, wherever you go there will be somebody who will object, and objections lead to protracted planning procedures, which then delay the subsequent building procedures, so, as has been identified, it is going to be at least two years. If we turn round now and crack on it with now, it is going to be at least two years before this facility is provided. I think we have got to bite the bullet, Your Excellency, and face the facts that the Island has a problem. It is not a problem that is going to go away. The problem with landfill sites — baling may well be an attractive option, but in the long term it could be a short-sighted option that would bring us to a situation where we would have to come back to incineration ultimately to deal with it, at far greater cost than there is now. My only reservation in this — and I look at the amendment here from my hon. colleague, the member for Rushen, Dr. Orme, and he gave a very reasoned... with his usual analytical approach to these things, and he gave very strong reasons as to why there should be more information forthcoming, and he has put in an amendment saying that the department will submit an additional report setting out further particulars of the proposed scheme. When I look at that amendment and then I look at the actual terms of the resolution, Your Excellency, that says, ‘it is recommended incineration should be the preferred option for the future refuse disposal on the Island and the department should consult with interested private waste disposal companies with the view to negotiating suitable terms for

Refuse Incineration — Report of the Department of Local Government and the Environment — Debate Commenced TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 T887 private sector provision and operation of an incinerator factory’, that in itself says that the department has to come back to this Court, so there is no point in accepting the amendment proposed by Dr. Orme because it does absolutely nothing. The department have got to come back to this Court with their final recommendations. They will have to come back with more details of the proposal, they will have to come back for financial approvals to go ahead with the proposals, so this amendment means absolutely nothing, and I would urge members not to accept this amendment, but to support the resolution as it is. Unpalatable though it may be to some people, it is something that we have to face as an Island. We do have a problem. The only concern I have in this is the private sector involvement. Mr. Bell has mentioned his concern on that, and I too would echo those concerns, because I do worry that we could get ourselves trapped into something that ultimately, at the end of the day, through looking for the cheap option, through looking for somebody else to foot the bill for us, we could end up paying a lot more dearly for in the future. That is my reservation; apart from that, I will support the resolution, Your Excellency.

The Governor: Hon. members, I suggest that the hon. Court adjourns now until 2.35. The first to speak after lunch will be Mr. Walker.

The Court adjourned at 1.05 p.m.

REFUSE INCINERATION — DEBATE CONCLUDED — MOTION APPROVED

The Governor: I call on the hon. Chief Minister.

Mr. Walker: Thank you, Your Excellency, I think there are a few comments I wish to make, because I think firstly it is worthwhile setting out the situation as Executive Council is concerned, sir. I think it is unfortunate, and I have expressed this view to the hon. minister in charge of this resolution, it is unfortunate that this document was made public before in fact it was considered in depth by Executive Council. However, I mean, that happened, Executive Council then had the choice, I think, of whether we would go it alone and everybody make their own individual point of view known or whether or not we would try and get some agreement from Executive Council, and obviously a situation such as this is of fundamental importance; we are talking about the expenditure of a lot of money and it is an important decision to be made. Executive Council did meet and we had the benefit of the officers of the Department of Local Government and the Environment and the members at that meeting, and we went through the report and were able to express the concerns that members felt and they were many and varied. In the past I think almost every member of Executive Council has had the opportunity to express his thoughts on this particular matter and in the past has expressed varying points of view, so it was not an easy situation to address. However, we did have the benefit of the advice of the members of the Department of Local Government and the Environment,

Refuse Incineration — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved T888 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 we did make remarks to them and they were responded to, and I suppose it is no bad thing if some of those concerns are expressed here in open Court and the minister in public can put them to rest again and there they are as a matter of record for Hansard, but I would make it absolutely clear that as far as Executive Council are concerned we are supporting this resolution here today. That was an agreement of Executive Council and 1 would just like to make that one absolutely clear. As far as the resolution itself is concerned, Your Excellency, it was said earlier on, 1 think, by Mr. Kneale, that we seemed to go round and round and round in circles, and so we do, and until we decide to get off that roundabout we will continue to go round and round in circles, and I would ask hon. members to get off the roundabout today and to make a decision. I think it is an invidious position to put the Minister of Local Government in, just to vote against this resolution and not give any lead at all. I think we have got the alternatives placed in front of us, we do have an amendment which in fact supports baling, we have the main resolution which supports incineration. 1 myself have a particular dilemma with this resolution, Your Excellency. I was the individual who stood up in this hon. Court and persuaded members to accept baling from incineration. (Members: Hear, hear.)

The Speaker: Very convincingly.

Mr. Walker: Very convincingly and there were two main reasons for that, sir. One has not changed but the other has. The main reason as far as incineration goes and the reason I came back to this Court and asked people to change their minds was because of the cost of the operation, and it is expensive, hon. members, and if we go down that road it is a commitment from each and every one of us to ensure that the resources are made available to run the incinerator in a proper way so that the perceived problems that have been expounded by different members are in fact minimised, if not got rid of altogether. So we will have a commitment to make sure that the department does the job properly. So that was the first reason that I was shying away from incineration, it was the cost. The second one was that I was giving a second thought to the fact that there may be more landfill sites available to us than in fact meet their eye, and it has been suggested and suggested here today that in fact you can raise the level of farmland, you do not need a hole in the ground, you can do all sorts of things. I or my board when I was chairman of it identified the Raggatt quarry as a possible tipping site, and 1 have to say, Your Excellency, that it was the politicians’ choice, it was not the officers’ choice, it was the politicians’ choice, and we believed that there was a three-acre hole and we were led to believe or we understood that it could probably accommodate five years’ refuse. We all know that it was a clay quarry and not a sandpit and there would be drainage problems, but again we thought, given the adequate resource and the proper planning and the right consultant’s advice, the problems that we feared in fact could be avoided and 1 have to say that has proved not to be the case, unfortunately, and I think if there is a blame to be attached that blame is fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the politicians. The best sort of quarry to tip in without a doubt, if we are going to tip in a quarry, is a sandpit where there is good drainage or good drainage from the site. But whatever goes down in that ground will come out somewhere and if it does not come out

Refuse Incineration — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 T889

in the river it will come out in the sea. We live in an island that has quite a high rainfall and the rainfall that falls on refuse tipped goes down the ground and, as I say, it will come out somewhere, perhaps somewhere where it does not cause anybody any annoyance but the possibility and probability is that it will come out somewhere that we would find quite objectionable, and so I think I have learnt a lesson. Certainly Foxdale was suggested as an area of land that could be upgraded. That has an environmental problem as it stands there now. In fact by utilising refuse in a way that would build up ground levels, that would bury any elements of lead that may still be in the environment and so on, it seemed that perhaps that was a positive aspect and we should look at it. We all know what happened: it is politically unpopular, and I have to say, Your Excellency, that wherever we would try and put into being that sort of scheme it would be politically unpopular. I have to say that. If we had large sandpits near to the coast, perhaps. They are not there, they are not available to us, so I think we should stop looking. That brings me in my own sort of personal summing up of the situation down to two options: incineration or landfill and the landfill would have to be at the Ayres. To assist the management of the landfill site at the Ayres we could bale but, make no mistake about it, hon. members, baling is landfill, it is nothing else, but the baling process in fact assists the management of a site. But there are problems with the Ayres. There are problems with Bride village, with the roundabout (Laughter) that the hon. member Mr. Bell mentioned. But there are problems with Bride village and putting all the refuse of the Isle of Man through that little village every day of the week down to the Point of Ayre. That would probably be unacceptable to the people in Bride. If you bale it you could reduce the number of journeys, you have fewer wagons, but you have bigger loads, you have bigger problems, I would suggest. So, we have the advice that is contained in this report and perhaps there are some figures that are missing, perhaps hon. members could all look for more advice on which to mount a recommendation, but that advice will be available from the members of the department, from the officers of the department and in fact, as it was said by Mr. Kneale, this resolution in fact is the first step and what it does, it indicates the direction this Court thinks the Department of the Environment ought to go and commits them to looking at it further and coming back for a definite decision. I think if we think about the other means of disposal of refuse, and there is the composting one, well, that is only a part answer; that will only get rid of part of the problem and we are still left with all the ‘uncompostables’ or whatever the right word may be — all the plastics, all the tins — you still need to do something with those, and if we think about a recycling, that is not an alternative. I think that is additional to and whether you go for incineration or baling you could always put in a recycling means before the final operation; you could always take out your glass or your tins or your paper, if in fact there is a market for it and if in fact it will cost less to take it out than leave it in. Certainly the exercises we have done so far have all proved that because of our carriage costs and because of the fluctuating market for metals, for aluminium, for bottles and for paper, a consistent product cannot be exported that will meet the costs of its extraction. So I do not think that that is an option at all and I come back, Your Excellency, to say I think there are just two: landfill or incineration.

Refuse Incineration — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved T890 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988

Landfill, I believe, has proved to be unacceptable, and that is not easy to say, Your Excellency. As I say, I came back to this Court and said ‘Let us go for landfill because incineration is expensive’, and I thought we could do landfill in an acceptable way. I have come to the conclusion now that we cannot. Let us go for incineration. But whoever is in charge of the incineration has got to have the support of this hon. Court because they will need the resources to do the job properly. The difficulty with incineration, Your Excellency, is no doubt the siting of the incinerator and if we are not going to meet the full cost of an incinerator, if we are in fact going to get some resource out of the burning of the fuel, it has to be sited in a situation where that heat can be utilised. Whether it is in the form of district heating or electricity generation will depend on the siting. But it is not on, I do not think, to put the incinerator right out in the wilds where there are no neighbours because there is no chance of getting any of the resource, any of the heat back and so reducing the cost. So I think the department still have got a difficult job to do. They have got to find an acceptable site; they have got to find an acceptable operator, and I certainly would not put aside the privatisation aspect of it at this stage. I think it is worth exploring. It will have problems, as outlined by the hon. member for North Douglas, Mr. May. It will have its problems, but it will have its benefits and I believe that it is up to the department to come forward and convince us which is the right one. But, Your Excellency, with those few words — and I have not got involved in the technicalities at all; there are plenty of those for those that wish it — I think that it is a very simple decision really. We have got two options. One, as far as I am concerned, has proved itself to be unacceptable. I do believe we have got to try incineration, at least we have got to give the department the support to do this next step, and when I say that, sir, I can tell the hon. minister that he has my support and he has the support of Executive Council.

Mr. Cain: Your Excellency, I have been firmly of the opinion for the last two or three weeks since I read this report for the first time that I was going to support the option of incineration, that is, until today, and it is fair to say that in what I think as a new member has been a very constructive debate most people have made their contribution in the context of trying to ensure that their remarks are positive and constructive, and I think, not having had the benefit of being in the House over the last ten years or whatever when these issues have previously been considered, that there are a large number of questions which have been posed by a variety of members which, in my view, should have been answered in this report. The questions should have been posed and perhaps the answers should have been given in this report. So I think that I can sympathise greatly with the views expressed by Dr. Orme, the member for Rushen. I must freely admit that I do not agree 100 per cent, with the wording of his amendment and he is aware of my views on that, but that is perhaps being oversimplistic. I think the minister has got a very difficult task on his hands and I think I am in somewhat the same position as the member for Ramsey, the gallant member for Ramsey, Brigadier Butler, as to which way I go as to whether I support incineration, which was my clear intention, or whether in fact I go for Dr. Orme’s amendment does largely depend on the manner in which the minister responds to the points that have been made during this lengthy debate.

Refuse Incineration — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 T891

Now having said that, there are two points which I have wanted to say for some time and which I would like to mention now, and the first is this, it is the difficulty that we all face as between financial constraints and wanting to be as financially efficient as we can be, and, as against that, the environmental issue. If I could put it another way, I would like the minister to give his comments on the following. Presupposing that incineration is the preferred choice, and that may well be the situation, and in the knowledge that nobody would wish to have such a plant in their own backyard, wherever they may live on the Island, has consideration been given to the site of the plant being located away from urban or residential areas, in the knowledge that so to do would either limit or indeed eliminate resource recovery? And I think that is a fundamental choice that we all have to make in our own minds. This may be one of the issues where the quality of life issue in these terms, environmental issue overrides the financial issue. Certainly to support my colleague in West Douglas, if Tromode was the preferred site, I think I might opt for Bride, (Laughter) and just to mention the question of location once more because it is important to each one of us, I am sure the member for Castletown would not want to see the incineration plant next door to Janet’s Corner.

Mr. Brown: If they reduce the rates I will. Free rates for Castletown.

Mr. Cain: But I would ask this, and this is the larger environmental issue which I think is also fundamental. In determining the location of an incineration plant will the department take into account the total environmental effect on the Douglas area of an incineration plant located therein in terms of three issues? First of all, the first issue, the lack of any clean air legislation, as has been in existence in the United Kingdom for many years. Secondly, the effect on the Douglas area of both the existing and indeed the new power station, and on that issue it is my view that the environmental effect is far less than the pollution that may be caused from the houses in the area, and, thirdly, the proposed incineration plant itself, in the knoweldge that in certain weather conditions environmental pollution is a real problem in the Douglas area, as anybody who has come down over the mountain, even in recent days, will have seen. So, Your Excellency, I have not finally made up my mind. I have a great deal of sympathy for the views expressed by Dr. Orme in terms of his quest for more information and, whilst I do appreciate that those members who have been in this House far longer than I have probably seen all this many times before, it is the first opportunity that some of us have had and we would like to ensure that we have all the facts before coming to a firm decision.

Mr. Maddrell: Your Excellency, it was not my intention to stand today —

Mr. Duggan: You always say that.'

Mr. Maddrell: — and speak. My opinion on this is well known and I thought that I might have been hearing something new, but I can assure you nothing new has been heard. I think there has been a lot of repetitive talk about the same subject. I think if we had voted five minutes after we came in here the decision would be the same after five hours. As I said, so far nothing new has been emerging.

Refuse Incineration — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved T892 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988

A demand for further information — can I say there are reams of it about. It is many, many inches deep. It is in the Library. You can go and help yourself, that is, if you wish to go in and get it. If you want to learn your subject, that is the place where it is. We do not need any more new reams about it; we just need to go and read the old one. I have been in three debates over the last number of years and they are exactly the same, if you read Hansard; nobody is saying anything really different. Well, I will tell you one thing: they are very expensive. That I am sure of. What basically is the problem? Raw untreated refuse, that is all we are talking about. What is the question to do with it? That is what we have got to ask ourselves. Today we have been given three options and out of those three options they have made a decision and I support that decision. I think they are right. They have taken the animal by the tail and they are wagging it, it is not wagging them. So let them M have at least a chance to report back with the exact details. Why am I for incineration? That is why I stand. It is very simple: we have a beautiful Isle of Man and it is blotted by refuse tips. Let me give you a few — the Ayres, and if you do not think it is a blot on the landscape, then go out there and have a look. It is disgusting. The Cross Four Roads at Port Erin — there are beds, there are iron frames, there are pots, there are pans, there are bottles, there is plastic all over the place, and if you are going into Port Erin on a coach and you look over the hedge that is what you see, not very nice for Port Erin.

Mr. Kermode: The last Government’s decisions.

Mr. Maddrell: Santon, the Oatlands, the Oatlands is a disgrace and has been for years. Port Erin again had another place, the Cross Four Roads. The Raggatt — well, the least I say about the Raggatt is the best. Members should go out there. Put your Wellington boots on and I hope you do not lose them, they may get clogged in the ground. I opposed it and I opposed it bitterly because there was an asset buried under there now: clay. We do not make bricks now but one day we may wish to make bricks and you have lost that asset, you have buried it. For years and years and years methane gas will come off that tip and someone will have to control that. That will cost money. For years and years I expect leachate to come out of there and try to pollute the River Neb, and the department that I belong to have sworn to look after the River Neb. So the Department of L.G. and £., unfortunately the new department, has got that problem on its hands, that we will always be on their back over that river, so they will have to work at keeping the leachate down. Twelve and 14 and 16 lorries a day are going out of that place with leachate and putting it down the sewers at Peel. Eventually that will affect the shellfish and that that are outside of the area where it is discharged. Small amounts do not make a lot of difference, have them regularly day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year and suddenly the ecology will change. Eighty thousand pounds was put down plus to permit the Raggatt to be set down as an example of how to tip, £80,000 in my estimation of which very little of it is coming back to us. We hear talk of Foxdale and Agneash. Well, hon. members and Your Excellency, talk to the scientists down at the biological station and they will tell you there are two things we must not do in the Isle of Man, is upset Foxdale or upset Agneash

Refuse Incineration — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 T893

because of the mineral workings, the lead and the other oxides that are lying about there, you must not disturb them, the rivers have settled, leave them well alone. Otherwise we will lose more rivers and more fish. Now previous Governments, as far as I am concerned, closed tips which local authorities had as a sign of progress. We have progressed thus far from many small well controlled tips to one large uncontrolled tip which you can go and see for yourselves. That is progress in itself. We must be very proud of that. These authorities must be wondering just where they have come from and just where they . are going to, and might 1 add that when they were not centralised they were very much cheaper than they are to run today by us. I say we have centralised bigger tips, we have centralised bigger problems, we have less control, we have had fires and very expensive fires, rodents, and my department is trying to keep rodents down and we have another department which is breeding them. (Laughter) We have a collecting agency from the local prison which is engaged on clearing farmlands and picking up waste paper and plastic. Your Excellency, it is decision time. The Isle of Man is a countryside. I have said it is beautiful, it has streams, its rivers, its fish, it is an old story, you will hear people talking about the Isle of Man like this and sometimes you go a little off them. But what is it we are against? What is the versus? And the versus, as I see it, is raw refuse with leachate, with vermin and think of the Isle of Man, I am saying to you, not just think of parochial. I know you do not want it in your backyard. I am not prepared to put it in your backyard. I am prepared to burn it. I would ask the L.G. and E. and the minister and his department to consider burning refuse alone on a two-grade system of which I have seen in the Midlands. That gives one flue but the two-grade system means to say that one system can be maintenanced while the other system is being worked. It does not need a lot to get it going; it just needs some wood and some sheets of paper, and they bring the fans in and the whole thing works admirably. Forget the extravagant cost of heat recovery. You are going into the realms of fantasy and you are going into the realms of very, very heavy expenses. If you are nervous of it, just buy an enlarged fire grate with facilities to collect the emissions. That is what I am making it as simple as possible. I have heard today from someone else of sewerage sludge, Your Excellency. What is new about that? You used to get sludge from the backyard loo which was down the end of the garden. That was never any problem: they used to deal with it, and then our sludge from the local sewerage works, we put it in pans, it dries, when the water has evaporated it is a useful thing to put back on the land. That is happening now; we have a lot of sewerage works in the Isle of Man if people are not aware of them. We have got an on/off, yo-yo attitude towards this and I think it is time it stopped. Stop it, burn it, make it sterile and sell it. Tips will be needed, I agree, for odd items, but the one thing that I have to say to you, even when I agree with people on that, is at the moment you are having too many places to use as tips. So conserve what you have got for what you have got to use them for. Now as a boy in Ramsey I lived on Queen’s Pier Road and when they were building the houses in Queen’s Pier Road, which are local authority houses, behind the house was an enormous tip. I remember in that tip them even burying a cow once — not very nice: our house was full of flies and there was plenty of vermin about. I never liked it, I never will like it, I would never advocate it to happen to anyone else

Refuse Incineration — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved T894 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 anywhere in the Isle of Man, I would say the only thing I would do is burn the rubbish, and I am an incineration man and I will support it to the full, Your Excellency.

Mr. Callin: Your Excellency, now in my opinion this is one of those resolutions where it can be so tempting to avoid taking a decision and to put it off until another day and even easier still, possibly, to vote against it. Now, I have absolutely no hesitation in saying that I am in favour of the principle of refuse disposal by incineration, as I always have been, and I say this for one main reason and on two conditions. My reason is that alternative methods of refuse disposal on the Island over a great many years have been an absolute disaster. Now, I know this has been said several times already today but I am going to say it again. The pulverization plant was a disaster and so has been open tipping, and I am not 1 convinced that baling is so far removed from open tipping. In my opinion the part played over this period by certain members of the staff of the Local Government Board has been a matter for some concern. There is, however, no point in going into any detail but I am sure that everyone will know what I mean. The conditions I wish to refer to are, firstly, that the plant is situated in the right place. It has been already expressed and I say again that I am not convinced at all that the Tromode site is the right one, and I am also fully aware that the choosing of the right site will probably be the most difficult decision of all to make and, secondly, that the scheme will include a heat recovery system. Now, I know nothing about the workings of an incinerator plant and I doubt very much if there is a single member of this hon. Court who really does, and for that reason I would like an assurance from the hon. minister that he is satisfied beyond doubt that the advice that his department has and will be given is the correct advice. As Minister of the D.H.P.P., 1 have a particular interest in refuse incineration and what I am about to say will, I hope, be accepted, no less, no more, but a plus mark in favour of incineration. We have heard many plus marks already but I hope this will be another. It is a well-known fact that the disposal of sewage sludge and septic tank contents poses a major problem to our drainage division. Indeed investigation aimed at developing an effective disposal strategy is the division’s top priority in the coming year. What, therefore, is done with this waste at the present time? I will tell you. Much is simply discharged to a short sea outfall at Jurby, and the rest being spread on land by a private contractor. Neither of these methods is thought to be acceptable without at least introducing other steps into the process. These other steps will require investigation as part of next financial year’s study and will ultimately require expenditure which may be very significant. Now, I am assured that incineration offers the possibility of either utilising the heat generated in the incineration process or a mechanical process to reduce the moisture content to a level which would allow the possibility of either simply burning the dried sludge as a small proportion of the total throughput or making the dried sludge available for spreading on land and improving soil quality. In addition — and I think this is also important — there is the problem of screenings disposal arising from the treatment of sewage. These screenings will come not only from sewage treatment works but also, as we improve the quality of our sea discharges,

Refuse Incineration — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 T895

from our sea outfalls. In this latter case, for example, it is calculated that a head works constructed for a new sea outfall for Douglas and Onchan would produce between one quarter and one ton per day of screenings, depending on the time of year, which would require disposal. Again the incinerator provides an effective disposal method of this mainly non-biodegradable matter. The incineration of sludges and screenings will leave only an estimated five per cent, volume of virtually inert material, as compared to what it was in its original form. Incineration would provide another facility for the D.H.P.P. The requirement for our Marine Division to provide a reception facility for waste, for waste oil, or oil contaminated water from visiting vessels means that a disposal facility must also be provided. At this time, Your Excellency, such waste can only be buried at the Ayres and I am sure there are many people who would not find this acceptable. An incinerator would provide an environmentally acceptable method of disposal of this waste, and finally, Your Excellency, I consider it was a serious mistake to purchase the pulverization plant many years ago. An incinerator should have been purchased at that time, and let us not make the same mistake again today.

Mr. Corrin: Your Excellency, we are being told that there are three options. In fact there are not three options; there are possibly two. The baling is not an option; it is merely a method of handling existing garbage, that is all it is, and at least it is a known quantity. I think the tragedy of past open tipping has been the management of the tipping. It has been done against a background of haste. I saw the L.G.B. as it was then carrying out their operations at Port Erin Commissioners’ tip in Rushen Parish, and they started off with good intentions with nets and all sorts of things. But after a week or so they got tired of that and it was not long really before the good practices that they had put into operation fell by the wayside, and then papers and all sorts of things that have been described were blowing around. It is a fact of life, and I think that that has contributed to the state at the Raggatt. I think it is a poor site, but I can understand the Chief Minister, because I think he was the chairman of the board at the time, his back was against the wall to get a site, but I think one can understandably say that if you put it in a bowl of clay, then clearly the water is not going to disappear down through it. After all, we use clay to line our reservoirs, so clearly the water is just going to run out and that is exactly what happened, and I think the management at that tip has left a lot to be desired. Some of it, of course, is because it is against the background that it is a temporary tip. So therefore the name it has got. I think also, of course, the discipline perhaps of the general public of when they have had the facility of depositing rubbish there at the weekends, that has been abused, not necessarily by the public but I think by contractors who have actually gone along with lorries and dumped rubbish there which is not the intention of it, I am sure, in the first place. It was a facility for people, car owners and so on, to put some of the bigger items that the local authority would not move. So I think there has been abuse there. Therefore I would commend the valuable contribution that Mr. Dando made to this debate, and on his paper it is — I have checked with some of the M.H.K.s, the members, hon. members from the North of the Island — and the site is there and it could be progressed in a manner as Mr. Dando has laid about, and I am

Refuse Incineration — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved T896 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 sure that if we spent a considerable sum of money in laying out the site with permanent barriers, fences and so on and so forth a site that could be managed in a first-class way could be established there, and perhaps that will take us another ten to 15 years. Now, in the meantime clearly there is going to be a lot of advancement made in the incineration world, because no-one here today, and indeed the hon. minister Mr. Callin has just said that he is favour of it if he can be assured that it is safe and he said that no-one here can say that it is safe. Well, in that case we are voting for something we do not know anything about, and many members have said they are in favour of incineration. Well, so am I. If one puts a newspaper or something in the fire and it burns up, it disappears, it is kind of magic — we would all like that solution, but there are problems. There are environmental problems, Your Excellency. There are operational problems. It is a fact of life, and there is a cost problem: it is very, very expensive. I think this was outlined the other morning there on an excellent programme put out by the much maligned Manx Radio. It was an excellent programme and that balanced the view that some had them running and some have had them and closed them down and others would not touch them with a barge pole. So that surely must exercise our minds for caution. I think what is particularly attractive about this suggestion, and I would say to the hon. minister Mr. Delaney, do not, you know, hand your cards in if the vote went against you.

Mr. Delaney: I will not.

Mr. Corrin: That is not the way to govern. Even if I was shouting I would not expect you to do that. You have got a job of work to do, (Laughter) but you are asking us and collectively, Your Excellency, we must bear the responsibility. That is the system. But we do have the to say ‘No’ if we are not satisfied with it, and I think what is attractive about this, which I think has got to some members, it is like having refuse disposal on the H.P. — ‘You can have the plant now, it will not cost you anything, and do not worry about paying until later’. That is what is attractive about it. I am all for the private sector element of having a first-class company do the job of work, I am all for that. But what is being put before us, we are not being asked to today, or perhaps in the near future, to vote five millions or seven millions or ten millions; we are not being asked; that is not before us. There would be a different atmosphere here if we were asked today to make a money vote for that right here and now. But, no, it is hire purchase that has been put before us — ‘You can just have it now, take it home with you, no problem, and worry about the cost after’. Heat recovery — to be quite honest, Your Excellency, I think we have got to forget about that one. The hon. Minister for Industry will not mind me saying that we have been looking, as part of our remit, to heat recovery from the power station, and it is not an easy thing to get into. We have had experts saying, yes, it can be done but when we question them there are ifs and buts. But the overall riding criteria is that we do not interfere with the generation of electricity. We do not want to impair the efficiency of that in any shape or form, and this, I think, is a similar thing to the incineration as if it is something that can be done easily. It may well

Refuse Incineration — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 T897 be, and I think one speaker just pointed it out — yes, indeed, it was Mr. Maddrell — pointed out that these are fine ideas but when you come to do them in practice it can cost you a lot of money. 1 think also, Your Excellency, that we are getting into the position of the radio masts where the Court is being pressurised against a time element, and 1 think and I would commend members to be mindful of the report of the Public Accounts Committee, in that you must get it right and it must not be a decision for expediency. We must get it right. I am not totally convinced that Executive Council are all as one in this, certainly not at all when the hon. member Mr. Kneale made his contribution: he is all for it except not in his back garden. Now, I would have thought a minister would make a statement that is mindful of the Island as a whole, not just his patch. That is reserved for us. We can worry about the patches. (Laughter) But when you are a minister, Your Excellency, I do seriously think you should be speaking for the Island as a whole. That is a responsibility.

Mr. Cretney: Of all of us.

Mr. Corrin: That is a responsibility, and it is all right to have a cheap laugh but this is a very, very serious matter, because what we are being asked to do is, as I say, H.P. now, make the decision now and it those who are coming after us who are going to have to pick up the bill, because if the incineration — never mind getting the site and all the battles that will be entailed there — if it does not work, if it breaks down, and even if you do have one you have got to have a sizeable tip to go with it, as we have heard, and yet all these, we are not getting any answers to these things, and that is why I prefer to go back to something that at least we do know about and vote on something, and that is go back to what I would refer to as the Dando plan. It is something that we know can work. Yes, it can be a mess like the Raggatt if it is not properly managed, but that is only management. I see no problem there. I see no problem there are all. It can be costed because it is known costs. We already have vehicles going to the North of the Island, heavy vehicles — Island Aggregates — so heavy vehicles can traverse that road. There is a tip there so that we do know a little of what would happen or how to contain it. There are many things that we know about, and of course it is the cheapest method. Now, if this was put into operation, and bearing in mind I said you could do quite extensive precautions to keep it tidy there, it costs a lot of money but in relative terms a small amount of money when the alternative which we are being faced with, we could have that in operation which would possibly do us another ten or 15 years. Then in the meantime because of the pressure of refuse disposal all over the world a lot of work is being done on incineration and trying to get these plants to work and at the same time get them to work at temperatures which hopefully burn up some of the dangerous gases or whatever, all these things that the hon. Dr. Orme talks about and frightens the daylights out of us with. It is quite right. I am not deriding it. Those could be ironed out and hopefully this Court then would be in the position to make an investment as is being proposed. But we can make it with some satisfaction that at least it is going to work, because what happens, what happens, hon. members, if it does not work (a) in totality, or it keeps breaking down and so on and so forth, or, as was pointed out this morning, we insist that

Refuse Incineration — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved T898 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 the private contractor works to certain standards and he is saying ‘If you want us to work to those standards, then that is how much it costs’? We do not have any options. It is putting all the eggs in one basket. So I do plead with the hon. Court to think very, very carefully which way may vote this afternoon or whatever recommendation may eventually be agreed, because of some of the dangers that I hope I have pointed out.

Mrs. Hannan: Your Excellency, this report states: ‘Refuse disposal is an essential service. The question then, is not whether we have to dispose of our waste but how best we can do it.’. The Department of Local Government and the Environment have come up with an environmentally acceptable process which is economic to operate, is reliable in performance, and with a built-in recovery resource. This preferred option is incineration. If I told members of this hon. Court that there is no easy or acceptable way to rid ourselves of waste, or rubbish, or refuse, or whatever you want to call it. The Raggatt has had its problems, so did Oatland, Ballahott, Billown, Kewaigue, Richmond Hill, not necessarily in that order. Baling was not wanted at Foxdale, as we have heard, and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry did not want bales or dumping at Arrasey, due to water pollution and tree planting; this is very recently. Groves Road, however, did not want incineration in their backyard. The people near Hills Meadow also objected. So what is environmentally acceptable about incineration all of a sudden? Douglas supported incineration last week but they are not saying or implying that it is environmentally acceptable. They want it out of their sight so that the visitors travelling on the Steam Packet can have a good view as they sale into Douglas. They suggested the Marine Drive. That vote did not even imply support for the economic operation of the plant, because they did not want it near people and therefore the resource recovery in the form of heat by implication could not be used. Environmentally acceptable I think not. The solution states that support should be given to incineration. However, I cannot do that. But I have agonised since I received the report. I have tried very hard to support incineration. I even tried to convince myself. But then I picked up the report again and it does not even convince me of the overwhelming need for incineration. The first paragraph of the report, as I have stated before, says that refuse disposal is an essential service in the disposing of waste. But I think we really need to look what waste is, and it has been mentioned by the member for Council, Mr. Quirk, this morning about waste and the recycling of it. However, the actual amount of waste is very small. Almost all the waste — what we consider waste — that we put into our dustbin or skip or dump at amenity centres is re-useable. In other words it can be recycled, re-used, put to better purpose. Not only is it to be re-used but by doing that we are saving a valuable resource, not dumping of something which causes environmental problems. Maybe a sorting centre too would be unacceptable, but it is thought that once people get used to sorting, recycling, saving and re-using these resources it gives people a sense of purpose, and the environment as a whole improves because Government, authority in general, is seen by the people to care for that environment. If Government or authority dumps, the general public thinks that it is acceptable. However, the Warmer Bulletin reported in September of ’86 that 43 per cent, of British housewives felt guilty about the amount of rubbish they

Refuse Incineration — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 T899 throw away each day. The survey went on to say that 89 per cent, of householders believed that local U.K. authorities should be more active in recycling, 94 per cent, that they would be prepared to sort rubbish at home if authorities give them a lead. Members of this hon. Court are aware of the problem not only of household refuse but litter in the streets. We need a change of attitude on litter, waste, refuse and rubbish, not only by Government but by local authorities and the public. This report states that incineration will deal with everything and that there will be very little waste to deliver to a landfill site. I think some ten per cent, was quoted, but my information is that it is nearer 40 per cent. So we get round to the situation of the size of the site, out of sight and out of mind. I do not think we should get into that position. I think we should actively encourage people to be concerned about the so-called waste that they generate, actively encourage to keep the streets, parks and countryside clear of litter. But we need to lead by example. Incineration does not, in my mind, express that example or lead. I cannot commend incineration to this hon. House. I will reluctantly support baling because it can work hand in hand with resource recycling. I know the problems of landfill. I have to live with it next to my constituency and within the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. What I am saying is there is no easy answer to this problem. We can pour money at the problem but it will not go away unless we take some drastic action, and I think we should do this by implementing the E.E.C. directive 85/339 on containers of liquid for human consumption. This is only a start in moving from tetrapacks for the use of milk deliveries. We should educate people to the advantages of using re-fillable containers, recycling containers and eliminating non-re-usable containers from household waste. We should also refill and/or recycle containers of liquid for human consumption. We should encourage the technical development of new types of containers and we should increase where possible the proportion of refilled or recycled containers to try and decrease the proportion of non-recycled or non- refillable containers, where the conditions of industrial activity and the market so persist. Now, what I am saying is we should be doing that, but this directive has not been in operation in Mann and I would like to see that directive from the E.E.C. become operative here. The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, that was the eleventh report, ‘Managing Waste — the Duty of Care’, in 1985 said on recycling: ‘Opportunities for recycling and resource recovery from waste materials are not exploited as vigorously as they might be, due at least in part to the absence of a clear lead from the Government.’. The same happens here, hon. members. Ireland also has a poor record on recycling and they also have a poor record on litter. The E.E.C. also has a directive on waste oil, the recycling of this oil to protect the environment, and there is also a council recommendation concerning the re-use of waste paper and the use of recycled paper. It states that Government and institutions should set an example by promoting the use of recycled paper; encouragement of recycled products containing a high percentage of mixed waste paper, and educate the consumer and manufacturer in the promotion of products made from recycled paper; encourage the use of ancillary products which do not preclude subsequent recycling. There is also an E.E.C. directive on smoke and sulphur dioxide emissions. This places a legal obligation on members by 1993.1 wonder if this is another obligation

Refuse Incineration — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved T900 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 that we can find our way round, and so take care of the electricity power station so it will not have to come under that directive either. Now, if I could return to the presentation of this report, we attended or at least we were invited to attend a seminar; some of the members of this hon. Court could not even get into the seminar it was so crowded. I was quite concerned about the presentation at that seminar. There was a report on baling, there was also a report on incineration, and I think if you used the amount of time that was given to incineration it was much greater than it was to baling. The attitude of the members of the Local Government and the Environment 1 think felt left something to be desired when the case for baling was being put. However, the report itself I consider, and it has been mentioned already today about the Public Accounts Committee, and 1 certainly feel that this is just exactly like the radio mast situation. Again, we are being pushed into something to make our minds up about something and there is no other way out. I cannot accept that. But I think in ten or so years’ time, if incineration is backed, the Public Accounts Committee will be there and looking into the situation. We have got to have a report to back up the claims that are being put forward in this report. In 1983 the amount of rubbish was said to be 22,000 tons. In 1988 it is said to be 37,000 to 40,000 tons. Do we really know how much waste there is and do we know if it could feed an incinerator? Again some members have commented on the commitment and the commitment to manpower because I feel this is one of the — we have always in the past tended to say ‘Well, it is only refuse, it is out of sight, out of mind, let them get on with it, it is not going to do anybody any harm, put it in a hole in the ground, and it will cause no problems’. I believe that if there was the right manpower, there was the right amount of resources put into the Raggatt tip we would not have had the problems that we have got now. It has been mentioned that the prisoners are out there clearing up the litter. Well, I have been out and it does not look as if they have been out at all. The environmental conditions do change there. We have had very dry periods with no problems and then suddenly lots of rain, which has obviously created a problem. We need to react very quickly when something like that happens. In one of the reports in 1983 the incinerator was proposed for Peel near to the power station to generate electricity. But now the power station is being phased out. There was no long-term planning policy there. The Environmental Resources Limited, which Dr. Orme commented on, concluded in their report that energy from waste is likely to prove an expensive method of producing energy even when full account is taken of waste disposal savings. Incineration with electricity generation or heat recovery is likely in most cases to prove wholly uneconomic, and again we can look at another area, the hydro-electric scheme, for a comparison. The discharges from incineration have not been controlled, although Volund stated that the emissions were down to an acceptable level and proceeded to tell us the levels in two European countries. The Environmental Protection Agency in the United States of America have reported that more dioxans and furans come out of incinerators than originally go in with the garbage. We have heard about scrubbers, bags and filters. In some experiments they have

Refuse Incineration — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 T901 not reduced dioxans and furans but have in actual fact increased them. However, I do not want to be seen as being terribly negative. If you want to support incineration I have the proposal of an ideal site. It is close to an area of population, a large population, Government-owned land, it is outside the T.T. course, and planning gain could be offered — free heat to Government House. (Laughter)

Mr. Duggan: I knew you were going to say that, Hazel. I have proposed that before.

Mr. Cretney: What does he think?

Mrs. Hannan: Well, offer him planning gain.

Mr. Kermode: Check Standing Orders.

Mrs. Hannan: I throw this in as an aside. After all, the three members or should I say four members for Onchan support incineration, so there will be no problem there. (Laughter) It has also been reported today that Peel Town Commissioners have supported incineration. I wonder where they plan to put it, on the headlands maybe?

Mr. Delaney: Well, why did you not ask them? You represent the area.

Mrs. Hannan: You have only just told me this morning that they supported it.

Mr. Maddrell: You are all out of step.

Mrs. Hannan: I am not out of step at all. I was out of step when I was in the commissioners and I do not intend to change. (Laughter) Conservationists have supported incineration, we are told that today too. I do not believe they have had a meeting in recent times to avail themselves of any information or take a vote on it, or who, may I ask, do they represent if not their membership? I do not consider them true conservationists. They, like some other inward-looking people, want the easy way out: out of sight, out of mind. Mr. Quirk said incinerators encourage waste. Well, I would just put this to you, hon. members. The man who made his millions from tetrapak also started the Warmer Campaign. An interesting conclusion — incinerators do encourage waste, or relieve a conscience. No, I do not support incineration. I support the earth. Reduce waste by legislation if necessary; instead of being negative let us be positive and attack the cause. Stop using sprays which affect the ozone layer, in fact ban their use, and I plead to Government to use only recycled paper, ban the importation of drinks in non-re- usable containers, aid and assist companies to return to milk bottles. There is no easy option. I will be supporting baling. Incineration is not the end of the road, it is not the end of the merry-go-round, we are not jumping off, we are jumping into another type of problem. (A Member: Hear, hear.) It is only the beginning of another type of problem.

Refuse Incineration — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved T902 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988

Waste management has been a disaster, says Mr. Callin. It will continue to be a disaster unless and until the right amount of resource is put into whichever system is used from now on, and baling is not an expensive way of doing it. I feel that we can use baling and reclamation, reclaiming and recycling products, and I feel that really we have got to stop using the easy option — out of sight, out of mind — because, as has been said in this Court this morning, the ‘N.I.M.B.Y. syndrome’ is with us and, while you do not want it in your backyards, who does?

The Governor: Hon. members, in calling upon the member for Castletown, who is the 24th speaker in this debate, I would hope that very soon we will get to the point where we can call on the minister to reply to the many points which have been made. I call on Mr. Brown followed by Mr. Lowey.

Mr. Brown: Thank you, Your Excellency. Can I just say that I support the minister and his department in their report, and in fact say that as a member of Executive Council he certainly satisfied me of the questions I wished to raise with him when I had an opportunity as a member of Executive Council to question him, his members and his staff over what was in this report. (Interruption) Now, Your Excellency, could I just say that this is something where we could quite easily say we have been here before. I have only been a member of this House since 1981 and this will be the third major debate on incineration or not to incinerate that has been in this hon. Court. Now, in 1981 I came into this House as a member who really did not worry too much about refuse; as long as the bin wagon rolled up outside the house took the refuse away I was happy that it was dealt with. Then all of a sudden 1 was appointed to the Local Government Board and, whereas I had not taken much interest in incineration before, I was suddenly thrown into the pot. (Laughter).

Mr. Kermode: Not the Glue Pot! (Laughter)

Mr. Brown: I would say the Glue Pot but it might upset Mr. Corrin. Anyway, Your Excellency, I then said as a member that we had to look at this problem. Now I have to say at that time I had no views really, as most members of the general public, on really what we did do with the refuse, as long as it just went. So we were then given the task to review the previous board’s decision and in that our chairman at the time, the Chief Minister now, said we had to take a fresh look at it, as we wished to, and do it properly, and I did not care whether it was incineration, baling, or crude tipping. In fact as a young fellow I never saw anything wrong with crude tipping. It used to be a great time up the tip, seeing what you could find to take home, much to your mother’s annoyance, to take home and make something out of bits of metal and old tin cans. One of the favourites was looking for pram wheels to make a trolley out of. Nothing at all wrong with that, it seemed great fun. ‘Why deprive our children of it?’ is what I used to think. But, Your Excellency, the problem when you became a member of the Local Government Board became more serious. There was then, what do we do with the Isle of Man’s refuse? And I think that members should remember that. It is the Isle of Man’s refuse and that means we all have a responsibility towards what we do with it. After visiting different types of plants and seeing crude tipping I became quite

Refuse Incineration — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 T903

firmly convinced that the only answer for the Isle of Man with all its problems, weighing up all the pros and cons, was without question incineration, and in fact I was so convinced of it that when the board decided to take a review in 1983/84 — in fact the only time I have ever done it — I brought out a minority report at that time against my chairman who I had a great deal of respect for and still do, because I was so convinced (1) that there was still great merit in incineration. People have to remember what it is all about. It is very easy for us all to sit here saying we are concerned, as we all are. We have a pendulum: one minute we want baling, the next minute we want incineration. But what hon. members are forgetting is while that pendulum is swinging we are continuing to tip crude, we are continuing to dump stuff in a hole in the ground, and not do it very well. When we had Ballahot tip and recently when we had Port St. Mary tip day on day on day those tips were on fire, not only were they on fire so much that in fact at Ballahot the firemen decided to leave the site and leave pumps going day and night pumping water into the tip hoping it would put the fire out. How easy it is for us all to forget that that went on, and yet it went on day after day for years, burning, putting smoke into the atmosphere from this very refuse that we are talking is better put in the ground. No control at all on how we burnt the refuse, it was burning out of control, yet it went on. So we then said, ‘Well, let us look at something else. Let us have a look at baling’, because that was another option. So we went and we said, ‘Well, look, here we have a place, the Foxdale area and all what they call the Deads and all the state of it’, and a scheme was produced to show what could be done and what would be the end result, and that was not acceptable, and I was at the meeting with the then Chairman of the Local Government Board and the aggravation from the people there, who just did not want the tip anywhere near them, is a thing that is echoed throughout the Isle of Man. As soon as you find a tip site nobody wants it. That is one thing that I found out being on the L.G.B. You can find as many sites as you like. You could have volumes of sites but everybody, somebody, will oppose it. Sandpits, quarries, holes in the ground, valleys, if you like — somebody will oppose it. Now, as has been said, Your Excellency, with incineration we only have a certain amount of residue left at the end. One thing is it is inert and therefore dead. We still have building refuse to get rid of, we still have washing machines and fridges and cars and all that sort of thing still to get rid of. But the biggest pollution agent is domestic refuse, full of all sorts of plastics and all sorts of other things that people get rid of, and at the end of the day we should remember, if you think there is controversy now over whether you have incineration or baling, you wait until you have to turn round to the public and say, ‘We are sorry, we have got a problem, we have no tips left’. Then you will know there is trouble, then you really will know there is trouble, and I will tell hon. members that the public will very quickly forget, very quickly forget that they told us not to do this or not to do that, because they will say, ‘It was your responsibility to make a decision’, and that is what is our job. Whether it is popular or not, we must convince ourselves that this job we have to do, this decision we have to make has to be made soon. It has been going on now for nearly ten years and it has to be made, and I can assure members of one thing: there will be a member or some members of this hon. Court affected, who will oppose it because it is going to go in their area. But that has to be because

Refuse Incineration — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved T904 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988

the Isle of Man is represented right round the Island by members of this hon. Court. The D.L.G.E. have been given a job on behalf of this Court, they have come up with a report, a report that members are saying there is not enough information in. I would ask those hon. members, did they bother to look back on the previous reports which give a lot more information, which, if you then put this report with that, you will find then there is a lot of other information available?

Mr. Kermode: It is more costly now.

Mr. Brown: In 1984 the projected cost for an incinerator was £3 million. The hon. member for South Douglas at that time said he did not agree with us doing incineration because we could afford to put it off for a few years because there , was enough landfill in. We are now a few years on and the hon. member, rightly for his own thinking, is saying let us put it off again. But the cost now is £6 million projected, and if we go on further the cost will go on. But in that time I would suggest we are paying over the odds to try, and to try very hard in some cases, to control our crude tipping because it is out of control; it is very difficult to control. I would suggest, Your Excellency, that if this hon. Court rejects the report here which allows the D.L.G.E. to go ahead and try to see what they can come up with, if they reject that, then I would suggest the D.L.G.E. has no other option but as a priority to try to purchase as many sites as they can for the tipping of crude refuse in the Isle of Man and if necessary come back to this Court with compulsory purchase orders to enable them to look after the welfare and health of the people of the Isle of Man, and this hon. Court, if it then refuses, is in deep water, because they have a problem, we have a problem, not the D.L.G.E., we as a Government of the Isle of Man, we as a Court of the Isle of Man. Your Excellency, I have spent certainly some years in my lifetime in this hon. Court looking at this problem, dealing with it as a member of the Local Government Board at that time. One thing I can assure hon. members: no matter what option you come up with this of all things will give you more criticism, no matter where you go for a tip there will be a planning outcry from the neighbourhood. I would suggest to you the only reason or the main reason that you were able to use the Raggatt was because the person who lived near it owned the Raggatt. I am sure that if it was not his tip, his hole in the ground, he would have been the first person to oppose a tip being next door to his house. ( We have a problem. I think hon. members should support the report, let the D.L.G.E. take the next stage, let them come back, if they have to, to this hon. Court, and come back with what they think is the right way to go. I would just say one last thing from my point of view, Your Excellency, which I have made to the minister for the department, and that is that if we do go private, and I do believe there is a great opportunity to go private, if we do go private on letting it out, then there is no doubt about it, we will have to enact legislation to control the pollution of the environment within the Isle of Man from that sort of process. Your Excellency, I hope hon. members will really think this one out carefully. It has been going backwards and forwards, let us make a decision and let the department get on with the job, because at the end of the day it will all come back onto us.

Refuse Incineration — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 T905

Mr. Lowey: Your Excellency, part of my spare time is taken up with being a member of the Referees’ Society of the Isle of Man and, as hon. members in this Court, I am quite sure, who take a keen interest in sport will know, there is a shortage of referees. So as a member of that society 1 am always on the look-out for potential referees, so today I have been very much aware that this Court is a catchment area for potential referees. To be a referee you need to make decisions, pretty smartish, and you have to be decisive. I detect amongst this Court today not many recruits for the Isle of Man Referees’ Society.

A Member: We are all linesmen.

Mr. Lowey: No, linesmen even have to make decisions and wave the flag occasionally. Let me say at the very start, Your Excellency, 1 support the recommendation that is placed before this Court today, and I make no bones about it, that I have always been in favour of incineration, and can I also say that it has not always been very popular. However, popular or not, I believe the Isle of Man, our size, and, contrary to some hon. members who think that the Isle of Man has an abundance of space and few people to occupy it, I believe every square inch of it is entrusted to us and we do not have a right to pollute it. Equally, Your Excellency, I do not believe that we have the right to export our pollution to somewhere else. I object to it being done by Sellafield and adjacent places and therefore I cannot condone doing the same thing in reverse. So we do have to sort out our own problems in our own backyard. Can I say, Your Excellency, to Mrs. Hannan, the hon. member for Peel, who says, and other members who said, really, if we carry on like we are, we have got virtually ten or 12 years, 15 years where we can sort of look and let technology catch up. I do not believe what we are doing now, what we have done in the past is acceptable, and, no, it is not just because it is at the Raggatt and it is in a clay tip that we have problems, because there is not a Chairman of the Local Government Board, the minister now, but there has not been a chairman in the last 15 years that I have not castigated at one time or another for what they have been doing with our rubbish. Let me go back to Santon. They killed the Santon River, they killed the ducks, we had to provide water in every field down to the sea, and, lo and behold, they were going to pipe their polluted poison water into the sea. I was on the Harbour Board and I said not Pygmalion likely. They were not going to do it in the rivers, they were not going to do it in our environment. But somehow it was done. Ballasalla, Ballahot. I lived in Ballasalla since 1945 and, yes, we did not have firework displays, but, my word, everything that the Egyptians and the Israelites had to do, sir, my Lord Bishop, in those far off days, from the plague of frogs, fleas, flies, smook, we had it, the rivers turning red; the only thing we did not have was the death of the first born. I am glad about that (Laughter) although I was number three on the list so I was all right. But what I want to say, Your Excellency, again to my good friend from Peel, that I am not a member of ‘N.I.M.B.Y. In fact I am quite sure that as a student of politics she will have read the last debate, major debate, I think in 1982.1 actually offered Ballasalla as a place for an incinerator. There is a rare and a brave person

Refuse Incineration — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved T906 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 to do just that. 1 wanted something, obviously, as a politician in return. 1 wanted you to get of the scrapyard that you had got down there and the burning of tyres. It was not taken up, and you increased the burning, you increased the dumping of scrap. My word, Ballasalla has paid a price. But I still maintain incineration is the best and only answer for the Isle of Man in getting rid of our own rubbish. Now we are often told that we should, Your Excellency, take heed of the experts, and some of the watchdogs of the environment of the Isle of Man, and I have been a member of one of the societies for at least 15 years, the Conservation Society of the Isle of Man, the Preservation of the Manx Countryside. That has been played very much low key today. I think the hon. member said, well, who do they represent, their members? I believe it is a rare event when the Department of Local Government and the Environment, the Conservation Society and the Preservation of the Manx Countryside are all saying the same thing. They are in step, and 1 believe myself that that speaks volumes. It is not a cheap or easy option. It is not, I would agree entirely with that, but I believe also that we have a duty to the future. I believe, as I said, our performance in the past has been lamentable, our present performance leaves an awful lot to be desired, and this idea that somehow we can muddle along as we are with the help of a few prisoners, with the sludge lorry going daily non-stop to dump it into the sewers of adjoining cities — it is not acceptable behaviour, it is not, and we cannot carry on like that, and the minister and his department have been charged by us to solve the problem. They do not live in a vacuum. They do not have time to have a dilettante debate, they are dealing with practical realities. Now I believe we owe it to them, having looked at it — and it is a brave man that can change his mind and get up and say they have changed their minds for — practical reasons I believe they deserve our support. I would endorse the very points about incinerators having an environmental impact; more is being learnt about furans and dioxans and everything else. But, as is rightly said, there is not a tip on the Isle of Man now that has not been, if you like, an incinerator at some time or another. No, it is not a cheap option. I believe myself that the Isle of Man and the future deserve to be nurtured and looked after, and can I just, in finishing, Your Excellency, touch on what I would call the visions of the Island coastline as outlined by my very good friend Mr. Radcliffe, member of the Legislative Council, where he said, well, really the coastline of the Isle of Man, in the North anyway, was just disappearing into the sea and really there was an excellent chance there for using, utilising our waste to protect that coastline and nothing was being done about it. Well, I am quite sure Mr. Radcliffe will be fully aware of the Dr. Jolliffe Report which was commissioned about five years ago by a leading world expert on coast errosion, and in fact I believe the Kirk Michael experiment, if I can call it that, has actually had the blessing and, if you like, input of Dr. Jolliffe into it. But a simple thing on coast errosion is if you dabble here all you do is send your problem further up the coast. That is simplifying the report but that is in essence what he says. But the thought that you could put our rubbish onto the coastline as a preventative measure to stop coast errosion is a non-starter. My mind boggles. The last time I was over the Marine Drive —

A Member: Did it hurt? (Laughter)

Refuse Incineration — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 T907

Mr. Lowey: 1 was not over, along the coastline along the road. (Laughter and interruption) 1 can only say the thing that horrified me was where I saw this sort of habit being perpetrated there, with the odd fridge, with the'odd motor car, with the odd bag of rubbish. It was an absolute blot on our landscape and an insult to the people and the countryside of the Isle of Man. If you are going to do that in a wholesale manner, then I think, especially on the north-west coastline with its prevailing winds, it would be an unmitigated ecological disaster and really does not bear contemplating at all. So I want to try and hit that one on the head. It is impractical and highly improbable and really is a non-starter, and to put this into the field, another rabbit into the field, of that nature, at this stage of the game does not help anyone. No, this Court owes a duty to support the minister and I hope it does so.

Mr. Cannan: Your Excellency, the day wears on and it is time soon for us to make up our mind whether we are going to burn it, to bury it, or to sit on the fence and, in customary manner, masterly inactivity. Well, I do not think we can any longer go on in the case of masterly inactivity and sit on the fence. (Interruption) The landfill sites are, in my opinion, becoming unacceptable. Yes, when I was on the Local Government Board I was in favour of the landfill and the baling, but the more I look at the Raggatt and the mess in the Ayres and the desecration of our countryside and our Island and our heritage, I find it unacceptable, and I find even more unacceptable the crackpot suggestion this morning from the member of Council for Ayre to desecrate the coasts of Kirk Michael with rubbish.

Mrs. Hannan: ‘Not in my backyard’.

Mr. Radcliffe: At least try and do something!

Mr. Cannan: Those are totally and completely unacceptable, wherever it is, is to put rubbish and the blowing and the various unacceptable side issues that are caused by landfill. It is easy for the hon. member for Rushen to say it is management. You can always blame management. But the management cannot control the wind. It cannot have such rigorous enforcement to prevent leachate and various other issues and problems of the landfill site, and so in my view we are left with burning, and we have a minister in charge of a department; they have looked into it. This report might not be perfect, but any report from any ministry can be taken apart, however good people think it is in the first instance. So I say the issue today is to give the preferred option to incineration. I believe that the department should be given the chance to present firm and concrete proposals. The costing will be closely scrutinised by the Treasury because we have no desire in the Treasury to see a situation that arose with the masts. This is a preferred option and that is what you are being asked to vote on, and when the fine details come and when the costings come it is possible, if Tynwald is not satisfied, to ponder anew. But you are not committing millions; you are committing an investigation, you are committing a detailed plan, the detailed proposals to get the proposition off the ground at the earliest possible time, and that is what you are being asked to support and I recommend it to the Court. To stand back and do nothing serves no useful purpose; to go forward, to have confidence in the minister

Refuse Incineration — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved T908 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 and to support today the preferred option to burn your rubbish.

The Governor: Hon. members, may I call on the minister to reply? I do.

Mr. Delaney: Your Excellency, I think more people have spoke on this debate on this very serious subject than on most issues that have come before this Court, and rightly so. If nothing else, I think I have managed, with my colleagues and my staff of the department, to get over the serious problem that is facing this Island, the community we represent in this hon. Court. My colleague Mr. Gilbey could have stood up and taken up more time in the Court answering some of the technical questions that were asked, some of which are covered in the report, some which might not be, but that would only be labouring the situation here this afternoon, sir. I will go through the questions specifically raised by members and I expect about an hour on my feet. Can I talk first of all to my hon. junior colleague Mr. Kermode when he asked specific questions, and if I am repeating some of the answers in the report, okay. The quantity of waste we are talking about, Your Excellency, is about 30,000 tonnes, after extraction of metals etc. etc., about 30,000 tonnes. Will the northern authorities be required to go to the incinerator? Your Excellency, as Douglas Corporation now and Onchan Commissioners, who can all use the Raggatt during this period because of the condition, are going to the Ayres, I expect all local authorities to use the incinerator because we would have to have a guarantee of supply of refuse to anybody, even ourselves, if we run it ourselves, to keep the furnaces going. What will happen to the refuse if they have a breakdown? Well, whatever scheme you come up with, Your Excellency, as we quickly found with Oatlands quarry when we had to stop using that because of the problem, you had to have an alternative. My ace in the hole, I will say now and use that expression properly, is the Ayres, if I can manage to salvage enough space for the future. The beauty of running anything, Your Excellency, is always have options, and I have to have options other than just to have an incinerator or a baling plant, depending how the Court goes. I think there have been many mistakes in the past by not having options open and last-minute panics, and that will take me on later on to the Public Accounts Committee, which has been raised here today. The quantity of dry sewage — well, from the member’s own department Mr. Harvey Garton has been kind enough to spend-some time at the back of the Court today, Your Excellency, because we were to work closely with other Departments and he informs us from the first initial talks we are talking about 35 cubic metres a day; that is the sort of figure we are looking at and that figure comes from my colleague’s own department. I am asked about the height of the chimney, Your Excellency. Well, I suppose I should know something about this because, unlike some members here who have got the education to know all the theory of everything, I do know the practical problem that I am involved in to some extent, being a trained steeplejack and having to climb so many chimneys during my career. We are talking about a chimney about 75 metres high, about Guy’s Hospital, if you are talking on that; I have climbed that a few times. Your Excellency, the running costs of the incinerator are detailed in the report. We have taken the worst option. We are talking about £30 per tonne at the worst.

Refuse Incineration — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 T909

Depending on what we recover from that we could get down to £20 a tonne. But that is the sort of figure and we can only go on the figures supplied by experts which everyone keeps quoting today, and that is all I can do because I ain’t an expert. 1 have to learn and take the best advice possible. Mr. Barton, 1 thank you for your support, particulary as you were the member most affected by the initial report, particularly the site. As I outlined in my opening remarks, that is not the site preferred by those people we have talked to for putting up an incinerator. The one they preferred is the one where that wonderful building, the pulverisation plant, is. People can reflect on that decision and they have done this afternoon, Your Excellency. Mr. Duggan, the member for South Douglas — I cannot answer all the points he raised, Your Excellency, because some of them do not ask for a conclusion; they are statements, as 1 understand it. Modern incinerators, Your Excellency, are not as I originally envisaged and that is why I have had to spend this year with my staff getting educated into it. We are not talking about somewhere where you have a fire at the bottom and a chimney and the black smoke comes out of the top. We are talking about a lot of technology, an input of lime to kill out these dioxans and other fumes that come out of it. We are talking about all sorts of extractor equipment. These are the modern, the technology that is in. So when we talk about incinerators I, like most of the public, long before I thought 1 would get to be the Minister of the Local Government Board had a picture in mind of that being an incinerator. That is not an incinerator and I have seen enough evidence, documentary evidence, and 1 have visited enough to know that we are not talking about the image the public have outside. He mentioned a re-chem plant, Your Excellency. That is not a refuse incinerator. It is a chemical waste plant he is talking about there; it is a different matter altogether, and we did look at that too. I am not denying, Your Excellency, I never have done. The report makes it clear that baling is a cheaper option than incineration. We have made it quite clear that it is cheaper than incineration, as ordinary landfill is cheaper than baling. We have never denied that, we have not tried to kid anybody, we have come along with what we know to be the facts. No accusation of trying to kid this Court, as has happened in the past on other matters, can be levelled at me and my colleagues or my staff. We give you the worst situation. The gallant member Brigadier Butler — I would like, having counted the Speakers here today, Your Excellency, 1 know I am in danger of losing this resolution. I am quite aware, I have been here long enough to do the mathematics of what happens in this Court. So I have to persuade at least two members to support me, to know I have not wasted a year’s time, and my officers and all the experts, and the money we have spent on your behalf trying to get a conclusion. The bad track record of incineration, Your Excellency, yes, the first incinerator 1 went to in Washington, up the north-east coast of Britain, is closing down. That is the type of incinerator I have just referred to, virtually where it goes through and the black smoke comes out of a, I think it is a 280 ft. chimney. They are closing it down. But on the other hand, to counter that, that incinerator has been up since ’73 and the situation is the modern incinerator has been installed on all the other islands, they have gone for incineration. The mainland, for many different reasons, has gone for other methods, but the island communities, which we associate ourselves

Refuse Incineration — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved T910 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 with so regularly, they are going for incineration and even the radio programme, when it came out, it was quite clear that those smaller communities like ours are going for that. They have been convinced, Your Excellency, and we want to learn by their mistakes, those mistakes they have made, but I am quite convinced, except for the Scilly Isles who had the wrong type of incinerator, that the rest have the proper option. He also mentioned the Jersey situation. I have not seen that one but I understand they are very delighted with that situation because it puts power into its system. Your Excellency, at this moment in time oil prices, because of an unfortunate war that is occurring in the Middle East mainly, the price of oil is very low but some of us were here some time ago when the price of oil was escalating all the time and the price of our electricity, and in this Court month after month questions were being asked about the price of electricity. That has not occurred, fortunately, in our time, but I am convinced my job is to look to the long-term future and I believe, Your Excellency, that one of the things we will be looking for when this war finishes and they start trying to recoup the money that they have lost buying arms will be the price of oil, and we will suffer the consequences o f that, Your Excellency, and 1 am looking at that and taking that as part of my option for the long term. 1 believe if that occurs generation of power will be hailed as being one of the saviours of the Isle of Man, unlike the thing mentioned about the hydro­ electric scheme which, if you want to read Hansard, you will remember what I said about that at the time, but the fact of it is that was not a success sir, yet we spent a lot of money on it. With hindsight I am trying to look ahead, sir. Your Excellency, Brigadier Butler, I think, talked about public pressure groups and that. I think, if nothing else from this debate today, I can claim one thing: I think I am the first minister or chairman that has managed to take along all the functioning local authorities with him, all these other groups of people. We have not had the running battle; there are no queues outside this building demanding that we do not go for incineration. I think the year has been worth it, sir. I think I have managed to pull those people responsible for collecting the rubbish of the Isle of Man, that we have allowed to function, to function and their function in this is to come along and support us, with certain reservations, genuine reservations. So I do not want to take criticism by doing something that the public and their representatives do not want. I think, if nothing else, I can prove that I have got a majority support from public representation. When we talk about Professor Thrower and his recycling, which was mentioned by a number of members, sir, I have not ruled out recycling and once again I talk from some experience. I think I was in charge of the only successful recycling plant in the Isle of Man; that was the waste baling paper that was done from Tromode. I actually started that, Your Excellency, ran it successfully. We had to stop when we came across the problem that anyone will come across in recycling, when the bottom drops out of the market. That is not a long-term business, it is a short­ term, you take it on the crest of a wave and you have to drop it when it goes down to the bottom, Your Excellency. That is a fact. Some can survive. In the Isle of Man I do not believe in reality, unless something major happens, in the long term we can actually get a return on recycling. Now, we talk about sending rubbish or the hon. member I think jokingly talked about sending the rubbish off the Island. Well, of course I would send it to Sellafield

Refuse Incineration — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 T911 if 1 had a choice. But, Your Excellency, we looked at this and the cost factor just is not in it. We are talking about the cost of incineration. Even if somebody would take it from us we are talking about a major expense and I do not believe that would be justified, Your Excellency, in honesty. I come now to the member who spoke the longest and with the most technical research, probably, done on this, Dr. Orme. He says he wants further investigation and further information on incineration before he can make a final decision. I agree and that is exactly what this resolution is doing. I am sorry the member has been so busy doing his homework he has not read what is really said in the resolution. I am actually asking for what he is asking for. I am looking for the ability from this Court with the backing of this Court to spend public money to some extent, not a great amount, but I need more information. I need to know if what I have been told, what I have been convinced of, is actually what will happen after this is built. That is exactly what I am asking for. He mentioned, Your Excellency, with some — I am the only one, I think, that has been criticised ever since it was formed, the Public Accounts Committee, been criticised before I got to the Public Accounts. (Laughter) It is quite amazing: to threaten me with the Public Accounts before I even do anything. What a wonderful idea! I am probably the biggest supporter of Public Accounts even though I warned at the time and my words were, ‘You do not know what a dangerous animal you are creating’. Those were my words at the time when they formed this. I totally agree and that is exactly the reason I am standing on my feet today and spent the day debating this issue, is so I will not finish up, because, if nothing else, my worst enemy would not accuse me of being politically naive and I do not want to follow the path of certain other members of this Court and some that have left to the Public Accounts doorway, and that is what I am asking for this for, is that I have the ability to do all that is laid down in the bible I referred to on the last report on the radio masts. I am wanting to follow that path and I want to be able to read that bible and to be able to turn round with my hand on it and say I have done everything that has been asked for. In no way do I intend to follow that path. Landfill sites, Your Excellency, he went into some detail on that, but I want to go a bit further on Dr. Orme’s points. No attempt to evaluate land sites. Not true, Your Excellency. The film ‘The Sound of Music’ is often shown on television to recoup its losses and one of the songs from that is ‘Climb every mountain, ford every stream, follow every rainbow till you find your dream’. Your Excellency, I and my colleagues and my officers, we have gone up every hill in the Isle of Man and down every dale, personally, and what have I come up with?

Mr. Kermode: Dr. Orme.

The Speaker: Caesium.

Mr. Delaney: I have come up with lots of places where I would like to put it but a lot of places where to do so, sir, in my opinion would be against my department’s own laid-down statutory responsibilities: the environment. I am the Minister of the Environment. I can hide away there for 12 months but at some time certain members of this Court would have questions out of me asking me why I am pouring leachate into the rivers and I am causing pollution.

Refuse Incineration — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved T912 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988

No costings of shipping refuse out. That is not true, sir. I shall just refer the member to actually paragraph 3.72 of the report. If members refer to that you can see we have actually done that, we looked at the costing of shipping out, and Dr. Orme could have read that. My report’s different conclusions from whichever expert you go to. Your Excellency, the only person I have not asked is Mrs. Fickleby’s wife, that one that is on the radio all the time. I think we have asked every person who has got anything to say about anything technical knowledge in this. I need more information and that is what I am asking for, time to do that, but I have asked everyone who has got any input at all and, Your Excellency, I still get criticised because I have not asked enough. I do not accept that, Your Excellency, as being a way of going about getting decisions, responsible decisions. No examination of the calorific value of refuse. We are doing this exercise now, Your Excellency, we are on the way with that; that is another big exercise to be undertaken. We are trying to find out what makes up our rubbish in the Isle of Man. We know some of the difficulties we have got, which have been outlined by the member for Peel, about the amount of packing that comes in, but we want to get a more accurate situation. Introduction of a new combustion source into Douglas valley should be an examination of desirability. I agree, Your Excellency. This is being done as part of the next stage of the process, probably by the Warren Springs Laboratory, Your Excellency, we will be using them. Now he mentioned and he was kind enough to point out that I immediately gave him the M.R.M. report when he asked for it. Of course. It is there for any member to see. But that report is also part of the conclusions in here. If we were to put every piece of paper of every report and every document we had got when coming to the conclusion, that I have come to reluctantly, by the way, I might add, I would need what the Speaker had in front of him on the evidence taken in relation to another matter discussed last week in this Court. What we have to do to members is try and get it down to something which is readable and even then I cannot say we managed it, with the size of that report, but we did that. I wonder, Your Excellency, had I put all that in still I would have missed something out, no doubt, I still would have been criticised for that. The M.R.M. report itself did not oppose incineration; it went for baling on economic grounds. That is exactly what it did. It was fair enough but in the end it is our decision. They are experts, Your Excellency, as I said when I opened the debate. They will tell you what your problems are and the options but it is our decision in this Court and the hon. member cannot run away from that. That is why we are put here, that is what we asked to be: to come here and make decisions. We did not ask somebody else to take them for us; we asked to be here to take the decisions. It was not put on the back shelf either, Your Excellency. The vast bulk of the report is repeated in our report, as I have said, and I would apologise to members for those things that are not in the report that might have been of particular interest but I did not know and we did not know exactly what individual matters were of particular interest to them. We tried to do a general report and allow members to do their own research to find out answers which we had, if they had come and asked us for them. He said I have got to pay a great deal of attention. I agree. Again we will be

Refuse Incineration — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 T913 coming back to you with our responsible, hopefully accurate, new information on what the next step is. The next step is, is it true what we have told you today? Is it true what we have been told? That is what we are going to do, that is exactly what we are going to do. I do not make any excuses for the claims for the reduction in the volumes. We have covered it in the report. You can take a figure from ten per cent., to 40 per cent, if you like, depending on what you are burning. It depends totally what your waste is to what your volume will be after you have incinerated, and I cannot give you an accurate figure exactly because we have not got that information. But I know one thing: it will be a hell of a lot less for putting into the ground, even when it is inert, than it is when we are putting it out or trying to put it at the Raggatt and the Ayres and, certainly, the paper that goes in will not be blown round the Isle of Man because that will burn. The interesting point of it, Your Excellency, I did not claim this report was new or the ideas were new and I never have done but there are a number of things which are new. One is the sewerage sludge referred to by the minister responsible for that area. That is new. That is another problem that I hope to resolve, if it is practicable. The second thing that is new is that, unlike other Governments that have gone before us and which you criticised, some of you, when you were standing at the hustings, about the waste of public money, the capital waste of public money on such things as breakwaters and reservoirs, we found a new possibility. Instead of the Government capital going in, private capital going in. All we have to make sure is that that private capital, when it is spent, the interest coming back to the company in profits is not at such a great extent from the public purse. That is what we have got to do, but the capital expenditure is new, Your Excellency. I am not standing up asking to build breakwaters or reservoirs that might be needed. I am turning round and asking for something that is needed and I am prepared to go out and find private money to do it. That is new. So that £5 Vi million might be needed by all the critics of this report for schemes of their own, whether it be running tracks or out the middle of the Isle of Man, any of these things that they want. That money will be there, that capital. I am not going to take it away unless I have to. Mr. Radcliffe — I enjoyed listening to Mr. Radcliffe today, an old colleague of mine, we have been here a long time together, but I never thought he would come up and ask me to pollute the coastline, as has been said. I do not believe if I was to stand up with that as my recommendation that same member would be standing up supporting it.

Mr. Radcliffe: Yes, I would. (Laughter)

Mr. Delaney: I do not believe so. I think he was doing what has become a norm, unfortunately, a norm, which is looking to throw in something else which we could do, knowing in reality in his heart of hearts, it is not practical. I mean to say I did take the opportunity, Your Excellency, to see land reclamation and to talk about spraying it, in actual fact you are talking about encasing it, Your Excellency. We cannot just take bales of refuse and dump them, heave them over the side. (Interruption) It just does not happen, it is nonsense, and this is the sort of thing we have from time to time. If the member cannot support me, fine, stand up and say he cannot support me, that is great. But do not throw in something which is

Refuse Incineration — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved T914 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 not practical, and the Isle of Man, particularly the northern authorities, would go daft if we put that idea forward and would be at the door of this House shouting.

Mr. Radcliffe: Asking for alternatives.

Mr. Delaney: I might be responsible for an awful lot of things but I got the feeling when he was talking that somehow I was also responsible for coastal erosion. (Laughter) I do not know how that came into it but 1 got the feeling the debate was changing from what we had put forward to suddenly the Titanic and everything else that had gone wrong I was responsible for. (Laughter) I do not think that that is the case. But you can have a look, if you want to look at that particular point, the member, if he has read the report, will see that in, I think it is 3.5; if he looks at that part he will see we have covered that as well! Mrs. Hanson, I thank you for your support and I think you did ask, you are not against it so long as it can be done economically and practically. If I can refer you to paragraph 3.10 of it, that is what we are going to do as well. We are going to find out if all we have said again is going to work. But I thank you for your support. Mr. Speaker — been over the track before. Well, I certainly have and a lot of other members have, three times at least. The difference with me is I want to get to the end of the track. I am not here for the ride. I want to get somewhere and, having been given the job with my two colleagues of trying to solve the problems of the Isle of Man, I do not want to go shunting up and down the track in between. I want to get to the end of it and as far as I am concerned the end of the track is a solution, a practical solution, and the practical solution we are recommending is incineration. But what is happening here today, Mr. Speaker, and you surprised me a little bit, is that you have not declared yourself for anything. What you are doing is saying you are not going to vote for anything. You certainly indicated you are not voting for the amendment to refer it, or vote against it; you are not going for baling, you are going for nothing. Well, Mr. Speaker, with due respect, sir, I cannot respect that (Mr. Brown: Hear, hear.) because that is saying to the Manx people and saying to my department and my staff ‘You are up to your necks in rubbish, carry on’. (Laughter) That is what he is saying: ‘Carry on’. Mr. Speaker, that is not responsible Government. You are the one that is always shouting about responsible —

Mr. Speaker: This is not either, friend!

Mr. Delaney: You are shouting about responsible — you had your turn (Laughter) you are shouting about responsible Government and if you say that is irresponsible of me, sir, I say that you are wrong. We are sent here to make decisions, as I have said, that is what we are trying to do. If you are against it, fine, but give me an alternative, do not run away from it, and you have not given me an alternative.

Mr. Kermode: Won by a knock-out.

Mr. Delaney: Now, Mr. Quine, I think, mentioned the sewerage costs. Well, Your Excellency, they will be part, if it is practical to do it, will be part of the cost

Refuse Incineration — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 T915 we will pay for getting rid of it, but I would imagine it would be a separate contract with the people who run it, or with us if we run it, and it will be priced at the time, but obviously, as we are talking about a different type of rubbish, refuse, burning material, it will probably be at a different price than the normal refuse. That is all I can say to that but we have not got to that finer detail yet. I think he also said he is surprised the incinerator could be built for the price quoted. That is one thing that has worried the hell out of me since the first the suggestion came up on costs. I have questioned and questioned if £5'A million, which was in last year’s estimates, it could be done for that price and I was not convinced up until two weeks ago when I looked at the price of what incinerators are being built for in Europe and I say now that probably I think my original worries have gone away. But I, like you, I do not believe, I have seen too many figures come through this Court which have proved untrue in the past, and that is another way I was not going to go in front of Public Accounts either. But I am convinced now that the figures we are talking about are more sensible figures, the £5'A million. 1 believe it can come in on that price. Up until talking to the people who actually build them I did not believe that. Higher cost of incineration and the higher priorities he also mentioned for this expenditure. Well, Your Excellency, if we take the option with the support of this Court that I get private money in, of course 1 have solved his problem because the money that other priorities are for will go to that and not for the idea that I am putting forward. If we prefer to wait for further information, Your Excellency, who do I get it from? Who do I pay to get it? That is what he mentioned. 1 am asking to get that further information and I hope for his support to get that information so that I will not be leading this Court the wrong way. If he supports the resolution I can assure him he will have the information, I will have the information and the Court will. Mr. Quirk — no use in creating electricity. Well, I think I have covered that; it is not needed. Your Excellency, unfortunately I am in a better position at the moment for other reasons to know certain matters in relation to electricity generation than the hon. member is and some other members of this Court and I would not be talking about generating electricity unless I knew what I knew. I know that my idea for the long-term future is right as far as electricity generation, if it is possible, it is right. My hon. colleague and fellow minister Mr. Bell — 1 have got to convince him to come back into the fold, I suppose, that is what he is asking me for on certain matters. He is teetering on the brink, I think were his words. I am not asking for a final decision, Your Excellency. Again, as I said to him when we were questioned, I am asking for the ability to manoeuvre, to go out and work, as we are all supposed to do, to narrow down the options. So if the hon. member has thought about what has been said this afternoon and is prepared to not let me finish up in the same situation as we are with other matters affecting his department I am trying to make decisions here, Your Excellency, trying to get decisions. I am not trying to avoid them; I am trying to make them and get the Court to make them with me. So I hope for his support, but if he cannot find it to support me, fine. Mr. Anderson, I thank you for your help, sir. We do need a decision now, we do definitely need a decision now.

Refuse Incineration — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved T916 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988

Mr. Kneale, another member of Executive Council — there was no intention, Your Excellency, and I did mention to the member outside this Court when 1 saw the picture that was put in to give the image of what an incinerator would look like superimposed in that landscape. If I wanted to I could have shouted at my officer for doing that without checking. I immediately identified, by driving up that road, that the height, you only had to take the spot heights and things like that to realise that picture was false. But we were not trying to create a Picasso; we were just trying to give an image. It may have misled some members but as long as we did not take it as being the only site available I hope we have not offended too many people. I do point out — there is one other thing he did mention — the height of the chimney. On that drawing, if you take it as true perspective, that chimney is far too small for that site and I accept that. Well, matters of composting and the digesting system, they are dealt with as well. We also did not forget about that, that new idea that was on the radio this morning which is not a new idea. We deal with that in paragraphs 3.34 to 3.51, Your Excellency. Can I go on to Mr. Corrin. I marked down the members who were going to vote against me, the members who would commit themselves to vote for me and the only member I marked down as a ‘Don’t Know’ was Mr. Corrin because I honestly, Mr. Corrin, after listening to you, sir, and I am sure the other members and Hansard will prove, I do not know what you are going to do.

A Member: Again, he does not.

Mr. Delaney: I cannot see what you are going to do because, if you take it from what you said, you are for and against everything and anybody, you did not have an original idea in your head, you did not tell us even what the problem was, even though the people of Rushen particularly have suffered it. Because when I hear about the member for the Upper House, Mr. Lowey, pointed his finger directly at it later on, the tips at the Ballahot and other places have been putting these poisons into the air for months on end and where were all these people who were shouting about the furans and the dioxans then? These were coming out at ground level and these are the sorts of things that have persuaded me to actually go for incineration because at least, if I do do it, the fumes will be going up there but not coming off at ground level. But when these things were going on nobody was worried about the poor people down there in that area who were getting poisoned by it, it was just the fault of the system, and with all these problems in tips, with all these problems, it is only now that anyone is concerned about what we are going to do. He did mention in fact, and I just want to correct him here, he said to the Minister of Highways, Ports and Properties it was not safe. I do not think the minister, when he confirmed with me, he did not say that, it was not safe.

Mr. Corrin: Sure.

Mr. Delaney: He did not say that at all but you only hear what you want to hear, obviously. I cannot convince you, Mr. Corrin. You know, if I got the whole Russian army here I could not convince you, I am sure. (Laughter and interruptions) But I did mention in my opening remarks, Your Excellency, he mentioned the Dando

Refuse Incineration — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 T917 plan at the Ayres, he mentioned about the Ayres. Well, it is all right for him saying that. I am responsible for the whole Island and he intimated somehow we were not. But he must know the Ayres is way away from his patch; if he wants to carry on open tipping up at the Ayres it is way away from his patch, he has not got a problem, but I suggest a lot of other people have and my job is to look after them just as much as it is the people down there. The problems, he says, he can control them, on open tipping. Well, unless all the people in my department and all the people who went before them and the people who went before them have been totally inadequate, no ability whatsoever, have had their hands strapped to their sides, Your Excellency, no-one has solved the problem, no one has solved it. If you go down the Raggatt on a half windy day you can see paper blowing up 40 feet in the air. My only solution to that was to buy the fellows who are paper pickers down there hand-gliders to catch it (Laughter) because there is no practical way to stop it. The private sector involvement he was also worried about. Your Excellency, I will not do a bad deal for this Government. I would not do any deal with anyone unless I think it is right and we are going to get our just desserts and rights out of it. The member is prejudging the very thing I am asking for: negotiation. If we do not get the right deal, and I will be back here, the Attorney-General will be involved, everyone will be involved, if we do not get the right deal that is the time to condemn the private sector, but at least find out what they are offering us first. But, no, not Mr. Corrin, he will condemn everybody who has not got the same view as himself or intends to do anything. Last but not least. I will be down at Peel tonight, hopefully, if the wife lets me out or comes with me. I often go down there. I will be down the Peel Legion Club. What I am saying to Mrs. Hannan, the member for Peel, is this, is that she can be out of step with everybody, that is fine, that is a wonderful political stance and I would congratulate her for it. But do not say that you have got some solution by saying I should re-educate everyone in the Isle of Man — this is the responsibility I have been given — I should not do anything until I have re-educated everyone in the Isle of Man to sort their rubbish out before it gets outside the house — this is what I am being told — tell Marks and Spencers, Woolworths, Shoprite, ‘Please, when you ship your stuff to the Isle of Man for sale to my constituents do not put any plastic on it, do not put any cardboard on it’, and what will it cost for that? I will tell you what it will cost: a hell of a lot, Your Excellency, because that stuff that is shipped to here is shipped to all their other centres round Britain and if we ask them or make a law saying ‘You cannot ship in cardboard or plastics’ the price of food in the Isle of Man is going to go up, and I hope to go back to Peel then and tell them, explain to them why there is a ten per cent, increase in the cost of food, minimum, because we have told Shoprite and everybody else ‘You cannot bring in certain types of packaging into the Isle of Man’.

Mrs. Hannan: Buy local.

Mr. Delaney: At the same time I have got to say to Dorothy from Peel on Manx Radio why she has got to spend half the day sorting out rubbish instead of being on the radio. (Laughter) Your Excellency, the alternative, as 1 understand it, and I am sure the Court will

Refuse Incineration — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved T918 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 understand this way, she cannot find an acceptable disposable method, so cancel it, she wants to cancel all the refuse in the Isle of Man. That is exactly what she came out with. She does not support it really; what she wants to do is cancel it. That is a wonderful idea and 1 am sure if we register that particular idea and export it from the Isle of Man we can get away with all the finance sector because we will have solved the problem all over the world; we will just cancel refuse altogether. The Peel Commissioners — as I have pointed out, all the working authorities have come in with us — I received their letter this morning, their confirmation letter: unanimous. Now I have had my difficulties with Peel Commissioners and all the other commissioners in my first year in office, naturally; they could not weigh me up and I could not weigh them up. I had to get to some. But I am saying this, is that Peel Commissioners are practical, they know the problem that faces them, they have to handle it every day and their people have to handle it every day, they know the problems they have had at the Raggatt, and what they are saying is and they say it in the last paragraph here, in the letter, ‘If the additional cost can be minimised by recovery of resources in terms of waste heat et cetera it would be the effective and environmentally acceptable means of disposing of an increasing quantity of refuse in a finite available land area’.

Mrs. Hannan: Have they suggested a site in Peel?

Mr. Delaney: No. Your Excellency, if I was so concerned about what the hon. member had said I would discuss it with my cat when I got home tonight to see they I had understood it because I am sure he would, because what happens is that you did not come up with what I asked for when I opened up, you did not come up with a solution to the problem, you just went on about what you would like to see, the world of wonders. We have not. We live in a practical place with practical people, I believe, and we are looking for practical solutions. That is exactly what we want. There is no wonderful solution that is going to come at us. The road to Jericho is not here, I am sorry. Your Excellency, I hope I have persuaded at least two members to give me the opportunity to do the job that I was elected to do, that is to try and resolve the problem of refuse disposal at least for the next 20 years. Failing that, Your Excellency, as has been indicated by one member here, I would be obliged, unfortunately, to have to go out on planning and find areas and I will be like a cat going round the Isle of Man looking for holes to fill. (Laughter) Your Excellency, that is the alternative to voting for this resolution. I hope the members will support me and I get my 13 votes in this House and I hope I get five upstairs. I thank the members for their time.

The Governor: Hon. members, I put to you first the amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for Rushen, Dr. Orme, because I put them in the reverse order in which they were seconded. So first the amendment in the name of Dr. Orme. Will hon. members in favour say aye; those against say no. The noes appear to have it. Then I put to you the amendment in the name of the member for Douglas South, Mr. Duggan. Will hon. members in favour of that amendment say aye; those against say no.

Refuse Incineration — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 T919

A division was called for and voting resulted as follows:

In the Keys —

For: Messrs. Corrin, Duggan and Mrs. Hannan — 3

Against: Messrs. Gilbey, Cannan, Quine, Barton, Walker, Dr. Orme, Messrs. Brown, May, Mrs. Delaney, Messrs. Cretney, Delaney, Kermode, Cain, Kneale, Bell, Brig. Butler, Messrs. Gelling, Karran, Leventhorpe, Maddrell and the Speaker — 21

The Speaker: Your Excellency, the amendment fails to carry in the House of Keys, sir, with three votes being cast in favour and 21 votes against.

In the Council —

For: Messrs. Radcliffe and Quirk — 2

Against: The Lord Bishop, Mr. Lowey, Mrs. Hanson, Messrs. Anderson, Callin, Irving and the President of the Council — 7

The Governor: Hon. members, in the Council votes cast in favour two, votes cast against seven, that amendment therefore fails to carry in both branches. I now put to you the motion at item 18 on the Agenda Paper in the name of the Minister for Local Government and the Environment unamended in any way. Will hon. members in favour say aye; those against say no.

A division was called for and voting resulted as follows:

In the Keys —

For: Messrs. Gilbey, Cannan, Quine, Barton, Walker, Brown, May, Mrs. Delaney, Messrs. Cretney, Delaney, Kermode, Kneale, Bell, Brig. Butler, Messrs. Gelling, Karran, Leventhorpe and Maddrell — 18

Against: Dr. Orme, Messrs. Corrin, Duggan, Cain Mrs. Hannan and the Speaker — 6

The Speaker: Your Excellency, the resolution carries in the House of Keys, sir, 18 votes being cast in favour and six votes against.

In the Council —

For: The Lord Bishop, Mr. Lowey, Mrs. Hanson, Messrs. Anderson, Callin, Irving and the President of the Council — 7

Against: Messrs. Radcliffe and Quirk — 2

Refuse Incineration — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved T920 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988

The Governor: Hon. members, in the Council seven votes cast in favour, two against, the resolution therefore carries. Now, hon. members, that brings us to the end of the main Agenda items but, as you know, we have two almost certain items; you may or may not wish to discuss the Supplementary Agenda but there are two Supplementary Agendas, therefore I propose that we break for 20 minutes for tea.

The Court adjourned at 4.45 p.m.

SUPPLEMENTARY AGENDA — PERMISSION GRANTED UNDER STANDING ORDER 27(6)

The Governor: Hon. members, we turn to the Supplementary Agenda. I call on the Chairman of the Board of Consumer Affairs to move.

Mrs. Hanson: Your Excellency, I beg to move:

That permission be granted under Standing Order 27(6) for the following business to be considered.

The Governor: I look for a seconder.

A Member: I beg to second, sir.

The Governor: Hon. members in favour say aye; those against say no.

A division was called for and voting resulted as follows:

In the Keys —

For: Messrs. Quine, Barton, Walker, Dr. Orme, Messrs. Brown, May, Mrs. Delaney, Messrs. Cretney, Kermode, Cain, Gelling, Leventhorpe, Maddrell and the Speaker — 14

Against: Messrs. Gilbey, Corrin, Kneale and Mrs. Hannan — 4

The Speaker: Your Excellency, the resolution carries in the House of Keys with 14 votes being cast in favour and four votes against.

In the Council —

For: Mrs. Hanson, Messrs. Quirk, Callin, Irving and the President of the Council — 5

Against: The Lord Bishop and Mr. Anderson — 2

Supplementary Agenda Permission Granted Under Standing Order 27(6) TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 T921

The Governor: Hon. members, in the Council five votes cast in favour and two against, the resolution therefore carries.

PAPERS LAID BEFORE THE COURT

The Governor: I call on the Clerk to lay papers.

The Clerk: Your Excellency, I lay before the Court:—

Shops Act (Exempt Classes) Order 1988.

SHOPS ACT (EXEMPT CLASSES) ORDER 1988 — APPROVED

The Governor: Item 3, the Shops Act 1985.

Mrs. Hanson: Your Excellency, I beg to move:

(I) That in accordance with Standing Order 162(3) the provisions of Standing Order 162(1) be waived to enable the following resolution to be considered.

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

The Governor: Will hon. members in favour say aye; those against say no.

A division was called for and voting resulted as follows:

In the Keys —

For: Messrs. Quine, Barton, Walker, Dr. Orme, Messrs. Brown, May, Mrs. Delaney, Messrs. Duggan, Cretney, Kermode, Cain, Bell, Gelling, Leventhorpe, Maddrell and the Speaker — 16

Against: Messrs. Gilbey, Corrin, Kneale and Mrs. Hannan — 4

The Speaker: Your Excellency, the voting in the House of Keys: 16 votes in favour, four votes against.

In the Council —

For: Mrs. Hanson, Messrs. Radcliffe, Quirk, Callin, Irving and the President of the Council — 6

Against: The Lord Bishop and Mr. Anderson — 2 Papers Laid Before the Court Shops Act (Exempt Classes) Order 1988 — Approved T922 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988

The Governor: Hon. members, in the Council six votes in favour and two against, item 3(1) is therefore passed. Item 3(2). I call upon the Chairman of the Board of Consumer Affairs to move.

Mrs. Hanson: Your Excellency, I beg to move:

(2) That the Shops Act (Exempt Classes) Order 1988, made by the Board o f Consumer Affairs on 3rd February 1988 in pursuance o f Section 4(2) of the Shops Act 1985, be and the same is hereby approved.

May I first express my board’s gratitude to this hon. Court for permitting this supplementary item to come forward today. As members are aware, the House of Keys appointed in June of last year a Select Committee to consider and report upon the Statute Law Revision Bill, Clause 1(2), which sought to remove the restrictions on Sunday trading, the removal of the restrictions having only been promoted by the Board of Consumer Affairs after having met at length with the Isle of Man Chamber of Commerce and trading associations representing local interests throughout the Island, shop assistants and shopkeepers, the majority of which were shown from the results of a questionnaire distributed Island-wide to be in favour of being give'n the choice to trade on Sundays other than just in the afternoon, either throughout the year or during the summer season only. Unfortunately, as confirmed by the committee’s interim report yet to be adopted by the House of Keys, an end to consideration of the clause does not appear to be in sight; indeed the committee has yet to take oral evidence in public, although it is understood it is still its intention to do so. As a result it is very unlikely that the matter will be resolved for some months yet. Your Excellency, my board is aware that Sunday trading is for many an emotive issue. Feelings, I know, do run deep and I respect these views, although I am sure we are all at least united in our efforts to safeguard shopworkers should the restrictions on Sunday trading be eventually removed or relaxed to give shops the choice of opening or not. However, my board is naturally concerned that there might be repercussions the increasing delay will have, particularly as shops open to meet the needs of the tourists, for the Shops Act 1985, which has led in the past to successful prosecutions against traders, will of course continue to be enforced. As a consequence, with the support of the Isle of Man Chamber of Commerce and having liaised with the Department of Tourism, the board is recognising the importance of tourism to the Island and have made the order placed before you under Section 4(2) of the Shops Act 1985 merely as a stopgap measure for this year only exempting those classes of shops which together with those already exempted provide the goods most likely to be sought after by tourists, an order which I hope this hon. Court will support while Sunday trading beyond the coming summer season continues to be debated. Your Excellency, I beg to move, sir.

Mr. Kermode: I beg to second and reserve my remarks, Your Excellency.

Mr. Anderson: Your Excellency, I have indicated to the hon. mover that I will not be supporting. In 21 and a bit years I have witnessed in this hon. Court so many arguments being put forward for so many things in relation to the tourist industry

Shops Act (Exempt Classes) Order 1988 — Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 T923 and, quite frankly, I have seen over those 21 years the tourist industry move in only one direction unfortunately, sadly, as far as I am concerned, and certainly these things in my view do not really have the effect that is often thought that they will have. I have only been twice in Paris in my life and you think of France as the place where everything goes and I remember trying to get a cup of coffee before twelve one Sunday morning in Paris and I could not purchase it, there was nowhere open; after twelve I believe everything did open. But people think ‘Oh, a Continental Sunday’, but that was Paris and I could not even get a cup of coffee on that Sunday morning, and I do realise the pressure being put on people whether or not you have legislation to protect workers. There are other ways of getting rid of them if they do not turn in at the time when they are wanted and conscience and all the rest of it can be applied, but it is very difficult when it comes down to it. In practical terms people have either got to toe the line or there will be quietly eventually a way found in which to get rid of them, and I do believe that this Island has standards which are worth protecting, has traditions which are worth protecting, and I believe Sunday is one of those traditions and one of those standards and I will not be supporting, Your Excellency.

The Lord Bishop: Your Excellency, I was very sorry indeed when I received this Supplementary Agenda because I thought this matter was being discussed by a committee and it does seem to me wrong, when a matter is being discussed, that things should be got through little by little because here we have boots and shoes and sports things; next time, I suppose, next month, we will have pianos or chairs or all kinds of things, and so little by little the Sunday and what is distinctive about Sunday is going to be eroded. I have been asked to speak not only on my own behalf but on behalf of the Council of Churches who unanimously asked me if I would speak. What worries me, and I am not going to repeat what I have said before because this thing seems to come up again and again and again, I oppose this for religious reasons, for family reasons and also because I think there are sociological reasons why there should be a kind of gap in the week so that every day does not become the same. It is very interesting, I think, that the Soviet Union, when the Bolsheviks came into power, tried to abolish Sunday completely and make Sunday like every other day and they discovered that for sociological reasons, not for religious reasons, they had to bring back Sunday, they had to bring back a day in the week which was different from every other day, and therefore I very strongly oppose this motion which is little by little to make Sunday like every other day of the week and to destroy what is religious about Sunday, to destroy what is peculiar about Sunday and different about Sunday, and to destroy the possibility of Sunday being a day when the family can get together. I hope that this will be rejected.

Mr. Barton: Your Excellency, this does cause me a little concern because this order is similar to one that existed many years ago to assist during the tourist season from Easter to September. I think the one slight change this time is the extension of some other trades, and that does create a problem for me because people know my strong views over this, over Sunday trading, but it is for a specific purpose, and at the time many years ago, when the particular Shop Act was in force, it mainly

Shops Act (Exempt Classes) Order 1988 — Approved T924 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 involved all those involved in the tourist trade and they could take advantage of those provisions. It was quite a costly exercise for many of those people and in many instances they did not repeat it. I disagree with many of the hon. Chairman of Consumer Affairs’ comments on her support for Sunday trading, I disagree with that. So therefore would the Chairman of the Consumer Affairs confirm in her reply that her department will monitor the number of shops that open during the period proposed, as no reliable figures were kept in the past, and with that assurance I could support this order for this summer only.

Mr. Duggan: Your Excellency, I will be supporting the resolution because I think you have got to move with the times, sir. When the Shop Hours was handled I was the person who handled the Shop Hours 1985 and I wanted a complete repeal at the time, but the House at that time would not agree. So it did concern me, Your Excellency, that there could be businesses affected by such tight clauses on a Sunday and that is why I got my good friend Mr. Delaney to move this exemption order in the Act, which is Section 4(2) of the Shop Hours Act 1985, and this is exactly what Mrs. Hanson is doing today and I fully support her. What I would like to point out, Your Excellency, is that in Scotland, like I have told the members before, there is no Shop Hours there and there are no problems. Now, as for Mr. Anderson, the member of Council, I disagree with him. I think the tourists do want shops open, because when I go into Blackpool my wife wants to go out shopping — I try and avoid shopping, actually — but sometimes, you know, when you are on holiday you do get dragged round the shops and they are all open in Blackpool. Now I know my wife in particular likes to go round the stores and stalls, so I think Mr. Anderson is very wrong there. As for the Lord Bishop, Your Excellency, I think he is only possibly worried about losing some of his congregation but, there again, the vicars themselves, they are working on a Sunday, what about their family life, you know. (Laughter)

Mr. Brown: But they have the rest of the week off! (Laughter)

Mr. Duggan: So I think really, members, you have got to move with the times and I fully support Mrs. Hanson.

Mr. Corrin: Your Excellency, the first thing that is surprising is that the hon. member, the Chairman of the Consumer Council, with her long experience, should bring this forward, bearing in mind that a committee is already sitting on the issue, and that is rather surprising. Does that mean to say that if this goes through many other committees that we can just go ahead legislating and, you know, put them in the sidings? Is that what it means? It is very surprising that it has even been brought, never mind the fact that it is on a Supplementary Agenda. What is important about that? The hon. chairman, she says that she has met traders and shop assistants. What about the general public? What about consulting them? It is their Sunday. We have little enough tradition in the Island and I hope the Minister for Tourism will, when he is advertising ‘Go back to the Isle of Man’ and all that jazz, I hope he will bear this in mind, that it is not Blackpool we are in —

Shops Act (Exempt Classes) Order 1988 — Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 T925

Mr. Duggan: You are living in the past.

Mr. Corrin: — and I do not think too many people — want to be in Blackpool in the Isle of Man, to be quite honest. Come to the Isle of Man for what we stand for and our standards and, as I said the last time this issue was debated, the present hours were arrived at after a lot of compromise. Those who genuinely believe that they would like to see some of their traditional Sunday left, at least they have the Sunday morning. It was after a lot of compromise, a good compromise, and those who feel they want to do some shopping on a Sunday afternoon can do so and that is rather a happy medium that was agreed upon. But there are some greedy traders in town and they have got at the hon. chairman, they alone. The hon. chairman says she has consulted shop assistants. How can she consult them? Through what medium? How has she consulted them? And I am aware that they do have pressures put upon them to work on a Sunday if they do not wish to do so. I am aware of how it can be done and Mr. Anderson has pointed that out. I hope, Your Excellency, that the Labour members in this Court are going to think twice and think in the interests of employees. I hope I am going to hear a little from them, just a little. I do not expect much, but just a little. (Laughter) Also, of course, going back to the committee, the hon. chairman pointed out, just for the summer, just a stopgap. She is pre-empting what the committee may or may not report. What is the point in having it to deliberate upon it if in the meantime we are just going to change the law anyway? It is wrong, it is wrong in principle, it is ill-timed, and I hope, Your Excellency, that this will be despatched very quickly and we can retain this compromise and have a little bit of the charm of the Isle of Man retained on a Sunday.

Mr. Brown: Your Excellency, since this Agenda came to us and the resolution, the order, I have given it quite a bit of thought and in fact I asked the chairman some questions and she gave me some answers with regards to why this order is here, and since that time I have tried to think over in my own mind what is different this year than there was last year when we opposed this order. Now I was a member of the Select Committee in the previous House who went into considerable detail with the shops and the businesses and all the different people to look at where we were going with regards to retailing on a Sunday and, as the hon. member for Rushen has just said, Mr. Corrin, there was a compromise which satisfied all sides; the Church wrote back, the people representing them said they were satisfied that it gave that sort of, if you like, difference. We also tried to cover employees and in fact it it one of the few laws that actually says to a certain sector of employees that they are protected within law, and I know it works because I have actually been to the Consumer Affairs Board with complaints and they have acted on it and so on, and there are many other people who work Sunday who have no protection of that type at all. However, when it comes down to the order the question I have to ask myself really is the same question I had to ask myself last year and that is why is the case being made? And I have to say the chairman has not made the case for me again this evening. Where is the case made to exempt just footwear, clothing and sports goods? That is really the crux of the matter, because there are then even less shops who are left outside that area who cannot open in the mornings. Now we know

Shops Act (Exempt Classes) Order 1988 — Approved T926 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 we have, for example, the situation where Woolies can open, Marks and Spencers can open, because a major part of their selling is a certain item and then they open the rest of the store, and that then can be argued it affects the small clothes shop and so on. But I can put that same argument right down the line in my own case. I cannot open at all on a Sunday in Castletown, until the afternoon, sorry, yet the Co-op, which can sell a lot of what I sell, can open because its main business is selling something else which is covered, and that happens throughout the whole Island and I have to say, after giving this much thought, I am not going to support the order. I do believe that the last House of Keys made a case, I do believe it is under investigation, and it is really up to this House to come forward with a case ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ and this to some degree, and I have to say and I have thought long and hard about this, I believe presupposes the answer, it prejudges what may come back from that committee. I have to say, if I dare say it in this hon. Court, Your Excellency, I am very critical personally of the time it has taken that committee to come back with that answer, but that is another matter and is something I will take up in another place. But I do believe to make an order to exempt three different categories where there are still many others left out is wrong. It was something I voiced very strongly at the stage of the reading of the Bill at the time, one about the way it was done and the other because I saw it doing this very thing. I believe we have come to a compromise. I am sorry, I know it may be important to some people, but I do think this is the wrong way to go about it and I really do think that if there is a need for a change in the law, then let us do it through the proper process. I know this is quite legal but I do not believe it is the right way to do it.

Mrs. Hannan: Your Excellency, I really think this is a sad reflection on our tourist industry because we have opened our shops on Sundays and the visitors have stopped coming. So, you know, have we got it right, I would say? We have not got it right. I would say that is something that the visitors did not want when they did come, because I do not believe that visitors want Sunday shopping because they are free all week to shop, and do we offer our visitors so little that we have to offer them shopping on Sundays as well? I would certainly support the comments made by the Lord Bishop and I do not believe that there is proper protection for shopworkers and until there is I will not be supporting shop opening on Sundays.

Mr. Gilbey: Your Excellency, as other hon. members have said, the whole question of shop opening hours was looked at in the most enormous detail by a previous House of'Keys who set up a committee to consider the Shop Hours Bill 1982. Indeed, so thorough was this investigation that the Bill did not actually reach the statute book until some three years later. Yet, despite that thoroughness, we have now yet another committee looking into the whole matter again, the committee on the Statute Law Revision Bill. Surely, we should take no action until this further committee has been able to report, as hon. members have already suggested. But I do think it would be useful if we reminded ourselves of the existing law and the enormous flexibility for shopping on Sundays that already exists. The Shop Hours Act 1982 states in Section 2 (1), ‘Subject to Section 2 every shop shall be closed

Shops Act (Exempt Classes) Order 1988 — Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 T927

for the serving of customers between the hours of 8.30 a.m. and 2 p.m., and between the hours of 5.30 p.m. and midnight on every Sunday, Christmas Day and Good Friday. Now, this means, if you put it the other way round, that all shops, every shop in this Island, can already be open if they want to on Sunday afternoon between two o’clock and 5.30, but they cannot all be open on Sunday mornings. But there is an exception for certain classes of shops, who can also be open on Sunday morning and therefore all day long on a Sunday, and these are shops selling medicines and medical or surgical appliances at any premises registered under Section 75 of the Medicines Act 1976, selling newspapers, selling books, selling fancy goods, motor fuels, foodstuffs, meals or refreshments, and all of these can be opened all day long on a Sunday, and many are. Indeed, as the hon. member for Castletown has said, they can be open if they want, I suppose, from six o’clock on Sunday morning till midnight. Now, the remaining shops not in these categories surely do not have to be open on a Sunday morning when people can perfectly well get to them on a Sunday afternoon. I do not believe, in this day and age, that the average visitor or resident in this Island is so impatient to shop on a Sunday morning that they cannot wait until two o’clock. Let us fact the fact, Your Excellency, that most people probably do not get out until nine or ten on a Sunday morning, and probably have their lunch between twelve or one o’clock, and therefore you are talking about two hours during which you are depriving them of shopping, and I frankly do not believe we are depriving them of anything at all. Now, there is a further point — that big groups will of course be able to employ staff to work all day on a Sunday on a shift basis, but this does not apply to the small shops. I know for a fact — and I am sure other hon. members of this Court know — of shopkeepers who are already working six-and-a-half days a week. Do any of us want to force them, through passing this order and through the competition that would result, into having to work seven days a week, and keep their shops open at that time for fear of losing business and that at a time when most people are seeking shorter working hours? In addition, all day Sunday opening would undoubtedly put pressure on staff to work on a Sunday even if they did not wish to do so. Now it is no good saying, .‘Oh, you can pass legislation to stop that’. There are many ways in which such pressure can be put that could not be covered by legislation. I personally, Your Excellency, am convinced that most people do not wish Sunday to become like every other day of the week, and this is evident not only from the remarks of the Lord Bishop but from evidence given by many people to the previous Select Committee, and this just does not apply to people who happen to be practicing Christians. Even those who not believe in the Christian ethic — I think the example of Russia is a good one — believe that there should be at least one day a week when most people do not have to work when they can get together, and it is for this very reason that most people who have to work at weekends, and particularly on Sundays, are paid very substantial rates of overtime. Indeed, if Sunday working is so desirable I wonder why this hon. House does not start doing it ourselves. We know why - because we do not believe in it. Now, the argument that shops should be opened all day on Sunday for the good of the tourist trade because they are opened in other tourist resorts is totally fallacious. We cannot copy, and I hope we do not want to copy, everything that is done in other tourist resorts, or so-called tourist resorts, around the world. I believe that in the past we have also been right in saying that

Shops Act (Exempt Classes) Order 1988 — Approved T928 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 it is our differences which make us different and which often attract people to our shores, and therefore, Your Excellency, for all these reasons I am totally and utterly opposed to this order.

Mr. Kermode: Your Excellency, no matter which way you turn, there will always be opposition for or against shop opening on Sunday. (Interruption) Now you have had your turn, it is my turn now! Mr. Corrin talks about public support for this. I will tell you how the public will support it — they will not go into the shops, so it will not be viable to open on a Sunday, so therefore there would not be much point opening. Staff — when you talk about staff in the summer time it is well known, because of our tourist industry, they use the summer to earn a little bit of extra cash for their holidays at the end of the summer, and the people I have spoken to in the shops have welcomed the fact that they were going to have the opportunity. The other day I was only talking to somebody in town about the very same fact that we are discussing here today, and she worked in a shop, and people were coming to her and saying how nice it would be to have them open on a Sunday. So that is a fallacy. There are people, I have spoken to people, who are opposed to it, shopkeepers; I am not saying there are not, but you will not please everybody. But what about the other trades in the Isle of Man, never mind just the summer, the winter times as well — the bus drivers, the essential services of these people? They do not particularly want to work on a Sunday, maybe, but they do it, but I will tell you what — having been working on a bus myself, we were glad of the Sunday working for the extra money it brought in in overtime, because it helped to buy a few extras in the house and the home, things that we did not need. Do farmers say to their farmhands, ‘Do not mind milking the cows on a Sunday; it is Sunday’? How a cow knows whether it is Sunday I do not know! Holidaymakers coming to the Isle of Man on a Saturday — they may come on a Saturday evening; the shops are shut. They may want to go out and get the vital essentials and other things, foodstuffs like that. It should be opened for them, and I asked Mr. Gilbey, does his riding school shut on a Sunday, is there any staff out at his riding school? Do you have staff at your riding school working on a Sunday? Do you chase them home because it is Sunday? ‘It is a family day, you go home, do not work today’. I suspect not.

Mr. Duggan: Come on, Walter! (Laughter)

Mr. Brown: I like it! You tell them, Walter!

Mr. Kermode: When you talk about the Bill that has gone to committee, Your Excellency, I think the Bill was one that was for all-the-year-round Sunday opening, it was not the one for this order today; this is just for the summer. Mr. Barton has expressed certain reservations — quite rightly so. I mean, today he is wearing the hat of Mr. Barton, M.H.K; other days he wears the hat of Mr. Barton, ex-President of the Chamber of Commerce, and the Chamber of Commerce is in full favour of Sunday opening. I am sorry, yes, they are. We have spoken to their meeting and the chairman will confirm where people from the Chamber of Commerce have met with us on Consumer Affairs and said they are in favour of Sunday opening in the summer. I have spoken to Mr. Barton myself; he said

Shops Act (Exempt Classes) Order 1988 — Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 T929 to me himself, ‘I could support it in the summer, but I cannot support it all year round, but I think I could support it in the summer’. Now that is his words to me. Now, perhaps people forget. Your Excellency, we are a tourist industry I am hoping that the members of the Tourist Board will get up and express their views, because I think it is very important that we have to move with the times, and as far as Mr. Duggan has said, Your Excellency, the Bishop losing his congregation, they could visit him in the morning, noon or night, any time they want, but leave time for shopping so they can fit it all into one day, and everybody is happy. So I urge members in this hon. Court to vote this today. It is a step in the right direction.

The President of the Council: Your Excellency, when I was asked by some of the members when we were having tea, why did I not take part in the previous discussion? I replied that I did not want my final speech in Tynwald to be rubbish. (Laughter) In other words, that would be completely out of context. But what I am going to say, Your Excellency — shop hours commenced in the Isle of Man during the war time, or rather just after the war time. It was necessary during the war time to save fuel, the shortage of staff and so forth, and they were closing shops — the latest was six o’clock at night. After the war there was great agitation in this Court and other places that they should open everything as a means of attracting additional visitors, and legislation was prepared and introduced into the House of Keys, and then it was suddenly withdrawn, and on making enquiries why it was withdrawn it was thought, had the trade unions been after the sponsors of the Bill? Oh no, they had not been after them at all. Was it the churches that were after them? Oh no, it was the proprietors of the shops, Your Excellency. Their argument was they were going to sell practically the same amount of goods but over a longer period, and it was going to cost them almost as much again in wages during this time, and so they did not abolish the shop hours and it has been going one ever since although, I must confess, it has been eroded quite a lot. I think personally it is a great pity that it has been eroded. People have mentioned about going over to other great hbliday resorts; the greatest holiday resort in Great Britain, of course, is London, and you can walk down Oxford Street on a Sunday morning and there is not a single shop open. It is only true to say that it suits them too; they will find people carrying out repairs, something of that kind, but it is not expected of them. I think, for my own view, for this particular purpose... if it was to sell the ice cream or lolly for the youngster, which is all provided for, we can always put our hands up and say, well, we will do this, but this is to extend it so that you can buy a suit of clothes, or a pair of shoes or an umbrella or something of that kind. Surely to goodness, there are enough hours in the week for this to be done. I greatly regret that we are dealing with this piecemeal too, and I do hope that the Court will not support this and will show that some of the old traditions of the Isle of Man about keeping its Sunday, whether people go to church or not, it is a day that is looked upon, a day when they do something different; they relax and they rest. I would hate to see the whole of the Sunday eroded — it would be detrimental, in my view, to the character of the Isle of Man.

Mr. Bell: Your Excellency, this is now probably the third or fourth time I think I have sat through a debate of this nature in the three years or so that I have been

Shops Act (Exempt Classes) Order 1988 — Approved T930 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 in this hon. Court, and I must admit it is a debate I always look forward to. It never fails to bring out the best of Manx hypocrisy. Every time we are never let down. Your Excellency, many members, I am sure, over the last few weeks will have been watching the news on television at night and been following the events in Israel where the Palestinians have been rebelling against the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and every night there have been views of Israeli troops forcing Arab shops to open because they were closed in protest against the occupation. After listening to some of the comments here this afternoon, I get the impression that Mrs. Hanson, is about to unleash her stormtroopers on some of the shopkeepers in Strand Street and force them bitterly against their will to come back to work and provide services for our diminishing band of tourists that I am told are coming over here. I really am amazed at the response this particular item generates. My understanding of the whole exercise is that it stems simply from the provision which was made available in the Shops Act of 1985 which Mr. Duggan has referred to, which gives the Consumer Affairs Board the opportunity from time to time, where it is deemed necessary, to bring forward an order to remove the restrictions on certain aspects of trading on Sundays. This provision was voted for quite clearly by the House of Keys at the time, and I assume this was accepted. Frankly, I was unhappy with what had happened at that time because I did not think it went far enough but, nevertheless, that is the situation we find ourselves in, and I find it very strange, Your Excellency, after having achieved that situation, that every single time the hon. chairman comes forward with a request for exemption we have this sort of response. I really do find it very difficult to follow. Nevertheless, one of the benefits which I believe came out of the 1985 Bill was in fact to give the option — and I underline the word ‘option’ — of shopkeepers to stay open all year round in the afternoon, which they did not have before. Now, perhaps living in Bride I do not hear what goes on in the real world, but I have heard no cries about outrage either from shopkeepers, shop assistants, the public generally, at this desecration of the Sunday. It may be a Sunday afternoon, but nevertheless it is a departure from what we are used to. Where is this great well of discontent which we are hearing about the proposed desecration of our Sundays? We have had it for the last year, we have had it over the last year, 18 months, without any comments whatsoever. I have yet to hear from a single member in this hon. Court of a particular instance where a shop assistant has approached any one of us and complained that he or she has been forced against their will to work on a Sunday. If anyone in fact has had representations I would be very pleased to hear them. I would like to hear also from the hon. Chairman of the Consumer Affairs Committee how many members in fact have approached her asking perhaps for these restrictions to be put on certain categories. Has there been any demand from the opponents of these proposals today to in fact reverse the process? If people feel so strongly about it, as they would appear to do so today, I should have thought that that would have been one course of action for people to take prior to now. We have a number of difficulties in the Tourist Board I am sure everyone is quite well aware of, and I was quite relieved — it has made life much simpler for me — to hear Mrs. Hannan’s comments to say that, really, from the day we started opening shops on Sunday the tourists stopped coming. It is an incredibly naive and simplistic approach to life when we hear statements like this. It really makes me wonder what on earth we are trying to do in the Tourist Board

Shops Act (Exempt Classes) Order 1988 — Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 T931 when we make such slow progress in convincing hon. members of what the real problems are that we are facing. The real probjem is that we have failed to acknowledge and recognise what changes have taken place in the tourist areas right throughout the world over the last 20 or 30 or 40 years. We have sat like a bunch of ostriches with our head in the ground and refused to recognise what the demand from the tourist is. It has always been a question that the tourists will have what we want and not what the tourists themselves want, and that is what brought us to our knees very nearly, and unless we reverse that trend and recognise what the tourist consumer trends and demands are, then any hope of reviving the tourist industry will be lost. I would like to touch on one other point — I cannot just remember which member mentioned it now but it was a reference to greedy traders, and it is greedy traders which want to open on Sundays and which are forcing the issue. I would, even in these so called ‘boom days’ that we are having over here — ask hon. members to take a walk down Strand Street and see just how profitable some of these businesses are and just how marginal in fact the trading conditions of some of these shops are. Certainly, Marks and Spencers may be doing all right, Woolworths may be doing all right, but let us see just how profitable some of these small shops that we all are talking about so viably today, how well are they prospering? And I will tell you that some of them are very near the border line at the moment, and without the benefit of tourist trading in the summer they would have all gone under and the quality of Strand Street would have gone with it. It is a fact we should not lose sight of. We have already allowed quite a number of commodities to be sold on a Sunday, on a Sunday morning as well as a Sunday afternoon. If it is so wrong — and I have to keep coming back to it, and I know I am repeating myself every time I come to this — but if Sunday trading is wrong, it has to be wrong for all commodities; if it is right, it has to be right for all commodities. It is trying to walk this ridiculous balancing act that we seem to be doing every year that is getting us into trouble. We have a number open already; if there is anything wrong with that, then let us see some move to stop it, but if we are prepared to accept that we are going to have our newspapers on a Sunday, we are going to have our milk delivered on a Sunday, we are going to have all these other commodities seen to for us on a Sunday, then we have to expect that we will have demands from time to time to extend that option to other areas of our retailing community, and that is all we are asking. It is merely the option to open if they so desire. The hon. member for East Douglas, Mr. Kermode, mentioned that the success or failure of any Sunday opening, whether it be Sunday morning or Sunday afternoon or whenever, will be dictated to entirely by the public. They are the sole arbiters of whether Sunday trading will be successful, and again I repeat myself, Your Excellency, it is time this hon. Court started to treat the Manx public and our tourists as adults and let them make their own choice as to whether they want to open on Sunday, and whether they want to shop on Sunday. I find it ironic and amusing, Your Excellency, that some of the strongest opponents of what is being put forward here today are, in another existence, the strongest defenders of the right of the individual to choose his own course of action. This where the hypocrisy comes in. Now you cannot have it both ways. Your Excellency, we are debating what should be a very simple, straightforward

Shops Act (Exempt Classes) Order 1988 — Approved T932 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 proposal here this evening. We are being asked simply to allow footwear, clothing and sports goods to be sold on a Sunday morning. They are already being sold in certain shops because of the multiplicity of commodities which are sold in shops these days; that has been accepted. It is a matter of extending them to the smaller shopkeeper, in particular, who specialises; that is the only extension we are asking for, I can well remember, Your Excellency, on this ground a point which was made by the hon. member for Glenfaba, Mr. Gilbey, when opposing the extension of Sunday opening in the Shops Act, when he argued vehemently, very strongly, in favour of exempting garden centres and within five minutes was arguing equally vehemently against gardening shops, which sold the exact same things that were not classifed as garden centres, ever being allowed to open. Now, this is the absolute nonsense that we are faced with in this debate. (Interruption) We cannot have it all ways. We have to accept, Your Excellency, that there are demands from the tourist which may impinge from time to time on what we consider to be our traditions. I accept there are strongly held beliefs on what Sunday should be and I in no way would like to encourage the undermining of that or the forcing of people against their will to go against what is their own innermost feelings, their own commitments. Nevertheless, Your Excellency, all we are being asked here to do is to grant the option to these people. No one is going to be obliged to open; if they do not wish to open, if they have their beliefs or cannot get the staff, or in fact, more to the point, they cannot get the business, they will not open — it is as simple as that. Your Excellency, I would urge hon. members in the name of common sense and logic, if nothing else, to support the resolution that is brought here before us today by the Chairman of the Consumer Affairs Board to give our traders the opportunity of a more profitable period of trading during the summer, to provide a much needed facility for our tourists, because, in spite of what one or two members are saying at the moment, we are getting tourists coming here, they will still continue to come, they have not disappeared altogether, and indeed this summer is looking very good at the moment in spite of Mr. Corrin and other bigots (Members: Hear, hear!) who happen to appear in the face of this hon. Court. Your Excellency, I do not wish to go on any further on this matter I would urge hon. members to once and for all please, please, let us get rid of this hypocrisy. Let us treat this subject in a mature manner. Perhaps it does not go far enough for hon. members such as Mr. Brown, and I entirely sympathise with his position — we have agreed, I think, all the way along the line on what should have happened on this, but I think today is one time when we have to accept that we have not got exactly what we want yet, and, when that report from the other committee comes, I am sure we will be both fighting to achieve the same end then, but I think we have to accept that we are at the half way stage today; let us at least start to get rid of the hypocrisy over this argument and support the hon. chairman in their proposals today.

Mr. Leventhorpe: Your Excellency, I think the last speaker has identified the problem. This is a very small extension that is required or asked for to the current shop opening hours, and yet we are asked to believe that Sunday as we know it is going to disappear in a sort of apocalyptic clap of thunder; it is going to change the whole format of Sunday. I wonder how many people are working Sundays

Shops Act (Exempt Classes) Order 1988 — Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 T933 already and how many extra people will work if this goes through. I think the proportion will be minuscule. Also it appears, Your Excellency, that there is here a means of paralysing Government. We have heard, ‘It has been referred to committee, we cannot take any action on it’. Well, you could do anything with that; you could refer anything to committee and no action could be taken. The committee is sitting, it is deliberating, we have had criticisms of it on one side because it is taking so long, then we heard that the previous one took three years to reach the statute book, but what right? (Interruptions and laughter) I believe that this is an interim mfeasure, Your Excellency, which should be approved by this hon. Court. It should be allowed for the sake of tourism in particular. I do not in fact believe that the tourist says, ‘I must go to the Isle of Man; the shops are open there on Sunday’. But I do think he might say I will not go to the Isle of Man because the shops are not open there on a Sunday. Many of them arrive here on a Saturday afternoon or evening, and when they come to unpack that is when they find that little Johnny has left his shorts behind. (Laughter)

Mr. Brown: As long as that is all he has left behind!

Mr. Leventhorpe: They need to have their shops open on a Sunday morning so that they can make good the deficiencies of their packing or their wardrobe. So, Your Excellency, I will be supporting this measure, I think it is a very small one, I do not think it preempts any consideration by the committee of the wider issues, and I believe that it could be helpful to our tourists.

Mr. Kneale: Your Excellency, the hon. member for South Douglas, Mr. Duggan, tells us we have got to move with the times, and if we look at the television every night, you will see what moving with the times — where it is getting us. The hon. member for Ramsey, Mr. Bell, has just assured us that this summer is looking good as far as the tourist business is concerned. Well, there may be a reason for that, because they have changed their advertising this year, and they are saying virtually ‘Go back in time in the Isle of Man’. Now, they are showing you the nostalgia and the peaceful situation in the Isle of Man, and yet all the arguments he is putting forward today are contrary to the publicity campaign that they have been carrying out.

Mr. Delaney: I hope they are selling beer at twopence a pint!

Mr. Kneale: Now, the hon. member for South Douglas again tells about his shopping expeditions with his wife in Blackpool, and suggests that because the shops are opened in Blackpool on a Sunday, then they should be open in the Isle of Man. I am sure that nobody wants to turn the Isle of Man into another Blackpool. (Members: Hear, hear.) Now, we all know that the present system is a nonsense, but again the hon. member for Ramsey, Mr. Bell, pointed out there are two alternatives. It does not mean to say, because some shops are open, that every shop has got to be open. The alternative is to ensure that everybody is treated the same, and that they are all shut on a Sunday. Now, the hon. member, the President of the Council, did make reference to the shopkeepers that were closed in the past, and the hon. member for Ramsey countered

Shops Act (Exempt Classes) Order 1988 — Approved T934 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 this by saying nobody is forcing them to open by this resolution. They are doing just that, because if one opens the others have got to open, and the argument they were putting forward when we were saying to them, ‘You have not got to open’ — they say ‘If we are not open and the fellow down the road is open, the customers will get used to going to that shop, and they could desert me for the rest of the week.

Mr. Bell: That has not happened on Sunday afternoon in most places.

Mr. Kneale: Well, whether it has happened on Sunday afternoon in your area, this was the view that the shopkeepers were putting forward. I believe that when we hear the hon. member for Onchan, Mr. Leventhorpe, saying this is only a small extension, it is the small extensions and these small erosions into what was recognised as the Isle of Man way of life that is turning us into another area of the United Kingdom. I believe that our differences are what makes us different, and we should be emphasising them, and we should not be just following the common herd. If anybody wants lessons about what modern times are bringing about, then again, I would repeat, look at the television every night. If this is what modern society is, I would like to see us going back a bit.

Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, I do not think I have got very much to add to what Mr. Kneale has said, but I do disagree with him where he says that the present situation is nonsense I do not believe it is nonsense. I do not believe you can look at a situation as we have in the Isle of Man at the moment and say ‘That is right’ and ‘That is wrong because you are open; you should be open’. I believe what we as politicians should be doing is looking to see what is acceptable to the people of the Isle of Man, and I do believe that the situation we have arrived at now is acceptable to the people of the Isle of Man. There were some who would say that we have gone too far, there are others that would say that we have not gone far enough, but, Your Excellency, most of us in our lifetimes have seen Sundays change immensely. From the small shops, the corner shops opening, we have now seen large food shops in larger chains opening regularly on a Sunday, and all through the winter they are busy, they are not relying on the tourists. I have seen them on a Sunday morning where they are queuing in Port Erin to get into the food store. We have seen pub lunches, we have seen people going out for Sunday lunches; that would not have been acceptable 20 years ago, but it is acceptable today. We have seen the growth of the Sunday football league; that would not have been acceptable 25 years ago, but it is acceptable today. We have seen the growth of sport, of people enjoying themselves on a Sunday in the sporting fields, again which is fully acceptable to me, and I am sure it is to our people out there. So, I do not believe it would be good for us to go back 25 years and shut the pubs and stop sport on Sunday and all the rest of it. By the same token I do believe that we have to look what is acceptable to the people in the Isle of Man. We do have to recognise our differences, and I think the point that Mr. Kneale made on that score was very, very pertinent. We do need to recognise the differences. I think we have gone far enough I am sure that the frontiers are going to be pushed out as the years go by, that there is going to be an increase in facilties open to the public on Sunday, but I would suggest to hon. members that now is not the time, and, as I say, I believe we have gone far enough

Shops Act (Exempt Classes) Order 1988 — Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 T935 at this time. I have no doubt that in due course we will go further and other avenues will open up. But I do believe, Your Excellency, that this is not the time.

Mr. May: Your Excellency, we have heard a bit this evening about the latest tourist advertising campaign ‘You will look forward to going back’, and I have heard one or two interesting remarks — for example, the hon. member for Glenfaba, Mr. Gilbey, seems to think that when people go on holiday ... and I do know the Tourism Department is taking a conscious effort to try and upgrade our facilities and to get the hoteliers to get an awareness of what the customer of the 1990s requires, but even with the best facilities in the world I do not think you would find, as Mr. Gilbey would suggest, hotels that would permit the visitors to lie in bed until half past ten in the morning and then give them breakfast in bed and let them wonder down for their lunch or whatever. (Interruption) The majority of tourists who come on holiday — the very reason that they are on holiday is they want to be up in the morning and out, out with their families, out to see whatever a holiday resort has to offer; they do not lie in bed. This particular resolution this afternoon concerns me in a couple of ways. Now, if it was something of putting blanket Sunday opening for 12 months of the year, I would be very much opposed to that. But what we are talking about is correcting something of an anomalous situation whereby some shops can open in the morning and others cannot, where one shop can sell certain goods but the other one cannot do; it is trying to rectify it. It is not a compulsive situation, there is no compulsion on anyone to open their premises, and I would suggest that by this being invoked purely for the summer season, there would be no great rush to invoke it, because there would not be the trade. It would be consumer led. The areas that were not in the main tourism catchment area or where the additional business was like to be would not find it viable to open. They would not find it viable to pay the additional overheads running costs, staffing costs and what have you. It is only a few shops in certain areas that would have any opportunity of making this viable, and even with those there is no compulsion. But what does concern me — and I would ask the hon. member in here reply, because I have not made up my mind on this particular one as of yet as to which way I go — she did say in her opening remarks that she put a questionnaire around all the shopkeepers and more pertinently around all the staff, round all the shop assistants —

Mrs. Hanson: We had interviewed staff.

Mr. May: Well, what I would like to ask the hon. member is, could she give me some idea of what cross-section of the staff was interviewed during the course of that and what the results of it were, and then I will make my decision on it. But I would say, hon. members, that basically what it is doing is an extension that is correcting a situation that is slightly anomalous at the moment. If it was going beyond that, then I would be very, very wary of it, but as it is at the moment I am inclined to favour it, but I will wait for the hon. member’s reply.

Mr. Cretney: Your Excellency, just briefly, I feel that we in this Court, we as a Government, should be doing whatever we can in order to make the conditions attractive and taking a step back for those who are creating employment and those

Shops Act (Exempt Classes) Order 1988 — Approved T936 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 who are providing employment, and amongst those people a certain amount of those are shopkeepers. I think that particularly during the summer months — and I have spoken on this before — I think there is a requirement that all shopkeepers during the summer months should have the possibility to open their premises to the full day on a Sunday in order to maximise their profits and in order to keep their staff on all winter in order to pay their staff better wages than they are doing at the moment, and that can only be done when they are maximising their profits. At the present time, because we support multiples, we are saying that because you sell certain goods you can open and people who are selling certain goods — also in the background they are selling clothes or shoes or other things that are in this order so what we are saying is, it is all right for the Woolworths and the multiples to open and to sell clothing on a Sunday morning but it is wrong for our small local traders, and lots of them are self-employed so the staffing problem does not come into it. I think we should be making it possible for those small self-employed people to take advantage of the short summer season because it is a short summer season and it is a long winter and, as the hon. member for Ramsey has pointed out, contrary to some opinion in this Court, I do not believe that the majority of shopkeepers are greedy; I believe that they need to have this availability during the summer months to maximise their profits. As regards the Select Committee of the House of Keys which has been referred to, one of the reasons that we have been some time is the fact that hon. members have a lot of commitments, and I am sure other hon. members will have found this with select committees, that getting together on a regular basis is difficult from time to time, and we did have a problem over receiving evidence. We have now received evidence; hopefully, very soon we will be interviewing people, letting them have the opportunity to come to us, speak to us, say what they consider is right for the Isle of Man and then a decision will be made over the future, but I do believe that we should support this particular order, particularly for those small self- employed people who are in this business and who are being discriminated against at the present time by our laws.

Mr. Lowey: Your Excellency, first of all may I say I disagree with my hon. colleague who has just resumed his seat when he says that it is for the short summer season only and that we are depriving people from earning a legitimate living, because I can hear the selfsame people later in the year saying, ‘Well it is a nonsense; you have approved it in the summer, why do we not have it in the winter for our own people for the Christmas period the Easter period? Well, all right, why not be open and come out with it now instead of the ‘little by little’ approach. Now can I say I do not believe or count myself to be a hypocrite or worse because I dare to oppose. I genuinely believe people like the Bishop, Mr. Nivison and others who have genuine religious beliefs on the Sabbath are none the worse for expressing those and expressing them openly, and I can say that I believe that the Chief Minister has put his finger on it, — how far do we go? Now the argument that we are going a little bit of the way now, only a little bit, only opening and extending it to three extra items, really then, defeats the argument that you are only going that far. If it is that important, then you would have to go for a larger extension. I do not believe that agreements that were entered into after long discussions with various people — and the agreement was that Sunday afternoon would be, if you like, open

Shops Act (Exempt Classes) Order 1988 — Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 T937 to all, then within six months or a year coming back and saying, ‘By the way, can we have Sunday morning now for this limited period?’ — it is undoubtedly the thin edge of the wedge. I believe myself... and when modern history comes to be written when I was Chairman of the then Consumer Council I can recall what actually started this trend over the last ten years for more Sunday trading, and that was the success of Jurby Junk and who were the people who objected strongly to the trading at that establishment but the traders — the Chamber of Trade, and the traders of Ramsey. People were going to Jurby Junk on a Sunday and they were not coming into Ramsey to shop, hence the argument that they were depriving them, and the argument is a valid one — that if you actually allow one to open you are in essence forcing the others to open whether they like it or not. The question that was posed for my good friend Mr. Bell — had I been lobbied again by anybody against? — I have to say, sir, I have had three people complaining to me that I should not support this because of the pressure that they would be under to work on Sunday at flat rates of pay, and they knew that the option that they would be given would be their full-time job would be taken away and made into two part-time jobs three days in the week and another three days at the weekend, and that is a real danger that is facing...and I have to admit, not a great lobby but three genuine people who worked in the service industry who have expressed concern to me that I should not support this Bill.

M r. Cannan: Your Excellency, I, in closing, would like to say that I and my family support the traditional Manx Sunday and we believe in it but, having said that,we also live in the real world and we find the petrol stations open, we find Ronaldsway Airport at full blast on a Sunday during the summer, and we find the boats are sailing in the summer on Sundays; we go round and we find the coach operators are operating and the hotels are offering afternoon teas and the little restaurants and cafes are providing Sunday afternoon teas. They are not providing them in the winter; many of the petrol stations that are open in the summer are not open in the winter on Sundays — and I am talking about Sundays. All these things are happening. People are working in them, real people are working in them. Now what are we saying? ‘Ah, but you see, in Ramsey you can have the Mooragh Park on a Sunday afternoon with the restaurant and the shops and everybody working in them. You can have a few of the small shops in town open but there are others you cannot’ — it makes hypocrisy of the nonsense, and if the hon. member, Mr. Lowey says that ‘Oh, it will be wanted in the winter afterwards’, I do not believe they will, because all the small things that are open now on a Sunday afternoon are all closed in the winter. If you go round the countryside now in the winter you will not find the little rural petrol stations open, you will not find the little teahouses open, you will not even find the Mooragh Park and the restaurants open, you will not find the shops, and they will not ask to be open —

Mr. Lowey: This order does not deal with that.

Mr. Cannan: I know it does not, but what I am saying is that it does not support your argument that because these are allowed to be open in the summer they will then want to be open in the winter. No, sir, I believe that the Manx people support the traditional Sunday but, come the summer when the visitors are here, the visitors Shops Act (Exempt Classes) Order 1988 — Approved T938 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 will use them; I do not believe the Manx people will really be inclined to use them, I believe that the majority will still support the traditional Sunday. I cannot see people from the rural areas going to do their shopping on a Sunday morning or a Sunday afternoon into Douglas, Peel or Ramsey. They will keep their traditional Sundays, and if there is a requirement for visitors — and I think possibly the only real requirement will be in Douglas — then what harm is actually done? As I say, you have got the airport going full blast, you have got petrol stations, you have got all the other activities happening on a Sunday and I cannot really see the justification. There is a certain sort of humbug in this. It is all right for the petrol stations, it is all right for Ronaldsway and the Steam Packet and so on but we must not have certain shops open. No, I am sorry as a supporter of the Sunday I will be honest with myself and I cannot see really what harm it will do to have these few shops open.

The Governor: Hon. members, can I call on the chairman to reply? I do

Mrs. Hanson: Thank you, Your Excellency. Well, there is quite a lot to reply to, sir, so I will be very brief. The time is going on and I will just pick out some pertinent points. First of all may I say that I would not, nor my board, have brought this order before you today if that Select Committee had produced its report, and had it been debated in the other House we would abide by the decision of the legislation of the Statute Law Revision Bill; I would not have brought this order here today. I have brought this order here today with pressure from the Chamber of Trade and Commerce because Easter is nearly upon us for tourism. That is why I brought it today. I am not one of these people who are wildly enthusiastic about all the shops opening on Sunday but I have to abide by pressures, abide by advice from people who are earning their living by tourism, and this is the whole point. Now, may I say also that shops that are on this order are footwear, clothing and sports goods. These shops will be allowed to be open and this was with the agreement of the Chamber of Trade because the following shops which I will read to you are not associated with tourism: do-it-yourself shops, furniture shops, electrical goods, T. V. shops, antique shops, and there may be others — they will not be able to open on Sunday mornings if this order is approved. It is for tourism only. Now may I thank members who have given their support, and those who have not given their support — I entirely respect your views because you have views about Sunday trading. 1 have views about Sunday; I do not go shopping on a Sunday, but I have to deal in facts in my job, not emotions, I regret to say. Now, Mr. Anderson — I appreciate your views but, as I have pointed out, this is for the tourist season only, for this summer only, in fact, and in footwear, clothing and sports goods. What about the people who want to buy sandals on a Sunday morning or want to buy T shirts? That is clothing. Socks? Sports goods for the afternoon, for them to go out? This is the whole point. And he did mention Paris — well, I hate to tell you this, Mr. Anderson, but I was in Paris one Sunday and there was a huge fair there, bigger than the Petticoat Lane in London. I think all the tourists in Paris were there. The Lord Bishop — I respect your views, sir, I understand entirely and I would say that my board have already said we will agree and observe the decision of this Court today, of course, but when this Select Committee produces its report; it all

Shops Act (Exempt Classes) Order 1988 — Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 T939 hangs on that, really. Mr. Barton, I can confirm — you asked for confirmation of this — that the Trading Standards Inspectors will monitor these shops, and I can assure you that if any shop is open that is not exempted it will be reported to the Attorney-General and there will be a prosecution, and that is what will happen. I promise you, that is what will happen. Mr. Duggan, thank you very much for your support. I might say that although the shops are not supposed to open in the U.K., in every tourist resort I have been in they are all open and I think they must be turning a blind eye to it. Mr. Corrin, you did mention about the committee that was sitting last June and we have been waiting for the report, which has not materialised. You did ask whether we had spoken to assistants. Yes, we have, we have visited shops in the South of the Island too and in the North and in Douglas; we have spoken to assistants and I do not think any assistants have said to us, ‘No, we do not work’; in fact they welcomed the overtime that they were going to get, and may I point out that shop assistants are better protected than any other worker; they are protected as regards the hours they work in the Shop Hours Act 1985, if you read it, and also in the Contract of Employment Act, so they are very, very well protected. Mr. Brown, not all shops are included because, you have read the memo that was circulated to all members, you will see that it would have made the Act nugatory, so they could not be all exempted; in fact, the other shops that I am sure you are interested in were not considered to be tourist-orientated. Mrs. Hannan, your view is that we should go back to the olden times, I think. It does not matter about tourists so I do not know what the shop people in Peel would say when they are trying to earn a living and trying to make an income from all the visitors in the summer. Mr. Gilbey, I know that you are a very strong opponent to this and I respect your views, Mr. Gilbey, I really do, but shops can open in the afternoon now, and the shopkeepers tell us that all their business is done in the morning, the shops that can open, not in the afternoon. Mr. Kermode, I would thank you for your very practical view of everyday life because you put it forward very, very clearly, how people live, (Members: Hear, hear !) (Laughter) and I would congratulate you for that. Mr. President, I know you are a very strong opponent to the shop hours and I thank you very much for your review of how the shop legislation came into force after the last war. I am the daughter of a shopkeeper and I remember that when I was a child the shop that my father owned was open from nine o’clock in the morning till six o’clock at night during the week — that was when the shop hours came in — open till eight o’clock on a Friday and nine o’clock on the Saturday, and everybody expected to work and they accepted that. Mr. Bell, thank you very much for your support. No, I do not have any shock troops to go out to the shops to make them open; it is entirely optional. It is entirely freedom — they can open if they wish, they can close if they wish; the people can go and shop on a Sunday if they wish, they can stay home or go out in the country if they wish. It is all absolutely free. Mr. Leventhorpe, my vice-chairman, thank you very much for your support. As you say quite rightly, it is a very, very small extension that is being asked to be approved today.

Shops Act (Exempt Classes) Order 1988 — Approved T940 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988

Now, Mr. Kneale — he wants us to go back in time, he supports the slogan of the Tourist Board. Well, taking it right to its true context, does he want us to go back to the days when people used to sleep over the baths which they did, and lights out at 11 o’clock? If you want to go back, that is what it was like in the good old days. Now, of course, things have changed and other things have got to change with them.

Mr. Kneale: You are talking about Peel, of course! (Laughter)

Mrs. Hanson: No, I am not talking about Peel, I am talking about Douglas! The Chief Minister — I quite agree, what is accepted for the people of the Isle of Man. Now, the people will show what they want because they will either go and shop or they will not, and if the Select Committee produces their report and watches what happens in the summer, they will no doubt include this and people will come and give them evidence that they can include in their report. Mr. May — most business, as I have said already, is done in the morning and I agree with you, tourists do decide the viability and we have interviewed shop workers and, as I pointed out to you, they are better protected than any other workers. Mr. Cretney, now you can speak, sir, from the point of view of a small shopkeeper. Now, the big shops in Douglas, the big complexes can sell a variety of goods so they can open on a Sunday morning, but it is the small shopkeeper who cannot and, as you so rightly say, you have to maximise your profits to afford to be able to keep on your staff in the winter and to give employment. Mr. Lowey, may I say that assistants are protected and this order is not for the winter, it is for the summer this year only, and it ceases on October 31st. Mr. Karran, how correct you are when you say the petrol stations are open, people working in restaurants, cafés, hotels, in the Park and so on, and ‘buses, taxis, so people do have to work on Sundays. Thank you, Your Excellency, I beg to move.

The Governor: Hon. members, I put to you the motion standing in the Supplementary Agenda at item 3(2). Will hon. members in favour say aye; those against say no.

A division was called for and voting resulted as follows:

In the Keys —

For: Mr. Cannan, Dr. Orme, Mr. May, Mrs. Delaney, Messrs. Duggan, Cretney, Delaney, Kermode, Cain, Bell, Leventhorpe and the Speaker — 12

Against: Messrs. Gilbey, Quine, Barton, Walker, Corrin, Brown, Kneale, Mrs. Hannan, Messrs. Gelling, Karran and Maddrell — 11

The Speaker: Your Excellency, the resolution carries in the House of Keys, sir, with 12 votes being cast in favour and 11 votes against.

In the Council —

Shops Act (Exempt Classes) Order 1988 — Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 T941

For: Mrs. Hanson, Messrs. Radcliffe, Quirk, Callin and Irving — 5

Against: The Lord Bishop, Messrs. Lowey, Anderson and the President of the Council — 4

The Governor: Hon. members, in the Council five votes cast in favour and four votes against, the resolution therefore carries.

SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTARY AGENDA — PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL — RETIREMENT

The Governor: Hon. members, you have in front of you a Special Supplementary Agenda. I call on the hon. Mr. Speaker to test your willingness to hear it.

The Speaker: Your Excellency, I beg to move —

That permission be granted under Standing Order 27(6) fo r the following business to be considered.

That is set out in the Special Supplementary Agenda, Your Excellency.

Mr. Anderson: I beg to second.

The Governor: Hon. members in favour say aye; those against say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. I call on Mr. Speaker, item 2.

The Speaker: Your Excellency, as my hon. friend, the President of the Council, is about to fly off into retirement, I rise to move the resolution which seeks, however inadequately, to recognise the rich contribution he has made over nearly 40 years of parliamentary service to the Isle of Man. On this, the eve of his retirement, my thoughts involuntary go back to the days when the determination of Jack Nivison, as an aspiring young Labour politician, to enter the House of Keys, gave him, at his third attempt, success in the Middle by-election of 1948. The Examiner, reporting on his campaign, quoted him as saying that he would give attention to the establishment of a Tynwald ‘watch committee’, aimed at preserving a high standard of entertainment on the Island. ‘Nothing was more abominable,’ he said, ‘than the type of entertainment which had been given during the summer, especially on Sundays’, and he declared that while everyone liked a good joke, everyone liked it to be of a high standard. You will realise, Your Excellency, hon. members, that the intervening years have not changed things very much, as I quote again, ‘Regarding transport services, Mr. Nivison recalled that people other than socialists had advocated that these should be under public control and at the last meeting of the Isle of Man Railway Company, a shareholder had advocated that it might be an advantage if the system was taken over by Government’. When asked whether he proposed, to nationalise the Steam Packet Company, Mr. Nivison said, ‘ “ Not necessarily. The Labour Party does

Special Supplementary Agenda — President of the Council — Retirement T942 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 not want to stifle private enterprise so long as the particular industry is giving proper service to the community” . Continuing, he denied that membership of the Labour Party robbed any man of his own initiative. “A Labour man in Douglas” , he observed, “ might think it is a good thing to take over Onchan but I would think differently. My own most important point — housing” . No one wanted to prevent a man owning his own house, but urgent cases should have priority. “ The urgency should be provided where the need is greatest, not where the pocket is fullest” , he added’. How happy, hon. members, they did not report the fact that he sometimes held public meetings in the wrong constituency! (Laughter) So, hon. members, were the footings laid for the career of a man who progressed through the Manx legislative scene to become the first President of the Council. On entering the House of Keys his first contribution to a debate was unusual. He said, ‘I feel rather like a small dog let out on the lead’ which leads one to believe there was some significance in his contribution to the recent debate on the strike when he said the one thing he missed was dog food! (Laughter) Your Excellency, he has certainly done a lot of barking, both on and off the lead, since then, but those introductory remarks were a preface to a speech on the issue of conscription which was significant for the patriotism he has displayed throughout his life. He wound up by saying, ‘I appeal to the members as a conscript in the last war and as a young man who is likely to go again to adopt these measures as a duty we owe to the country’. Those were the days, hon. members, when the Chairman of the Local Government Board was asking, what is a radio-active substance? The subscription to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association was being increased from £100 to £180 to make it a more vital thing, and licensing measures were, as always, being consolidated and, honouring his electoral promises, the newly elected member was raising questions about unadopted roads in Onchan, rents of local authority houses and the appointment of a financial officer at the then staggering figure of £2,500 annually when the Government Secretary was getting a mere £1,600. Naturally for him, it has been to the cause of the under-privileged he has primarily concentrated the energies of a long and strenuous career, and it was that dedication that resulted in Tynwald entrusting him with the Chairmanship of the Board of Social Security for no less than 25 years, a role he discharged most effectively by blending principles with good sense and humour. In 1962 his career which, like that of all public men, has been one of change and vicissitude, moved in a new direction when he was elected to the Legislative Council as the first occupant of a seat created under the terms of the new Constitution Act. Moving his nomination, the member for Peel, then Mr. Gale, said, ‘His qualifications are well known to us. He has taken an active part in the question of constitutional reform, he is well qualified to represent this House in the Legislative Council and I am confidently sure, sir — and the House will share my view — that he will always remain a Keys man. I am sure that the hon. member for Middle will be an acquisition to the Legislative Council; he will put a little bit of life into it which is sadly needed’. Mr. Quayle, in seconding, said, ‘I do not think, in allowing his name to go forward, that Mr. Nivison is looking in any way for personal advancement. I well know he would have preferred to continue to sit in this House amongst those he can call his friends. However, he has long thought — and I am in a position to know this, having sat next to him in this House for some years,

Special Supplementary Agenda — President of the Council — Retirement TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 T943 that the upper Chamber needs the sort of more virile representation he can offer and I am sure that the Council, our constitution and Tynwald will be improved by the appointment of our hon. friend’. With his election to a chamber where opponents never unsheath thgir swords — they use daggers instead! (Laughter) — came a new responsibility for the former R. A.F. Aircraftsman Nivison, because he was given the chairmanship of the Airports Board, a rôle to which he brought, Your Excellency, an affluent and abundant imagination. A great talker, and, Dr. Johnston’s dictum notwithstanding, a good listener, he broadened the local image and became Chairman of the Aerodrome Owners’ Association of Britain. That outward approach was no novelty to the Chairman of the Island branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, whose belief that a feast of reason is best remembered with the salt of amusement has endeared him over the years to a host of Commonwealth parliamentarians. So it was, one could say, logical that, when in 1980 the appointment of the first President of the Legislative Council was being made, Jack, by this time a Commander of the Order of the British Empire, Captain of the Parish and Justice of the Peace to boot, should be the man chosen to fill the rôle, and he has filled it with distinction. The resolution before you today hon. members recognises that fact, recognises his contribution to both Government and Commonwealth affairs and in its conclusion congratulates him on his achievements as one of the most remarkable and certainly one of the most attractive political figures of the century. The humour that receives mention will be a treasured memory to all of us, and no doubt Exodus Chapter 34 and the tablets to which he has so often referred will become in due course a part of Manx folklore. Through the resolution we wish him and Mrs. Nivison, whose natural charm, courtesy, friendliness and support for her husband has been unfailing — we wish them both a long and happy retirement and, as in the Presidential rôle he has sat on a chair presented by the Australian Government to the Isle of Man at the time of the Millennium for so long that the imprint of Australia is now firmly emblazoned on his memory, (Laughter) we invite him to be our special representative at the Australian conference of the organisation he has done so much to promote, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.. As a permenent memento of our esteem a manuscript copy of this resolution will be conveyed to the President of the Legislative Council, the Right Hon. J. A. C. K. Nivison C.B.E., C.P., J.P. Your Excellency, I beg to move the resolution: WHEREAS the Hon. J. A. C. K. Nivison, who is now in the fortieth year o f his membership o f Tynwald, has indicated his wish to retire with effect fro m 29th February 1988. AND WHEREAS —

(a) he is the first President of the Legislative Council to be elected by the Council and has filled that office with wisdom, humour and dignity;

(b) he has held high office in the Government of this Isle, particularly as a member o f Executive Council and as Chairman of the Isle o f Man Board of Social Security and the Isle of Man Airports Board; and

Special Supplementary Agenda — President of the Council — Retirement T944 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988

(c) he has enthusiastically supported the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, having been a member o f its General Council and for many years Chairman o f the Isle o f Man Branch. NOW THEREFORE TYNWALD, in recognition of Mr. President’s distinguished service to the Manx nation, this Parliament and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association — (1) congratulates him on the distinction he has brought to the many offices he has held and to the invaluable contribution he has made to the well­ being o f this Isle and its people; (2) wishes to him and Mrs. Nivison a long and happy retirement; (3) invites him to attend the Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference in Australia as a special representative o f the Manx people; and (4) directs that an ornamented manuscript copy of this resolution be presented to him. The Governor: I look for a seconder. Mr. Walker: I beg to second, sir. The Governor: I accept the seconding of the Chief Minister and, with your permission, I propose only to call upon him.

Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, I am pleased to second the resolution, so ably proposed by Mr. Speaker, and wish to add very little except, perhaps, on a personal note to say to the hon. President of the Council, thank you for the friendship and support that you have shown to me. And when I say that, I know that every member, every person who has become a member of Tynwald in the last, I suppose, 38 years, has been made to feel at home after a brief conversation with Jack Nivison. (Members: Hear, hear.) You know, it should be a glad day, we look forward to Mr. and Mrs. Nivison enjoying their retirement, but in fact I suppose it is quite a sad one, because we are not only losing a colleague, a political opponent, but we are also losing a very good friend, and I am very pleased to be associated with the remarks of Mr. Speaker. (Applause)

The Governor: Hon. members, before I record your vote formally I think we should allow the accused one word to us. (Laughter)

The President of the Council: Your Excellency, first of all I would like to thank the hon. Mr..Speaker, my very good friend, Mr. Charles Kerruish, for the very kind words about myself and about my career. It is true that I tried three times — I am not the only one, Your Excellency, who tried three times — before I was successful, and it is also true that once I was elected, I have remained either there or here all the time without a break, and for this I have been very grateful. I was rather taken by the very kind remarks of my friend, Sir Charles, when he said ‘he has filled the office with wisdom, humour and dignity’. Some might say that humour might come first. I found my sense of humour has been a great weapon that I have been able to use during my membership, whether it be in this Chamber

Special Supplementary Agenda — President of the Council — Retirement TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 T945

or in the other Chambers in which I have served. Mr. Speaker kindly referred to the fact that I had, on occasions, spoken to the wrong constituency, (Laughter) and his reference there was when I started at an early date on my bicycle, sir. The bicycle was the order of the day and I went out to honour the far-flung paths of Middle Sheading at West Baldwin, only to find that the door was locked, and I put a poster up: ‘Jack Nivison will be speaking here on Friday night’. Subsequently, on Friday night when I went out again on my bicycle — raining, of course, it was, — the place was locked again and I went and knocked on two or three doors, and when they were opened, I said, ‘I am Jack Nivison. I am your candidate and 1 am looking for the key of the Reading Room’. ‘Oh, well, you want to go up and...’ I disturbed about six or seven people, and subsequently they came and we opened the door, lit the central combustion stove in the centre of the hall, and I spoke to them, as is my custom, for somewhere about an hour. (Laughter) Then I answered questions for a further half-hour, and eventually, whether they were getting a little tired or not I do not know, but I probably assumed that they were, because by this time the smoke was coming out of the combustion stove, it was getting rather chilly, and there was no backs on the seats — we were sitting on forms. One of the six present said, ‘Oh, that will be enough, young fellow. You have done well for us. It is a pity that we have not got any votes for you, we are all in Glenfaba! ’ (Laughter) The road, of course, was the division line, and Glenfaba was on your right and Middle was on your left. I had many experiences of this kind, Your Excellency, in my early days, having to seek halls in which to speak. I never went out knocking on doors to gain my support, I preferred to get them to come to me. They came to the various meetings and at one period, although I was the Sunday School superintendant, my vicar at the time, I think, was not of my persuasion in the political field, so he made it a little difficult for me to get the church hall, so I found myself speaking in the open air, one of the few meetings they had had for some time, and I got something of a barracking because I made reference to some of the people who where coming over in those days after the war time and paying for their accommodation with pound notes in suitcases, and I said this had been referred to — you always have to be careful when you pick your words — as dirty money. This had been referred to, and afterwards I was confronted with some very angry women — ‘Who were you referring to having the dirty money? Nevertheless, Your Excellency, I have had the privilege whilst I have been in the Legislature of serving under seven Governors, and Mr. Speaker likewise. We started with Air Vice-Marshall Sir Geoffrey Bromet, who was appointed after Lord Granville who was here for the service during the war time. And Sir Geoffrey Bromet was a great advocate; he was a powerful man, so much that the Governor was the Chancellor of the Exchequer and controlled all the expenditure. He recommended that the money that we had accumulated during the war time should be spent on supplying the country districts with electricity and with water, and for this we have to thank the then Governor, Sir Geoffrey Bromet, for his enterprise in that respect. It could have been frittered away in many other ways but that was his number one. We then had Sir Ambrose Dundas, who did a lot in respect of industry. People were coming to the Isle of Man in those days because labour was scarce in Britain — it is hard to believe now — and they wanted to set up factories in the Isle of Man before getting knocked around from pillar to post. They had to go here to

Special Supplementary Agenda — President of the Council — Retirement T946 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988

find out about the income tax, there to find out about energy, somewhere else to find out about rates, somewhere else about planning, and he appointed a man named Mr. Calder, who was the pin man that everyone was to go and see. He contributed much. We only had one factory in the Isle of Man in those days; that was Dowty’s. Dowty’s was there during the war time with the relationship with the Cheltenham firm. It is now the Isle of Man Engineering Company, Dowty’s. Subsequently we had the carpet factory of Isherwoods and the Davies Charlton factory on Hills Meadow, and the great achievement that we had during those periods, Your Excellency, was we persuaded Aristoc to come along and the Governor to play quite a part in this. Ronald Garvey is remembered by many, even before they came in. He was the flamboyant type of person and he wished to help the tourist industry and suggested that for every pound that was spent in decorating or improvement, the Government would provide an extra pound. He had backed some losers, incidentally, and there is always the story being told about the Grand Island and how it was financed, and how certain other hotels were financed. Many of us would say it is better that we go too far than not to go at all. Sir Peter Stallard, Sir John Paul and Sir Nigel Cecil followed in that rotation, and I would say, to their everlasting credit, they did much during their lifetime as Governors of the Isle of Man to bring about the evolution of our Government, to show that the Government should be placed more in the hands of the membership than in the hands of the Governor, as it was hitherto, and each of those Governors did so much in that direction, and we have the present Major General Lawrence New, who is presiding over us today. I would say, Your Excellency — I have said this many times — I believe that the Isle of Man has been most fortunate in the selection of the personnel that have occupied the seat of Governor and have allowed us to gain such progress in the government of our own people in the Isle of Man, and we are very grateful to yourself, sir, and your predecessors for what they have done. Anyhow, I must get on about myself a little lest you forget! (Laughter) Your Excellency, I am most grateful to Mr. Speaker, for the last little part of the congratulations about my many offices in the Social Security Board. Most of the social security legislation was introduced in 1948, and we were then giving our retirement pensioners, those who had attained the age of 65 and had retired, the handsome sum of 26 shillings per week, and the dependent wife would get 16 shillings. The old age pension, of course, was 10 shillings, and that was only by virtue of the age of the person — they had to be in excess of 70 and subjected to a means test. Incidentally, when I was elected, nearly 40 years ago — I want to tell you some of the things that you speak about now — shop hours, of course, were very strict in those early days, and then we had no such things as casinos, betting shops; we had no lotteries. We did, however, not because of these things, have 585,000 visitors between May and September, and the Steam Packet at that time had 14 steamers. They referred to them as ‘steamers’ because they were rather conservative in their approach as compared with ‘sailors’. They started off with sail boats, I think. And the visitors used to look, when the announcement was given over, ‘The steamer on the Victoria Pier is going at 4 o’clock to Liverpool’ — ‘the steamer’ used to, because most people coming from outside the Isle of Man referred to them as ferries;

Special Supplementary Agenda — President of the Council — Retirement TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988 T947 the only ferry that we had in the Isle of Man was that one that went from Douglas Head across to the Victoria Pier. I am most grateful for your kind wishes, Mr. Speaker, also with respect to my wife. I do say that most men would endorse, I am sure, that in order for you to try and at least to succeed, you must have the support, as I have had, your wife, and I am most grateful. I am also grateful for your reference to the fact that I have been associated with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. It was some 20 years ago, in 1966, I was appointed to the General Council, and since then I have been on the Executive Committee of the Isle of Man branch, and, for most of that period, its chairman, and I was very pleased to serve under the presidency of Mr. Speaker, and very proud of the fact that we had this most successful conference during our stay. I face today, Your Excellency, with very mixed feelings. I said the other day quite humorously that I did not have a friend in the place, but then I corrected it very quickly and said, ‘That is not true, you are all my friends’. I have never, to my knowledge, Your Excellency, made a true enemy since I have been in the Legislature. I do not think that you get anywhere by being bitter and personal with one another, and I would like to say, in conclusion, Your Excellency, knowing that the hour is late — it has never affected me before! (Laughter) — knowing about all the engagements that you all may have, I would like to say too to Mr. Speaker and to the Chief Minister, thank you most sincerely for the kind things that you said about me. I would say to all the members, Your Excellency, I wish you all well as far as the future. I will be watching very carefully. I think we have set sail in the right direction. I think the changes that have taken place — although they will have their teething troubles, it is the right thing, and I hope that Parliament generally will support their ministers as much as they can. I do not know whether you have noticed it or not, but I believe that in my position as President of the Legislative Council, I have always tried to follow the official line unless it was somewhat difficult for me to do so. I believe that is the right thing to do. Finally, I want to say to you, Your Excellency, thank you very much for tolerating me and my efforts and my contributions that I have made towards the discussions. I did purposely avoid taking part in the debate during the day because, as I said earlier, I did not want people to think that my last speech was just rubbish. (Laughter). Thank you all very much indeed. (Applause)

The Governor presented the President o f the Council with an ornamented copy o f the resolution.

The President of the Council: Oh, that is absolutely excellent — lovely! And may I too also congratulate the person who drew the cartoon appended to the Agenda! (Laughter) The illuminated address is very beautifully done on parchment. I am very proud of that, and it will be hung in a most suitable place. My son is coming over within the next couple of days and he will be quite delighted. I am sure that he will be proud of his old dad! (Laughter) I said that I will be thinking about you. I hope you, Mr. Speaker, Chief Minister and Your Excellency, will think of me occasionally. (Members: Hear, hear.) I will take up, if I can, that very generous offer to travel to travel to. Australia. I have many friends there through entertaining them coming over here, and I know I would be welcome there. I hope

Special Supplementary Agenda — President of the Council — Retirement T948 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 23rd FEBRUARY, 1988

to take that up. Thank you very much indeed.

The Governor: Mr. President, for the record, may I ask hon. members in favour of the resolution which we have just been discussing to say aye; those against say no. The ayes have it with acclamation. Hon. members, that concludes our business. The Council will now withdraw and leave the Keys to transact such business as Mr. Speaker may place before them.

The Council withdrew.

HOUSE OF KEYS

The Speaker: Hon. members of the House of Keys, the House will now adjourn, and the adjournment will be until Tuesday 1st March at 10.30. in our own Chamber. Thank you all very much.

The House adjourned at 6.57 p.m.

House of Keys