Transfer of operation of horse trams – Council of Ministers to investigate – Motion carried

The Speaker: I call the Hon. Member for Douglas South, Mrs Beecroft.

Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing this to go before this House today. I thank everybody who stood in support and everybody who voted to have a debate on it, because I do think it is important that everybody has their say on this, because it is urgent and it is important. It is urgent because we have not had any notice about this. Nobody was aware until very recently of the situation, and I think we need to focus on how we can resolve things going forward. I think it would be wrong for anybody to criticise what has happened in the past, because I can understand Douglas Borough Council’s standing this, their rationale for the decision that they have made. They represent Douglas ratepayers. But we are the national politicians, and it is up to us to debate national issues, and I do think that the horse trams are a national issue. They are part of our heritage. They are part of what people come here for. Everybody who sees a picture of the horse trams knows it is the . We have unique things and this is one of the most unique things that we have. We have things like the TT races: anybody who sees that knows it is the Isle of Man. These are iconic things. And if at the end of the day, no solution can be found, then I think we are going to have to grit our teeth and take that decision, but at this point in time we have not looked at all the options. I have been contacted over the last couple of days by so many different people, different organisations, different bodies, (A Member: Hear, hear.) who have got different suggestions of how income could be increased, how costs could be reduced – maybe a different structure, different funding mechanisms. At this point, I would like to thank everybody who has actually got in touch with me and apologise to the ones that I just have not had time to respond to yet. I will do in due course, but I thank them all for their input up to now. In fact one person shows, I suppose, how far behind technology maybe I am – this one person even suggested crowd-funding, which I have never even thought of! It never crossed my mind, but obviously maybe it was somebody of a younger generation, who is thinking outside the box. And I think that is what is needed. We need to have somebody appointed by the Council of Ministers to look at all the options, not just ones that we can think of, but ones that the public can think of and the different representative bodies in this matter. I think it would be such a sad day, because right round the world, people are actually installing horse trams in their streets and in their attractions, because people love them. I think we actually take things for granted because we have grown up with them. I think maybe it is the old saying of ‘familiarity breeds contempt’. I am not saying we have got contempt for them by any means, but we certainly are very familiar with them, and a lot of our tourist attractions are the same – we have grown up with them, we take them for granted, where other people around the world do not. You only have to look at TripAdvisor, to see what people there are saying. They absolutely love them. Other people are copying them; we have got the real McCoy. We should not allow it to go without exploring every avenue possible. It is part of a package that people come here for, and I think as national politicians, we have to look … it is not just the horse trams in isolation. We have to look at the whole package, and I am sure that the Minister who is in charge of tourism would confirm that tourists do want this as part of the package. It is valued by them. Maybe it is a wake-up call for all of us, that we actually have to start valuing some of our things. It must be even three or four years ago since I was last up Laxey Wheel – we all take these things for granted, but when people come to visit us, we love showing them round the Island and we suddenly go, ‘Gosh, I haven’t been here for ages – why don’t I come here more?’ But we live here, we have

House of Keys 26/01/2016 got our ordinary lives here, and we are so busy that we just crack on with our ordinary lives, knowing we can go there whenever we want. So we do take these things for granted. I really cannot see what the harm would be in looking at all the suggestions that people make, before a decision is taken. It cannot do any harm. So I do hope that Members will support this motion today. I would hate them to see them disappear without even as much as a proper scrutiny of all the different options available to us. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to move:

That this House is of the opinion that the Council of Ministers should explore all possibilities to allow the horse trams to be transferred to another entity; and report back as a matter of urgency.

The Speaker: I call the Hon. Member for Douglas North, Mr Houghton.

Mr Houghton: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am very happy to second this motion. I see all the values, as the Hon. Member, the mover of this motion has already set out, and I think really, that the Council of Ministers’ committee, with the appropriate people delegated onto that committee from various walks of life, in order to provide that committee with some well-thought through advice, for that then to be moved forward … I can see really that in the way that matters are being handled at this particular point in time by Douglas Corporation, it is sadly far too costly to continue to run that horse-tram service as it is. That is most unfortunate, but that is the situation. My contribution to the consideration of the committee, if it is voted in favour by this Hon. House this morning, would be to run a smaller and more appropriate replacement on Douglas Promenade – for instance, just using the walkway section, which has already been designed in by our Department, for the section of the walkway on the Loch Promenade only, from the Bottleneck to the War Memorial for the use of the horse tram for it, say, to be run by volunteers or contracted out on a smaller version of what it is. Now, Hon. Members may themselves have noticed that the operation of the horse trams on Douglas Promenade during the summer has declined. You only really see two horse trams at any one time – any one busy time, and I do stand corrected – going in opposite directions. There used to be loads and loads of horse trams in use. Now there are much fewer. So really, it has downsized, but yet Douglas Corporation is still running anything up to 20 horses. When I go walking in the fields up above the Clypse Reservoir, which is where the horses are kept during the winter, there are anything up to 20 horses up there – and beautiful animals they are too. And they are, and I have to commend Douglas Corporation – or Douglas Borough Council, as they now like to be known as – for the way that they are looked after. They are looked after, those horse, on a daily basis, and well looked after they are, throughout the winter period, whilst they are up there. But it is now, very sadly, a time for change – but not a time to lose the horse trams all told. We have the opportunity now, with the plans that the Department of Infrastructure are promoting to downsize it – possibly downsize it on a smaller area of Douglas Promenade. Let’s look at it. These are ideas that need to be investigated before the whole thing, the line is drawn under this whole matter. It is a very emotive subject, horse trams, and it is a pity – and I count myself in this –that all of those people who talk about horse trams did not actually use them! It might have been a different situation. You seldom see a horse tram full of users, and that is what the Council needed – Mr Christian actually said himself. He is correct in what he said in that regard. They are not being used. They are extremely expensive to operate. There is a workforce now in the horse tram sheds working, tidying up, maintaining those horse trams – the actual trams themselves – whilst there is another team looking after the horses themselves. So it is not just what you see on the promenade, when you see the horses being taken along the promenade in the summer. It is an all-year-round cost.

House of Keys 26/01/2016

So all of that, possibly being run by volunteers – and I do stand, and I commend those people who have looked after the horse themselves, who have worked sterling years on the horse trams. There is a person who manages that, he has been there all his working life, and made sure that everything that he has done in order to keep those trams operating has always been to the highest standard, and I commend him for that. So I would hope that those employees are looked after, if it is transferred or … Douglas has actually made its decision. It is going to cease doing it, and I understand those members of staff who are directly connected with it are going to be offered alternative employment, and I do hope that that actually happens. So the people who have done their work, and done their work so well over the years, can be taken care of. If another way is found, well then, perhaps they could be employed along those lines, I do not know. So there are a number of options that are open here for the operation, or the continued operation, but perhaps on a reduced basis, and I can only commend my comments and the comments I am sure of other Members, forward to a working party of the Council of Ministers, to look into all of this and report back. But what I see, and I am sure everybody, every reasonable person who looks at all of this, into this matter, would support the continued operation in some changed format on Douglas Promenade and possibly on the walkway. As I say, the design is in. The mover of the motion, Mrs Beecroft is also the Member for Public Transport in the Department of Infrastructure – she would be one of the ideal persons to be sitting on that committee. I am sure she would be quite willing to do that. So Mr Speaker, let’s support this motion. Let’s see what can be done, before the shutters are put up. Thank you very much.

The Speaker: The motion is open for debate, and of course I am sure Members will not want to be repetitive in their contributions. I call the Hon. Member for Douglas East, Mr Robertshaw.

Mr Robertshaw: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I suppose, like many Members, when I first heard the news on Thursday night, it was a tremendous shock. The perfunctory nature of the decision, the immediacy of it, I found quite shocking. But perhaps what I found even more disturbing was the declaration on the part of the Leader of Douglas Council (A Member: Hear, hear.) that tourism was at an end! I am absolutely disgusted by that comment! Here we have a Government which has declared, repetitively and consistently, that we should have a diversified economy. You do not have to be a huge part of that diversified economy to be important. Tourism is not the huge thing it was, but it is still important in a whole range of areas, which I will not bore the House with this morning, because I think you are all very aware of that, but I was deeply shocked. The second thing that really concerned me was the lack of response from Government. It was neutral. It was almost like Pontius Pilate washing his hands of the issue – ‘it’s nothing to do with us’. I found that really disturbing as well. Of course it is! It is a matter of a balanced economy. We have a duty and a role here, and I would like to thank the Member for Douglas South for bringing this motion forward and I do hope that the House supports it because it is an opportunity to bring back a little bit of balance to this issue. We need time now. We need space to find solutions to this. Taking the Speaker’s comments about not being repetitive, I will not be. I just want to pick up a couple of points this morning. I am sure we all are aware of the increased importance that the Victorian transport side of our tourism product has become in recent years. As business traffic is reduced, there has been tremendous work in a number of areas to increase the Victorian transport product – of which the horse trams are an integral part; but perhaps more important that we realise,

House of Keys 26/01/2016 because you need to feed the MER. So if we want to close the MER down to Laxey or Ramsey, let’s get rid of the rail line on the prom. When the original terminus was put in place it was because there was a row of hotels on the promenade and people promenaded: they walked to the terminus – it was part of their holiday. That is why it is down the other end, and as I said the other day, if you were a businessman trying to introduce now a tram system between Douglas and Ramsey, you would be ridiculed if you said it was a good idea to have the terminus, the station, a mile and three quarters out of town. You would just be laughed at, and with good reason. There has to be a link between the terminus and the centre of Douglas, because if we lose that, in the long term we are constantly and remorselessly undermining the capacity in the future for the MER to provide an element of transport feed in and out of Douglas for locals as well as visitors, and we have to bear that in mind. I want to leave my comments there because I really do not believe that the House will not want to take the opportunity this morning to set its will down that we have a serious and close look at this and come up with a range of options and proposals to make sure that we do not lose this incredibly important and iconic emblem of the town of Douglas and our tourist industry. I am not somebody who gets a huge amount of emails, but I am, frankly, overwhelmed by the number of times I have been contacted with strong expressions of support in the last 24 hours. With that, Mr Speaker, I will leave my comments.

The Speaker: Hon. Member for Ramsey, Mr Singer.

Mr Singer: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Three or four years ago I had the responsibility for highways and I went down to a meeting – I think Mr Cretney came with me at the time – to meet Douglas Corporation to get their assurances that they would wish to see the long-term continuation of the service and that they were perfectly happy to absorb the deficit. Quite clearly, over the last two or three years that view has changed and we get the decision now that we received last week. I will support this motion. I think that it would be very useful to see if we can in any way retain the service. But I would like to ask one question of the mover on the comments she made, and I think this, hopefully, is a helpful suggestion. She commented that there are places around the world that are actually installing horse trams, and perhaps if she has some indication of where in the world this is happening … because I believe, if we have a committee, that to contact those areas – which are obviously running these horse trams, we would hope, at a profit – to talk to them as to why they have introduced them and whether in fact they are working at a profit or whether they are being subsidised … So perhaps if she could answer that question.

The Speaker: Hon. Member for Douglas South, Mr Malarkey.

Mr Malarkey: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do not want to be repetitious, Mr Speaker. Like everybody else, at 9.30 on Friday morning, when I heard on the radio that the decision of the council was to stop the horse trams, I was totally gutted – absolutely. I fought very hard in council to keep the horse trams. I believe the horse trams are a big part of Douglas, a big part of our heritage, and I have said for years, and I will carry on saying it, that I have never understood why Douglas always had to pay for them, because it was an all-Island facility. (A Member: Hear, hear.) It is an all-Island tourist facility. Mr Speaker, most people go on holiday these days. The Member for South Douglas, Mrs Beecroft, mentioned TripAdvisor. When people go on holiday to various places they leave comments, when they get back, as to what they thought of where they have been. If you go onto TripAdvisor and put ‘the Isle of Man’, they list a rating from 1-92 good points about the Isle of Man, and very briefly… I will not bore you for too long, Mr Speaker, but number one, at the top of the list, is the Isle of Man

House of Keys 26/01/2016 bus and rail system. That is a group of both the buses and the trains. When you go into it, it talks about horse trams in the comments coming forward. Number two goes down to specifically the . Number three goes down about the Isle of Man Steam Railway. Then they go down to number four: the Manx Museum. Number five is the Laxey Wheel. The first ones I have just mentioned there, from one to five, are all Government subsidised, all Government backed. Number six is the wonderful horse trams, which have been paid for, for the best part of just over a hundred years, by Douglas ratepayers and not subsidised by Government. Then you go below that and you come up with the House of Manannan, below the horse trams, subsidised by taxpayers; Peel Castle, subsidised by taxpayers; Snaefell Mountain Railway, subsidised by taxpayers. So, when I heard, on Saturday morning, our Chief Minister turn round and within less than 24 hours make a statement that there are going to be no Government subsidies and there is no Government money available, the first thing I thought was, ‘He’s not talking for me.’ He is one Member of 24 elected Members of this House. With the greatest respect to the Chief Minister, you might have your Council of Ministers and your block vote, but that is only a third of this House.

Mr Karran: I’m glad you recognise that.

A Member: If we agree.

Mr Malarkey: Right? So I am sorry, to make a statement like that – it made alarm bells ring around the Isle of Man that we were walking away from this, (A Member: Hear, hear.) a national heritage of ours. We have heard comments about tourism and Mr Robertshaw was saying about the comments of the council leader. Tourism is going to be a vital part of this Island’s economy in the future, as far as I am concerned. We have an opportunity to build tourism on this Island. Fewer people are going abroad; more people are holidaying in England. Our tourism is growing and almost doubled in the last two or three years. I was round the Department yesterday talking to the tourism department and they are happy with the way the growth is going. So if we are going to start losing some of the benefits, some of the things that make us different… because that is was it was, ‘It’s those little things that make us different’, that used to be our Tourist Board thing … This Government must essentially look at this. We are not talking megabucks. I looked up how much we are throwing into the Wildlife Park – I think it is about £400,000 a year. The figures I had were for 2014. It had 55,000 visitors. Well, in 2014 the horse trams had 63,000 people using them, more than the Wildlife Park and yet again subsidised by the taxpayers of the Isle of Man. If there was ever a better reason now for asking for an all-Island rate, this just goes to prove it, (Interjections) because if this had been shared by everybody on the Isle of Man the problem would not have arisen. Another horrifying point that comes to me is that, as a former council member, 12 months ago we knew all about this coming forward – we knew about what the demands were going to be for Strathallan, we knew about the £2 million for the rebuild, we knew about the promenade revamping, we knew about the fact that we were going to lose the horse trams – and the council, in its bid to carry on supporting the horse trams through all this, should have made this decision six months ago, (A Member: Hear, hear.) before we went through all the planning costs, (A Member: Hear, hear.) all the independent other things that have gone on. To make this decision, I am afraid, one week before they are about to set their budget and about three or four weeks before we are about to set our budget in Government, I think is horrifying, to be perfectly honest, (Several Members: Hear, hear.) and I think … I support the council in a lot of ways, but this decision should have been made then. (Interjection) It is now not really leaving us with very much time to do anything, but I think it is vital that we act now because we need to save this heritage. It is a big part of Douglas, it is a big part of the Isle of Man and it is a big part of our tourist trade. People do come to the Isle of Man. I sat on the Regeneration Committee for two years – that is the committee that is responsible for the running of the horse trams – so I know the costings, I know the pitfalls, I know

House of Keys 26/01/2016 the problems with running the horse trams. They can all be overcome. They can all be overcome if they get support, and if they get support from the whole of the Isle of Man and stop leaving it to Douglas ratepayers to pick up the bill. I wholeheartedly support this motion today. We must move forward: we must find a way of protecting the horse trams and bringing them forward. I have heard all sorts and read articles about should we run them round the museum in Jurby, should we run it for one short part of the promenade, should we put them somewhere else, should we put them in Peel, should we put them in Ramsey? (A Member: Hear, hear.) You are not talking about a couple of rails and a track. You are talking about stables and the horses have to have places where they go and live during the winter, then they have to have stables to be kept and you have to have somewhere to keep the carriages and everything else. It is not something you just pick up and run off with. We have the basic infrastructure there now, so why not keep what we have and support it? So let’s have a committee that goes together with Government support. I am dying to hear from the Chief Minister. Can we have some Government support? What we are talking here is pence, compared to what we are throwing at other national heritage things round the Isle of Man. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Hon. Member for Rushen, Mr Gawne.

Mr Gawne: Gura mie eu, Loayreyder. I should initially declare an interest. Those of you who have ever shaken my hand may well be aware that my knuckle on my second or third finger, or whatever it is, is now halfway down my hand, and that is as a result of a horse named Cyril, (Laughter) who later became ‘Cyril the Beast from Hell’. I used to work at Cregneash, as some of you will know, and we used to look after some of the tram horses in the winter. Cyril was eager to be released and managed to escape with his lead rope still connected to his collar. It was then my duty to try and catch him again to undo the lead rope, because he could have ended up tripping and causing himself an injury. I managed, after half an hour, to get a hold of him. This is a horse that had been, for the whole of the summer, working along the promenade and obviously did not want to be caught, having just been released into a field. Having just managed to catch his rope, I was aware of Cyril leaping in the air, I was aware of a hoof coming quite close to my head, and afterwards I was aware of a big streak of soil on my face and several bones in my hand smashed into a thousand pieces. So I have an interest; I must declare that. I also have another interest inasmuch as I have won several ploughing matches using some of the tram horses in their time off over the winter. So, those interests put to one side, I will try and address the motion.

The Speaker: Oh, please. (Laughter)

Mr Gawne: I do think it is important to declare interest.

The Speaker: You can take as long as you need to make your case, but make the case. (Laughter)

Mr Gawne: Absolutely. (Mr Quirk: Move on.) When is an emergency not an emergency? That is probably when there has been a miscommunication between the Minister responsible for trying to sort the problem out and the Chief Minister. The Chief Minister, I understand, had a microphone thrust in front of him just after he had given his state of the nation address and said, ‘What do you think, then, Chief Minister?’ and he gave an initial response. Whilst he was giving that initial response … and I do take a bit of an issue with the Hon. Member for Douglas East on this, Government washing its hands. First thing Friday morning I was on the phone to the Hon. Member for Douglas East, asking him to come along to our first

House of Keys 26/01/2016 meeting of the working party that I had established so that we can actually address the issues that we are being asked now to address. So I think there has been a bit of confusion. We have a committee already established. The committee will look into this. The committee includes the Department of Infrastructure, the Public Transport Heritage Railways team; it includes the Department of Economic Development, including the Minister and Member for Tourism and the tourism director; it includes Manx National Heritage, the chairman and director; it includes the two Members for Douglas East because their constituency is most affected by it; and – I am sure I have missed somebody else – I think possibly somebody from Culture Vannin. The Chief Minister has also suggested that we include someone from Treasury, but as the Treasury briefing will barely be finished by the time we hold our meeting, I was not entirely sure whether the Treasury Minister would be keen to attend, but certainly going forward the working group will need to have Treasury representation on it. I think it is important to note a few things in relation to this particular issue and the way it has actually come about. It is fair to say that it came as something of a blow to me, having been working very closely with Douglas Borough Council for the last 18 months specifically on issues relating to the horse trams and the Douglas promenade redevelopment. We could go into significant detail about the Douglas promenade development, but I suspect we should not, not least because Ministers would not be able to contribute to that discussion because they still have to consider the result of the inspector’s appeal consideration. There are some impacts of Douglas Borough Council’s decision on that, but until we have actually considered all the issues arising from this decision it would be wrong, really, of us to go into an awful lot of detail. Certainly in relation to the planning there has been some comment about this. As far as planning is concerned, you get permission – that does not mean to say you have to complete the whole of the development. That is the law as it has been stated to me, so it does not directly affect the actual planning appeal, although of course the vast majority of people who objected against this were appealing against the tram tracks going on the walkway, (A Member: Hear, hear.) so there is an associated link there. But let’s go back to the actual issue here. I think Mr Malarkey, the Hon. Member for Douglas South, was quite right in pointing out that this was probably the only national piece of heritage that we have that is not Government funded. There are questions as to whether it should or whether it should not be. I think the Hon. Member for Douglas South was pretty clear on that. Certainly when I stood for election I made very clear my view that we should protect our heritage and culture; indeed, that was probably the primary reason that I have stood for the last three elections, because I very strongly and passionately support us looking after the things that are unique about the Isle of Man. I think, going back to the horse trams themselves and their uniqueness, they are unique; they are not nearly unique. There is not any other active horse tram that has been running for the length of time that the Douglas horse trams have been running. In 1876 they started, I understand, so 140 years ago. They have not run for 140 years, because for six years the tram track had big stobs with barbed wire, keeping aliens in hotels during the Second World War, but they have been running for a significant period of time and they have been running continuously for that time. That is why railway enthusiasts are prepared to pay significant amounts of money to come and see it. I had the possibly… yes, the fortune, I will go as far as to say that, yesterday to be in a meeting with the Director of Transport and the Chairman of the Isle of Man Steam Railway Supporters’ Association, and as far as I was concerned they could have been speaking a different language, because they were talking about engines and it was way over my head but the level of passion and enthusiasm from those two railway enthusiasts was something quite to behold. And they are not the only railway enthusiasts. There are hundreds of thousands of railway enthusiasts all over the UK, let alone Europe, who are very interested in coming to the Isle of Man, and what we know from the statistics that we have is that over the last five or 10 years we have had a significant increase in the numbers of people coming to see our heritage railways.

House of Keys 26/01/2016

One of the implications of Douglas Borough Council’s decision is that various tour operators have already sold the 2016 season. They have sold the 2016 season as a package. The package includes the horse trams. What is clear, much as it pains me to say this, is that our Isle of Man Steam Railway actually is not unique in the world. It is not actually high up there in the list of really important attractions, certainly for railway enthusiasts – the sort of people who pay for these package holidays. But what is important is horse trams, because there are no other horse trams anywhere in the world that are in the continuously running situation of Douglas horse trams. So it will have an impact on the tickets already sold. When we had, for emergency reasons, to close the Laxey to Ramsey route, we found that not only the season that we had the route closed was affected but for several years afterwards we had significantly reduced numbers of people coming and booking on these heritage railways packages. So there is a significant impact from this decision and I think we do need to look reasonably urgently to see how that impact is going to be felt across our enterprise, the heritage railways enterprise, because it could actually have quite a significantly detrimental impact. That impact could then therefore mean that we will not only miss our target of having a 50% subsidy to the heritage railways, which is a reasonable target, bearing in mind when we started this exercise – various Ministers or ex-Ministers in here would have been involved – we were basically getting about 14% of the total cost of the heritage railways paid for through ticket sales, we have now got that up to about 45% and we are hoping to reach 50%. That can only happen through increased growth. There is a huge amount we have done already to reduce the costs, but there is not an awful lot more we can do to increase the growth. The loss of the horse trams could have quite a significant impact in terms of our heritage railways business. I think the other thing that we need to remember when we are talking about figures is that Douglas Borough Council, unlike the heritage railways, have not engaged in the sort of cost-cutting exercises that we have in our heritage railways. There has obviously, as Members will know, been quite a lot of controversy over some of the cuts and the reductions that have taken place in the heritage railways, but they have resulted in a significantly reduced cost. We know that Douglas Borough Council have not engaged anywhere near the same level in terms of looking at how we could actually slim the service down. So £250,000 was the reported loss for the trams, I think, for last year. I would be surprised if it is anywhere close to that, if you actually got in there and started looking at what the actual cost for running the service that is required is. I think, to a certain extent, not wishing to be overly critical of the management at Douglas Borough Council, they do not have heritage railways experts employed; we do and we do believe it could be run an awful lot more cost effectively. But where I absolutely and wholly have to agree with the Chief Minister is in relation to, ‘Where is the money coming from?’ – and that is a very significant issue. I know from the Department of Infrastructure, knowing where the main cuts for Government have to come from, that it is very difficult at the moment in terms of public finances. There are an awful lot of things that we are not doing that are essential, that we simply do not have budgets for. So whilst it would be fantastic to be able to find a solution … and I am absolutely confident that there are solutions because I have already got several presented to me by the many emails that I have had, but also from the Director of Manx National Heritage and the Director of Public Transport who is responsible for our heritage railways. We already have workable solutions. The question really is then what the economic benefit is. We know from the Ecorys survey into heritage which Manx National Heritage conducted and we also had a heritage railways add-on – I think the survey was undertaken for the 2011 season, which was not a particularly good season for heritage railways – it was indicated at that time that the heritage railways that the Government runs alone were responsible for something in the region of £11 million of additional benefit to the economy. So it costs about £2½ million to run the service and the economy benefits to the tune of £11 million, according to Ecorys.

House of Keys 26/01/2016

Now I am not an economist and I know that plenty of people will say, ‘Well, these fellas make the figures up,’ but actually we paid these people to come up with a reasonable assessment of what the economic impact is, and that is what they came up with. You can argue as to whether those figures are relevant or not. So we have already agreed to establish a committee. The committee will look into all the options, but let’s not pretend that there are going to be easy options. Difficult decisions will have to be taken. If a decision is taken that says, ‘Yes, indeed, we will find a way in which the Douglas tramway will continue,’ we will then have to fund a tram track and that track will have to go somewhere and it will have to be somewhere around the promenade. Members will then have to make a decision on that and if they agree that we are going to do this they then have to support that. That is quite a big commitment that Members will have to make and it will be a significant amount of money. We cannot refurbish the promenade without removing the tram tracks. They will have to be put back somewhere and Members need to be aware of that. But there are clearly solutions. The question then is how much it would actually cost and where the money is actually going to come from, and I do feel that we should not lose sight of that. As much as how I am perhaps one of the biggest supporters of our heritage and culture in Tynwald, I do recognise that we have to pay for it and it has to be demonstrable value for money for the taxpayer. So I fully support the motion. We were, though, going to do it anyway and I am confident that we will come up with solutions. My suggestion would be that the working group will report back to Tynwald with those ideas, because obviously Tynwald is going to have an interest. But Tynwald, when it gets to making decisions, will have to not only vote for the good stuff, they will also have to vote for the bad stuff; and there are clearly going to be financial implications if the case is made strongly enough that says, ‘Actually this is worth doing.’ So I fully support the motion.

A Member: Hear, hear.

The Speaker: Hon. Members, six Hon. Members have spoken in this debate; a further seven wish to do so. I repeat my earlier advice that in debating what is a fairly simple, straightforward proposition, bear in mind that less is more. Hon. Member for Douglas North, Mr Peake.

Mr Peake: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I think I have got something new to say here or something new to contribute. I was very interested to hear Mr Gawne say that the committee would report back to the new committee that is going to be part of this motion, so that is very good. I do think we do not want to run head-on into actually just promising more and more money. I do appreciate that money is very tight at the moment, but there are other ways that we can actually look at that, retaining some of the history and that is perhaps volunteers and the private sector to actually get people to run it. I have been contacted by a number of people, not just in the Isle of Man but also through England as well. Visitors who came here for 47 years … The 47th time he is going to actually come to a holiday here and a big supporter of railways, big enthusiast, and his statement was, ‘When it’s gone, it’s gone!’ So there is concern that once you actually do take it away it will be gone and it will not be replaced, so looking at how we can reduce cost to Douglas ratepayers – I am a Douglas ratepayer myself – but still retain some of our traditions without costing too much money. I think that is a very important thing to do. I think a lot of the time we have reacted to things. Now is the time to respond; to consider different options and to respond in a calm way that will not actually cost a lot of money, but will include volunteers – all that expert knowledge that there is here, all that energy that people want … If they actually do want to keep the horse trams, we need to harness that energy

House of Keys 26/01/2016 and move forward, (Several Members: Oh!) (Laughter) (A Member: Shut up.) rather than just plodding on (Several Members: Oh!) (Laughter) without actually making any changes – and there has not been much change. So I would urge people, if they do want to get involved, to really make some positive contributions. (A Member: Hear, hear.) Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Hon. Member for , Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, I am happy that the debate is here today. My only concern is that I do not want it to be seen like some sort of open cheque book – that we are going to end up with three layers of management by Government running it. I wish the Minister, the Hon. Member for Rushen, would have been less lhiam-lhiatish about this. He is on both sides against the middle – in English. The situation is: I believe that the opportunity should be here as far as some sort of business development plan for an independent trust to run this, maybe in conjunction with the ‘Home for Old Horses’ – something like that. I am not wanting some sort of open cheque book arrangement as far as this is concerned. We are in hard times and if it is between teacher-pupil ratios and nursing numbers and horse trams, I know where my priorities are as far as this is concerned. The situation is we should be able to do this. This should be seen as a glorious opportunity in order that we can come up with a business plan – not the usual one which creates more bureaucrats, creates more pension liability and a management structure that would not work outside anywhere else but outside Government. I hope that the Ard-shirveishagh takes on my points as far as this issue is concerned. We have got a glaring example of where it can work with Railway – (A Member: Hear, hear.) some sort of support – but let’s keep it in proportion. If we are talking about tourism on this Island, yes, the horse trams are a very iconic part of it – but when we sign agreements like the User Agreement and the off-Island transport costs ... there are core things that we need to develop. It is alright these Ministers and ex-Minsters saying about the horse trams, the situation is that off- Island transport costs are a major factor, and I would hope that the Chief Minister would be trying to sort that out so we can be more competitive as far as tourism is concerned. So I do hope that the Chief Minister does take on board my concerns, that what we do try and do is use this as a window of opportunity to develop a sound business plan on a realistic point. Some of the points that the Member for Douglas North, Mr Houghton, talks about: the number of tram horses that are kept has defied business logic, when there are other places with other facilities provided throughout the world with a fraction of the tram horses having to be kept, which is an expensive all-year-round liability. I would just ask the Chief Minister, when his working party comes back, that maybe we do consider – even though I know it is a business opportunity like everything else is in TT Week, unfortunately too often exploiting the people who come here – but I do think in TT Week it really needs to be reconsidered whether there should be horse trams on the prom; and I know it loses business. But please let’s just make sure that we do not end up with some gold-plated scheme for the horse trams. I am happy with this and I hope that we will end up with some sort of independent trust, where Government pays in the headcount numbers ... if it is between operators on a horse tram and doctors and nurses, teachers and frontline services ... I know it is not popular, but it is about getting our priorities right, as far as that is concerned. So I hope everyone will support this proposal. But what I do think is important is that we reflect the economic problems and there is no-one in this House more concerned about the diversification

House of Keys 26/01/2016 of the economic basis of this Island; there is no-one in this House who has fought more against the popular diatribe, as far as creating a caustic environment for business. But I do feel that we need to get some balance into the thing and let’s get the debate over, and let’s hopefully see what we are going to do, the new way forward, without three layers of management, civil servants untouchable and in that situation. So I hope Hon. Members support the proposals.

The Speaker: Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Hall.

Mr Hall: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I too am happy to support this motion. I was saddened to hear of the Douglas Council’s decision, although not surprised; and it is a heritage issue, quite a unique national heritage issue. And I do not think that we can necessarily expect the horse trams to perhaps ever operate for a commercial profit – I am not sure whether that will be possible. I am sure that it could very likely be operated much more effectively and more efficiently; and of course has been described as a loss, but perhaps that is maybe not the best way to describe it, because of course it is almost certain that it has got a wider economic benefit to the Isle of Man than actually looking at it as its own separate entity. And of course it then leads on to some concern for me, which is that if we start looking at these heritage and cultural assets that we have in the Isle of Man as ‘profit and loss’, without necessarily looking at the wider economic benefits to our Island, then of course where do we go? In my view it threatens those other potential assets (A Member: Hear, hear.) by looking at it in that way. And whilst this is not a stand-alone reason to visit the Isle of Man – their unique status – it is one that in my opinion would likely erode such interest from further afield ... and perhaps even tarnish our reputation in the heritage community further afield. I have, like some other Hon. Members, received emails, and one email that I did get from a constituent of mine to express their sadness at the news was quite a lengthy email. But one point that they did say, which I will tell Hon. Members, was that they had recently returned from Disney World, and they saw a queue of over an hour for their horse tramway; and that is obviously a theme ride, but we sometimes ... going to some points that Hon. Members have made, we have taken our original horse trams, perhaps, for granted. So I think that we have got a duty at least to be able to find a constructive way forward, to see whether it is possible to keep these – or not, as it may well be. But I certainly support the motion and, like I said, I look forward to the working party reporting back. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: So far everyone is supporting the motion. I call on the Hon. Member, Mr Skelly, Member for Rushen.

Mr Skelly: Gura mie eu, Loayreyder, and I too will be supporting it. I would just like to make the comment that I am disappointed we should actually have this motion before us, because as many contributors have already stated how shocked they were to hear this news last week. It is disappointing that we as a national government have to resort to this issue. But why were we shocked? We were shocked because only a few months ago we heard that Douglas Council were supporting the whole Douglas Promenade redevelopment, which included the horse trams. So what has actually happened in the interim period? And then, to actually make a decision of this magnitude without any consultation at all – least of all with prominent stakeholders, as in central Government! The amount of money that has been spent to get to this particular point and make this decision at this time ... I just find it beggars belief. The other point I would like to make is, that it is quite clear that Douglas Borough Council do not understand the value of heritage and tourism. Many Members have made this point very clearly,

House of Keys 26/01/2016 and I do not wish to go over it; however, being responsible for the tourism of the Isle of Man we are actually on the cusp of some massive development here – massive investment in the Isle of Man, massive investment in tourism. (A Member: Hear, hear.) And whether you believe the statistics or not, where £2½ million spent on railways generates £11 million in the economy here locally – it does not matter, when you think that there are multi-millions about to be invested in this Island on the back of tourism; and Douglas Borough Council clearly do not understand that value. And that is what I am disappointed about most of all. Clearly, we do need to address this issue and have a look, and explore, all the options for that. I have heard quite a lot of comment around the ratepayers ... and Mr Malarkey visited the Department yesterday, and I appreciate him spending the time to do that and understand some of the work and the diversification that we have in the various different sectors. But he made an important point, and that was he believes tourism is vital for this Island. I believe it is vital for this Island and I think you all probably do too. Why? Because tourism is about imported revenue that gets spent around the Isle of Man and that is really of vital importance going forward. And really, if we have a tourism offer where people are willing to pay to come and visit – they want to live, they want to work and they want to invest in that same place. That is one of the reasons why tourism is of vital importance. But, going back to the ratepayer issue: I am sure many of you have actually had contact with a lot of people in the hospitality industry – the hoteliers, Strand Street shops – those ratepayers, they do not want to see the horse trams gone. I can tell you that! Because they will see this as being detrimental to their businesses – their businesses that employ people here on the Isle of Man and in Douglas. So it is, I think, a responsibility that does need to be considered by the Council. So, in essence, yes, I am part of that committee; yes, we are going to engage. But let’s bear in mind, as the Minister of Infrastructure has already stated, and I am sure many of us have gone knocking on the Treasury Minister’s door, we are not Oliver Twist ... there is no more money. And if we have to find something, it has to be taken from somewhere else. So that will be the message that you do need to consider, and that is why any recommendation will have to come back to you the Members to decide where and how any support can actually be offered. So we will leave no stone unturned, and we will explore all those options. We will give you that very strong assurance here to all of you, because it is of significant value and importance to this Island, and I hope that we can find a way to save the horse trams.

Mr Malarkey and Mr Robertshaw: Hear, hear.

The Speaker: Hon. Member for Douglas East, Mr Joughin.

Mr Joughin: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do not wish to repeat what everybody else has said, but I will try and clear up a few things that perhaps I can help you with. One of the Members mentioned that they have to have 20 horses. They have 20 horses – I think they have two crews of horses, and they have six young horses getting trained. It takes about three years to train a horse, so that is why they have 20 horses. Also, as my time as a borough councillor on the executive, up until six months ago, before tragically I had to leave office, (A Member: Their loss.) we never, ever once discussed removing the horse trams. So where this has come from in the past six months, I have no idea. It beggars belief, to me, and I still have former colleagues in the council, and it came as quite a shock to them as well. The rest of the council only heard about it last week, which to me sounds incredible. So besides that, I also believe that there are over 4,000 beds booked this year on the heritage ticket, which also includes the horse trams – so I assume that these people will be asking for some kind of rebate, because they have booked all these trips on the horse trams. So I do not quite know how that is going to come out.

House of Keys 26/01/2016

And like some of the other speakers, I do believe the only growing bit of tourism is the heritage ticket. People come here on a heritage ticket and my colleague for Onchan there said about Disneyland – I went to Disneyland a long time ago and sat next to the driver, and said ‘Oh, we’ve got horse trams.’ ‘You must be from the Isle of Man’, the fellow told me. I did not tell him where I was from – he already told me where I was from, because it is the only place that has them, apparently except for Australia. However, as far as Douglas Borough Corporation are concerned, I am very, very disappointed with the lack of communication that they had – (Several Members: Hear, hear.) that they have communicated with anybody about it. It really does beggar belief that there was no communication – no signal, no nothing – and to have a shock announcement like that on Friday morning, like everybody else, my phone was ringing ‘hot ding’ all the time. Like I say, I do not really wish to repeat what everybody else has said. I will be supporting the motion but to me, to have Douglas Promenade without horse trams … Forget this putting them round Jurby and round Silverdale and along the runway at the airport, wherever – (Laughter) or whatever Disneyland thing you want to come up with! Douglas without the horse trams is like Laxey without the wheel. It is as simple as that. They have to stay in Douglas. I support the motion.

The Speaker: Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Quirk.

Mr Quirk: Thank you, Mr Speaker. First of all, I would like to declare an interest. I was an objector to the planning application, so I just wanted to put that down, because there is no way over my dead body, Minister, would I accept the horse trams on the walkway – accounts disaster. My other concern is, in this Hon. House here today, some reality checks. There is an independent planning inspector’s report. It is imminent. I do not know whether it has actually been to Council. Nobody has indicated that. My concern on this particular motion, which I am happy to support in principle – small principle at the minute – because it involves the Council of Ministers. There is a direct conflict of interest. The inspector’s report comes back, hey-ho, the Ministers are all involved in some … I was going to say, Machiavellian scheme for the future of whatever. Can I say, Members, the horse cars, the horses, the track – they are not in the ownership of Isle of Man Government, so should we be looking at that first, to say to them if the Council want to deviate from operating a horse car system – a horse tram system – should we not be saying to them first, ‘are you going to give it to us, or do we give you the 50p and we compulsorily purchase it off them? (Interjection by Mr Malarkey) Well, 25p, it is a reasonable bargain. But like my colleagues from Onchan did say, and others have said in the House: we are wanting all sorts of things done! We have schools which are lacking maintenance, they are not done – thousands of pounds there; we need to replace some of the schools. (Interjections) Close to this building, down the road – St Thomas’s – We have got children playing on concrete surfaces out the back, 20 feet! Should we not be looking after them first? We have got homes that need to be re- built. (Interjection) Mr Malarkey, it is, friend, colleague – it is all down to money. (Mr Malarkey: Yes.) And my concern is – and I support the principle, if it was to … And we have got two committees going, to tell you the truth. We have got one from the Council of Ministers and we have got one from the DOI. The Members … the mover herself is in the Department. (Interjections)

Mr Gawne: Not two committees, just one.

Mr Robertshaw: No.

House of Keys 26/01/2016

Mr Quirk: Well, the Member can clarify that. The Members themselves are responsible. They could have had so many talks with the Borough Council at the end of the day. (Interjections) Members, they are legitimately the council that represents their borough. They are elected there – 14 of them, out of the 18 made that particular decision. The Department itself I am sure must of talks with the councillors over the period of time. I wonder how much it has cost us for the planning application. I am happy to have it examined. There is no problem on that, but remember, Members – there is a reality check here. The Treasury Minister does not have that much money in the kitty. We are coming to a Budget – is this contrived for a reason? I am sure between us all we could stump up the 25p to compulsory purchase it, then we can move forward with some decisions that we can all make in this House.

The Speaker: Hon. Member for Ramsey, the Chief Minister.

The Chief Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think most of the relevant points have already been made, and I do not want to go over the future of heritage within tourism. I think my support for that is well known and has been in place for donkey’s years, way back from when I was Tourism Minister myself, so I think my record speaks for itself. As far as the resolution is concerned, I am content to support the resolution, particularly because the Hon. Member has been careful with the wording. It is to consider whether in fact the horse trams could be transferred to another entity – not necessarily to Government. I think that opens up a range of options which perhaps in the first instance were not discussed. I also obviously support this resolution because this work is already underway. As the Hon. Member for Rushen has said, there is a committee being set up. Its first meeting is later on this week and therefore these options will be considered. There are only two or three points I would like to make, Mr Speaker. First of all, I think Douglas Corporation should be congratulated – not necessarily for the decision but for the political dexterity that they have shown in shifting overnight what was a major problem for Douglas Corporation to suddenly become a major problem for the Isle of Man Government and the Isle of Man taxpayer. I think they have done a remarkable job of sleight of hand to slip this problem from one area to another, and now it is Government that is getting attacked for not immediately responding and taking it on. Now, I want to make it very clear what my initial response was, Mr Speaker. I was confronted with no notice about the decision of Douglas Corporation, with the question in effect, ‘Will Government take it on?’ My reaction is we will not take it on just willy-nilly. Government cannot be used as the constant default situation for every problem that comes along on the Island. We have not got the money to do it. (Several Members: Hear, hear.) That was the reason for my comment at that point. Also, I think – the Member for South Douglas might correct me – we have been committed to a smaller, smarter Government. And here we are at the first challenge, we take on further responsibilities and further costs. And for those who say there will not be any costs, it will … If we take it on, obviously we would have to continue to support the deficit on it, which is, I understand, around £300,000 a year. The Corporation is saying that they need £2 million to £3 million for the stabling. If Government takes it on, we would have to consider some element of that. If Government takes on the horse trams and decides to keep them going, we will be committed then to restoring the horse trams on Douglas Promenade, whatever place – whether it is on the walkway or in the roadway, I understand that figure is £3 million to £4 million. Now, do not kid yourself that this decision, if we go down this route, is not going to cost us any money. It will.

House of Keys 26/01/2016

Mr Speaker, I express again my absolute support for heritage, for the heritage transport and all aspects of that. It is an important part of tourism – and tourism is a very important part of our economy, not just for the sake of tourism but because it underpins so much else within the economy, particularly the business community. But we have gone through several months of excruciatingly painful analysis in every single Department to try and come up with a balanced Budget. We are three weeks away from the Budget now. The Budget is closed. Every one of you has made very difficult decisions in your relevant Departments to try and close the gap to make sure we can balance the Budget this year. Even if we balance the Budget this year, we are only closing off the revenue deficit. As we all know, we still have a £75 million structural deficit we have to service over the next six years, which Tynwald has agreed to. So what I am saying, Mr Speaker, is while we get carried away with the emotion of this – and I am sure every single one of us feels the same way about the horse trams; they are all part and parcel of our lives, part and parcel of the economy – we are in exceptionally difficult financial circumstances and we cannot willy-nilly just take on every problem area which gets passed on to us. We do not have the funding to do it. If the decision ultimately is to take on the horse trams, in whatever guise it might be, there will have to be hard decisions taken somewhere else in Government, as one or two other Members have already said, as to where this money is coming from. It will have to be taken from existing budgets. The Department of Infrastructure, which I guess people will be looking to towards subsidising this, already has a multi-million cost of subsidising heritage railways and heritage transport. If this is added to it, this will be another burden. Infrastructure is struggling as it is at the moment with its budgets, and with the way the weather is at the moment there is increasing pressure on it. There is an estimate in excess of £100 million needed just to bring the roads back up to scratch again. Let’s not say this is just a small thing, let’s just forget it; there are major problems that the Island is facing financially, and that Department in particular. Mr Speaker, I will not go on with this. All I will say is I am happy to support the resolution before us because it could be transferred to another entity – not necessarily to Government; there is a working group now set up to look at it – but please go into this with your eyes wide open. Government is going to be seriously struggling over the next few years financially. We are not out of the woods yet by a long way, and we have got to be careful before we take any more responsibilities on.

The Speaker: Hon. Member for Douglas West, Mr Thomas.

Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker. There are a few immediate things this working group needs to look at. Firstly, as Minister Gawne said, it is very important that we have good planning with routes. Secondly, there is actually this major development taking place on Parade Street and Lord Street, and I would like the working group to consider whether the inconvenience for parking and transport along the promenade can be addressed reconsidering the route involving that development, because that developer seems to be one who is very into good planning. Thirdly, there have been many issues in the last few years about exactly what the nature of the legislation that surrounds the tramway looks like and what the implications of it are, and I would like this working group very quickly to give a definitive answer on that. Finally, the issue of what happens in 2016 obviously immediately needs to be addressed. Just in closing, after that checklist of action points I wanted to end more positive towards Douglas Council than other people seem to have been. The Chief Minister congratulated them on their dexterity, but conceivably Government has been dexterous in its attitudes to the council over the last couple of years in the sense that if it ever emerges that the Council of Ministers has already decided it was very hesitant about spending money from the capital project on the horse trams

House of Keys 26/01/2016 itself, and did not reveal that to the council but the council discovered it, that would be slightly disingenuous on our part. So I think we have got to move on from this debate learning the lessons of the failed car park, Cambrian Place, the failure to co-ordinate in respect of the promenade and the horse trams, to go from the situation of being disrespectful from downhill to uphill and uphill to downhill, from being distrustful from downhill to uphill and uphill to downhill, and not actually ... move to a situation of working better together, based on a situation of respect and trust. (Interjection) We have the opportunity, with the local authority transition phase 3, to revisit the way that we respect local authorities by the way that they put together business cases and the way that we handle petitioning, and that could be very important. It was obviously wrong that the council decided to put this on a private agenda without even a declaration of the item, but it might also be wrong the way that the Government has been considering this in the background. Obviously, that is beyond the immediate scope of this working group, but I would like to think that we can include that in the local authority transition. I will make available figures to this working group, which I collected in September 2014 – and there are some opportunities. For instance, the investment in the horse tram service between 2007 and 2014 from Douglas was zero capital investment. Every year in that period the Treasury tell me Government was spending around £1 million-plus on investment in the steam railway. The losses for the horse trams are insignificant compared to the subsidies or the service provision costs for the steam railway and the electric railway, (A Member: Hear, hear.) so we have got to be less disingenuous and more respectful, more trustful, and I really hope this working group can make good progress and contribute to a better relationship between Government and local government.

The Speaker: Hon. Member for Rushen, Mr Watterson.

Mr Watterson: Briefly, Mr Speaker – on the basis that I have listened to this debate and I agree with an awful lot of what has been said. The only thing that has not been said thus far that I would want to contribute is that Douglas Council seem at the moment, in terms of what they are putting out publicly, to be leaving people inside and outside this place with the impression that they can just walk away from the Douglas tram line without any consequences. (Interjection) I am not just talking about the tourism thing, which has been well covered, but I am talking about the Douglas Bay Tramway Act 1876. I understand at least in that that there is a liability on them to remove the tracks if they were to cease running the tramway, so there is a big capital liability there for Douglas to come to the table with and work out how it can best work with that, and that is potentially something that I think the committee will need to look at. I will support the motion. It is not a promise to save the horse trams, but it is an assurance that we will look at everything (A Member: Hear, hear.) and make sure that the taxpayer gets the right decision at the end of the day.

The Speaker: Now I call on the Hon. Member for Douglas South, Mrs Beecroft, to reply to the debate.

A Member: Hear, hear. (Interjection)

Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank everybody who has taken part in the debate, but I would like to say I am going to listen to Mr Speaker’s wise words, hopefully, to go with less is more in this instance, because I think the mood of the House is that it is supported, which is pretty good, so I am really pleased on that. So, rather than naming everybody and what they have said, I will try to lump most of them together.

House of Keys 26/01/2016

I think we do have to look on the positives that have come out of this morning, because the Chief Minister is right – I was careful with the wording of this. I did not say that Government should take it over, I said all possibilities to allow them to be retained should be explored, and that is it. We have already had a number of solutions come forward in this debate. We have had volunteers, the private sector, a reduction in size, an independent trust. The Minister says he has already had workable solutions presented to him, so there is quite a raft and I am sure that there will be more to come because people have not had time yet to consider and present all the solutions. I must apologise, I am remiss – I did not thank my seconder at the beginning of this, and I sincerely do, Mr Houghton, thank you very much. You supported me well and seconded me well in this. A lot of people have referred to the finances and value for money, and I am absolutely in agreement: it has to stack up. But you cannot look at it as a stand-alone – it has to stack up and make money. It has to stack up in the broader sense of the Isle of Man, because otherwise it could be a question of penny wise, pound foolish. If we can spend a penny and make a lot of pounds, why wouldn’t we do it? That is the economy, it is the broader thing, but I am not saying that we should. It could be private enterprise who does it, it could be a volunteer group, or whatever. All the solutions should have to be looked at and the one that is decided on – or it could be several, if they all rank equally – they are going to come back to us for a decision before anything happens anyway, so we are all going to have another chance to say whether we actually agree with the solutions that the working party is going to come up with. I am glad to hear that the working party is going ahead, and I accept the Chief Minister’s explanation, because there have been mixed messages. I do sympathise with him when suddenly the media stick a microphone under your nose and want a comment and it is easy just to say things that maybe get misinterpreted or whatever, but I am glad that the mixed messages have been clarified this morning and that the working party is going ahead. Yes, we do all get carried away with emotion as well about these things because they are important to us. They are important to the people of the Isle of Man, but we have to ... And this again is why we need that time with the working party looking at it rationally, seeing what stacks up and actually taking some of the emotion out of this issue. We have to look at it with cool business heads as well, and that is why I said in my opening remarks that if at the end of the day nothing can be found that is feasible, maybe we are going to have to make that decision. If that is what the working party come back and say – ‘we’ve explored all the possibilities, we’ve looked at everything and we cannot find a way to make this work’ – then maybe we are going to accept it, but at least we will know that everything is being looked at at that point and everything is being considered and all the finances have been looked at in the broader picture. I think there is a lack of focus on tourism and I was absolutely delighted to hear Minister Skelly saying that there is massive investment in the pipeline in tourism, because it is what makes our local businesses viable, it is what brings money into the economy, as the Chief Minister rightly said. I think we have got a golden opportunity. I think the Island is ideally placed at the moment to take advantage of what is happening globally, and it does not happen very often that we have an advantage globally but we have one now with increased security and increased worries about various destinations round the world. We should be capitalising on that. We really need to take advantage of this opportunity to grow our tourism sector more. Mr Watterson mentioned the Douglas Bay Tramway Act. Well, I am afraid I did not read that before this morning’s debate, so I thank him. (Mr Watterson: Shame!) (Laughter) Sorry? (Mr Watterson: Shame!) But I thank him for throwing that into the mix of things that need to be looked at. I think the only thing I have missed out is Mr Singer. He said, ‘Where in the world are they?’ I have not brought the details of that with me, unfortunately, but from the top of my head, as somebody else mentioned, they are in Disney and there are long queues to go on them. I know that is like a fairground attraction, but it shows that people like them. They are in Australia, I believe.

House of Keys 26/01/2016

From memory, they are in the Far East – I think it is Japan. And again there is another one in Europe – and again from memory, and forgive me if I am wrong, I think it is Holland. That information will be supplied to the working party now that I know that is going ahead, because they do need to look at that element of it. If people are copying us and making money out of it, let’s see what they are doing and how they are doing it and see if we can learn a trick. We have got to look further afield. I think I will leave it there, Mr Speaker, say less is more and thank everybody for their contributions.

The Speaker: Thank you, Hon. Members. The Motion of Urgent Public Importance has been moved, seconded and debated. I put the question: those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

House of Keys 26/01/2016