Printed (by Authority) by Nelson Press Co. Ltd., St. George's Street, Douglas, Isle of Man

REPORT OI PROCEEDONIGS O TTM 1d® COURT

Douglas, Tuesday, June 16, 1981 at 10.30 a.m.

Present: The Governor (Rear Admiral Sir Nigel Cecil, K.B.E., C.B.). In the Council: The President of the Council (the Hon. J. C. Nivison, C.B.E.), the Lord Bishop (the Rt. Rev. Vernon Nicholls), the Attorney-General (Mr. T. W. Cain), Messrs. G. T. Crellin, R. E. S. Kerruish, G. V. H. Kneale, R. MacDonald, W. A. Moore, P. Radcliffe, A. H. Simcocks, M.B.E., with Mr. T. A. Bawden, Clerk of the Council. In the Keys: The Speaker (the Hon. Sir Charles Kerruish, O.B.E.), Messrs. R. J. G. Anderson, W. K. Quirk, J. J. Radcliffe, J. N. Radcliffe, Mrs. C. M. Christian, Dr. E. J. Mann, Messrs. A. A. Catlin, R. L. Watterson, J. R. Creer, E. G. Lowey, M. R. Walker, N. Q. Cringle, G. A. Quinney, M.B.E., E. M. Ward, B.E.M., P. A. Craine, D. F. K. Delaney, E. C. Irving, C.B.E., Mrs. B. Q. Hanson, Mr. T. E. Kermeen, I.S.O., Dr. D. L. Moore, Mr. J. J. Christian, with Mr. R. B. M. Quayle, Clerk of Tynwald.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE. The Governor: Hon. members, 1 have apologies for absence from the hon. member for Ramsey, Mr. Swales, and the hon. member for Castletown, Mrs. Quayle.

CONGRATULATIONS TO MR. IRVING ON AWARD OF C.B.E. The Governor: I am sure hon. members would wish me to extend our warmest congratulations to the Chairman of Executive Council, the hon. member for East Douglas, Mr. Irving, on his award of the C.B.E. announced in Her Majesty's Birthday Honours. Members: Hear, hear. The Speaker: Your Excellency, I would very much like to associate myself and the House of Keys with the congratulations you have extended this morning to our hon. colleague, the member for Douglas East, Mr. Irving. It is fitting that Her Majesty should recognise the distinguished service rendered to the Manx community by Mr. Irving over a period of some 22 years as a member of this House — 22 years during which the hon. member has rendered remarkable service to the Manx people in discharging a wide range of responsibilities, culminating, appropriately, in his present responsibility as first Chair- man of the Executive Council in its new role. This is the first award of this nature I can recall being made to a Keys member, and naturally we in this House are delighted that it should be in recognition of such outstanding service by a member that we hold in the highest regard.

Apologies for Absence. —Congratulations to Mr. Irving on Award of C.B.E. T1272 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981

The President of the Council: Your Excellency, may I, on behalf of the Council, also associate myself with your congratulations, and say that I have known and worked with the hon. member for many years. He was elected to this House as a progressive. (Laughter.) He belonged to what was known as the Action Group, and they were always interested in the tourist side of the business, and he still has a very warm heart for the tourist side, particularly representing the constituency that he does. I would like, on behalf of the Council, to join with you, sir, in our congratulations to Mr. Clifford Irving, our mutual friend. Mr. Irving: Your Excellency, may I thank you, sir, and Mr. Speaker and the President of the Council for the extremely generous remarks. I must say that everybody has been most kind and I do appreciate this kindness and the remarks made this morning.

COMMISSION OF THE PEACE — APPOINTMENTS BY LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR. • The Governor: Hon. members, I wish to make the following statements. Firstly, with regard to recommendation (g) that appointments to the Commission of the Peace be made by the Lieutenant-Governor, in the final report of the Select Committee on the Governor's Powers and Duties, which was approved by Tynwald at the January sitting, I am able to announce that the Secretary of State, having consulted the Lord Chancellor's deparment, would raise no objection to legislation being introduced into Tynwald to provide that the Lieutenant-Governor, on behalf of the Sovereign, should appoint to the Commission of the Peace in the Isle of Man. This legislation will therefore be drafted at an early opportunity.

TERRITORIAL WATERS — EXTENSION — INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION. The Governor: Secondly, hon. members will wish to know that conscious to the interest of the Common Market Committee on the subject of territorial waters, I have been advised very recently of an announcement made by the United Kingdom Govern- ment last Friday, 12th June, and I quote: "That it intends to introduce legislation to extend its territorial sea from three to 12 nautical miles. The United Kingdom Government hopes it will be possible to introduce this legislation in the context of results emerging from the United Nations Conference on the Laws of the Sea." Hon. members will appreciate that a consequence of this legislation will be that the way will be open for similar legislation to be made in respect of the waters adjacent to the Isle of Man. Members: Hear, hear.

ROYAL ASSENT — DELEGATION TO LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR. The Governor: Finally, hon. members will also wish to know that with a view to expediting insular legislation, a draft Order in Council is currently under active considera- tion by the Governments of the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man, following

Commission of the Peace—Appointments by Lieutenant-Governor. — Territorial Waters -Extension--Introduction of Legislation. -- Royal Assent—Delegation to Lieutenant- Governor. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981 T1273 representations made by the Constitutional Issues Committee, with the aim of making provision to enable Her Majesty when it so pleases to delegate the granting of the Royal Assent to the Lieutenant-Governor. It is hoped that it will be possible to submit an agreed draft text to the Privy Council in the very near future with a view to obtaining the gracious consent of Her Majesty to any such delegation.

ANNOUNCEMENT OF ROYAL ASSENT. The Governor: 1 have to announce in accordance with the terms of section 2 of the Acts of Tynwald (Emergency Promulgation) Act 1916 that the Royal Assent was given to the Industry Board Act 1981 on 13th May 1981.

BILLS FOR SIGNATURE. The Governor: Seven Bills appear on the Agenda for signature. It has not been possible to prepare all of these, I understand, owing to the load placed on the printers and, accordingly, the Criminal Law Bill will not now be signed until the July sitting of the Court. If it is agreed we will continue our business while the six remaining Bills are being signed. It was agreed.

PAPERS LAID BEFORE THE COURT. The Governor: 1 call upon the Clerk to lay papers. The Clerk: Your Excellency, I lay before the Court:— Customs and Excise Acts (Application) Act 1975— Export of Goods (Control) (Amendment) Order 1981 (Application) Order 1981. Value Added Tax— Value Added Tax (Betting, Gaming and Lotteries) Order 1981. Value Added Tax (General) (Amendment) Regulations 1981. Income Tax— Income Tax (Instalment Payments) Regulations 1981. Energy— Sixth Interim Report of the Select Committee on Energy. Audit Act 1886— Appointment of Public Auditors — Finance Board Memorandum (Public Notice 58/81). Basic Slag— Basic Slag Scheme 1981. Sheep— Sheep Variable Premium (Amendment) Scheme 1981.

Announcement of Royal Assent. — Bills for Signature — Papers Laid Before the Court. T1274 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981

Police (Isle of Man) Act 1962— Isle of Man Police Cadets Pay and Allowances Determination 1981. Highway Act 1927 and Highway (Races and Entertainments) Act 1962- Castletown Aquatic Sports Order 1981. Highway Act 1927— Jurby Day (Road) Order 1981. Rolls Royce (Driving Manoeuvres) Order 1981. Game Acts 1882-1971— Game Order 1981. Civil Service— Civil Service Arbitration Agreement 1980. Social Security— Social Security Subsidiary Legislation (Application) (Up-Rating) Order 1980 (Amend- ment) Order 1981. European Communities— Applicable European Communities Secondary Legislation, April 1981. Immigration— Immigration (Registration with Police) (Isle of Man) (Amendment) Regulations 1981. Annual Reports— Fourteenth Annual Report of the Isle of Man Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal for the year ended 31st March 1981. Annual Report of the Civil Aid Services Planning Committee for the years ended 31st March 1980 and 31st March 1981. Report of the Church Commissioners for the Isle of Man for the year ended 31st December 1980. Local Government Board's Approval to Petition— Approval dated 15th May 1981 to the following Petition- Petition of the Castletown Town Commissioners for authority to borrow a sum not exceeding £6,000, repayable within 5 years, to defray the cost of the purchase of a new Ford 4600 diesel tractor with attachments.

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES — MANX DELEGATIONS — QUESTION BY MR. KERMEEN.

The Governor: We will now turn to the Question Paper. Question number 1. I call upon the hon. member for West Douglas, Mr. Kermeen.

Mr. Kermeen: Your Excellency, I beg to ask the Chairman of Executive Council:— In May 1978 I suggested that, in the light of the importance of the fishery industry in the Isle of Man, a member of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries represent the Isle of Man at the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions in Europe which was to be held during the following month in Naples. The matter was at that time considered by His Excellency in Executive Council who recommended that, as in the case of the previous Bordeaux Conference, no useful purpose would be served by the attendance of

International Conferences—Manx Delegations - Question by Mr. Kermeen. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981 T1275

delegates from the Island. Will you indicate what is the consistent policy of Executive Council regarding the attendance of Isle of Man Government representatives at inter- national conferences where the Island's interests can be advanced and, in particular, the presence of a Manx delegation at the conference mentioned above? Mr. Irving: Your Excellency, there can be no hard and fast rules governing the attendance of Isle of Man Government representatives at international conferences. However, Executive Council is of the opinion that the criteria in any case would be the benefits which would accrue to the Island from its representatives being present on such occasions. I would also point out that if a Government Board was of the opinion that it would be beneficial for its members to attend a specific international conference, then the Board itself would be well qualified and, of course, empowered, to make such a decision at its own discretion without any reference to Executive Council, As regards the conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions, representatives of the Island attended meetings of this body held at Inverness and Brussels in 1977, and as a result of what many people thought was the unsuccessful nature of the second meeting, Executive Council took the view, when its opinion was sought, that little benefit would accrue from further participation, especially as there was some doubt as to the standing of the conference itself. Island representatives attended a similarly titled conference of the European Island Regions held in Tenerife in April of this year, as a result of agreement amongst members themselves without any reference to Executive Council. The question of attendance at the meeting of the Peripheral Maritime Regions held in May 1980 was considered at that time by the Common Market Committee but the consensus of opinion was that attendance would not be appropriate. I think it is fair to add, sir, that it is now considered that the status of this particular conference has been increased or improved. I forgot to say that arrangements are being made that future invitations of this nature from international conferences will be addressed to the Government Secretary and not Branches of Government or particular individuals because in my case I received an invitation to one of these conferences, and these in future will be addressed to the Government Secretary.

POSSESSION OF DWELLING FROM MANX TENANT — QUESTION BY THE SPEAKER. The Governor: Question number 2. 1 call upon the hon. Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: Your Excellency, I beg to ask the Chairman of the Isle of Man Local Government Board:— Will you state the circumstances which have led your Board to threaten a Manx tenant of the Ballalough Estate, Castletown, whose rent is fully paid up, with court action to secure possession of a dwelling, while refusing to assist in any way with the provision of alternative accommodation? Mr. Anderson: Your Excellency, the case to which I assume the question refers relates to a key-worker dwelling, not to one of the normal Board houses. Key worker accommodation is made available, as members will be aware, to companies who need to be able to offer short-period tenancies to personnel moving into the Island who are vital to the companies' operations. In every case the company is the tenant, not the worker. In this particular case the company concerned allocated the house to one of

Possession of Dwelling from Manx Tenant—Question by the Speaker. T1276 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981 their employees who subsequently left their employ in September last year. The house has not, therefore, been used for its designed purpose for about nine months. This situation only recently came to the Board's attention, and in view of the fact that there is a waiting list of companies requiring key worker accommodation, steps are being taken to try and repossess the property. As regards the provision of alternative accommoda- tion, the family concerned has been advised that if they are residentially qualified they should submit an application for housing to the appropriate functioning housing authority. The Speaker: Your Excellency, I am grateful to the hon. Chairman. May I ask a supplementary question? If a company is the tenant of a key worker's house, can the hon. Chairman explain how it is that his rent collectors collect the rent? And would the hon. Chairman also indicate how many houses there are for key workers on this estate, how many are occupied by key workers and how many by non-key workers, how many houses are empty, and how many applications his Board have for key worker occupation? Mr. Anderson: Your Excellency, I cannot just say off-hand how many key workers' applications there are. I agree with the hon. Mr. Speaker that because of the situation that arose, and the Chairman and members of the Industrial Advisory Council will be aware that at that time we sought permission because there was not the demand at that particular time for key workers' houses and they were lying empty. There are eight in the occupancy of persons who actually were allocated to them at that time when there was not the demand. There are 40 of these altogether. The remainder are occupied by key workers. I am not aware of any being empty at the moment. If they are it is only a matter of time because they will be allocated as soon as they are available to persons who are waiting to come to the Island to a key worker's job. The Speaker: Would the hon. Chairman explain how it is that if his Board collects the rents they have no responsibility, Your Excellency? Perhaps he could inform the Court at a later date as to how many key workers are awaiting tenancies. And would he possibly explain how it comes about that an estate designated for key workers is so heavily populated, if you like, by non-key workers? Mr. Anderson: Your Excellency, I thought I answered that question earlier because, as members of the Committee dealing with industry, we sought from them because there was a time when there was just no demand at all and there were people waiting for houses, and that is the reason why there was an allocation at that time. Subsequently there has been continuously a waiting list for industrial workers. The fact that we collect the rent, I think, is just one of those things that has happened all the way along, although it is absolutely correct that the person responsible in the long term for the tenancy and the rent is the industrialist and not the worker. It is a matter of convenience that the collection is done by our rent collector. The Speaker: One final question with your Excellency's permission? How do you select the person who is to be evicted? Mr. Anderson: Your Excellency, it is not a matter of selecting, it is a matter of the terms of the tenancy into which they have moved, and this is the only case of which we are aware where there is somebody there who does not comply with the terms of

Possession of Dwelling from Manx Tenant--Question by the Speaker. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981 T1277

the tenancy. The other eight people went in at a time when there was not the demand for key workers, and therefore we have really no recourse to getting them out of those premises. At that time, as the hon. member for East Douglas will remember, and the hon. member of Council, Mr. Kerruish, will remember, we had consultations with the Council and they conceded that, in fact, because they had nobody, we gave normal tenancies to eight persons in there. This, to my mind, is the only one where there is a tenancy of this nature, in which a person does not comply at all with the terms of the tenancy. Mr. Delaney: Just a short question, Your Excellency. In consequence of the questions that have been tabled here and the circumstances that have now arisen in relation to the tenancies of key workers' houses, would the Chairman agree with me that maybe it is time that the actual housing allocation, was handed over to the Industrial Advisory Council whose job it is to facilitate key workers into industry in the Isle of Man? Mr. Creer: Just one quick one, Your Excellency. The Governor: We do not want to have a debate on this. Mr. Creer: All I want to know is, this tenant who is going to be evicted, was he a key worker in the first place? Mr. Lowey: Your Excellency, can 1 ask a supplementary? Would the hon. Chairman not agree that, as he has said, this is the only case that he is aware of where the Board is out for eviction? I accept the precarious position, the balance, the Board has got to strike. He did use the words "residentially qualified". They could apply. If this is the only case, can I have a public assurance that the Board will, if you like, use its best endeavours not to be drawn to the letter of the law in residentially qualified persons? In other words, to use their common sense. Mr. Anderson: Your Excellency, I am not being committed on the residential quali- fications. What I said was, if they are residentially qualified, I am not being committed on that. As far as the hon. member for East Douglas is concerned, we consult with the Industrial Advisory Council on all these cases. There is quite close consultation with them on these cases, there is no doubt about that. It is important that I am not going to be drawn into the question raised by the hon. member for Middle, Mr. Creer, because of the possible pending court proceedings. It would be completely wrong to do so.

SHOPPING AREAS — NOISE LEVEL — QUESTION BY MRS. HANSON. The Governor: Question number 3. I call upon the hon. member for West Douglas, Mrs. Hanson. Mrs. Hanson: Your Excellency, I beg to ask the Chairman of the Isle of Man Local Government Board:— Are there any legal provisions in force in the Isle of Man at present to control noise level in the main shopping areas, particularly Strand Street, Douglas, and, if so, how are they enforced? Mr. Anderson: Your Excellency, the short answer to the hon. member's question is that there is at present no criminal statute that can be invoked to control the noise level

Shopping Areas—Noise Level—Question by Mrs. Hanson. T1278 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981 emitted from premises in shopping areas. There is a limited control under the Douglas Corporation bye-laws under which it is an offence for persons to make excessive noise in a street or public place. The Board does have in draft a Bill which recognises noise as a nuisance and this Bill is presently with the Attorney-General. If enacted it will place the duty of enforcement on the relevant local authority, which in the case of Strand Street is, of course, the Douglas Corporation.

Mrs. Hanson: I thank the hon. Chairman for his reply. Your Excellency.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS — PLANNING APPLICATIONS — QUESTION BY THE SPEAKER.

The Governor: Question number 4. I call upon the hon. Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker: Your Excellency, I beg to ask the Chairman of the Isle of Man Local Government Board:— When considering planning applications made in respect of agricultural holdings, does your Board normally require the siting of an agricultural dwelling to be— (1) related to an existing village; (2) served by a classified road system; (3) provided with mains as opposed to spring water; (4) sited adjacent to a mains sewage system; (5) served by an "economic" electricity system; and (6) part of a commune?

Mr. Anderson: Your Excellency, ideally, the Planning Committee would wish to see as many agricultural dwellings as possible conforming with the first five of the criteria set out in the question. However, it is necessary to temper this idealism with realism and it is very often not possible to meet all the points. In these circumstances, practical considerations must apply and, in appropriate cases, planning consents must be granted notwithstanding the inability of the applicant to meet all the criteria. In short, each application has to be considered on its merits. As regards the sixth point, the Planning Committee has, as far as I am aware, never sought to impose life in a commune on anyone.

The Speaker: Your Excellency, a supplementary? Is it not a fact that in relation to I.D.O. 54301 relating to the Braaid Farm, Marown, these are the sort of conditions, other than the commune, that you sought to impose, and that it is utterly ridiculous to seek an agricultural dwelling and farm buildings to be erected in a village community? That it is equally ridiculous to ask that such a dwelling should be placed on a classified road system, that when there is adequate water supply available there should be a stipulation that there should be mains water, that there should be a stipulation for mains sewage systems in relation to farm properties, and would you please define what your Board suggests should be an economic electricity system?

Mr. Anderson: Your Excellency, I am sorry that I cannot deal with this particular I.D.O. because it is sub judice. This matter is still under active consideration and has still got to go through the planning process and review, and even as far as appeal is concerned. But in general terms, one of the criteria which is now accepted by our Board is that the Board of Agriculture now more actively deal with what is an economic farming unit and advise the Board as to whether or not in the circumstances they feel

Agricultural Holdings--Planning Applications--Ques:ion by the Speaker. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981 T1279

that this should be done, and it is difficult to confine in real terms the questions laid down by Mr. Speaker, but we are aware that in some circumstances people can ask for, say, certain circumstances to be overlooked because they have an adequate supply of a certain material. Subsequently it is said, well now, having done this we now find that it is necessary, in fact, it is not as good as we thought it was, and could we have a supply from the mains of a certain product. I cannot go into detail on this because the matter is sub judice and it would be completely wrong for me to deal with it in that way. Mr. MacDonald: Your Excellency, could I ask a supplementary question? Could I ask the Chairman, is it not a fact that on many of the agricultural holdings the farm- houses that exist have been sold off with a small portion of land, then an application coming in for another farmhouse to be built on what is left? If we continue to do this we will have the whole countryside covered in housing, which I think is to the detriment of agriculture. Mr. Anderson: Your Excellency, what the hon. member for Council, Mr. MacDonald, says is absolutely correct. In the past the Planning Committee have been taken to the cleaners, if I can put it that way. Time and time again an application gets made for a certain market garden — that is the most popular one — and in some cases they have never been started. I have got some in my own area, and there are houses that would never have been passed if they had not put forward such a case. This is one of the reasons we consult with the Board of Agriculture. Farmhouses have been sold off and then permission sought and pressure put on the Planning Committee. Again, in my own area I have one of this sort where even the new house was put on, and now there is pressure for conditions to be taken off that house. The Planning Committee are in a dilemma. Whichever way they move in this they are doing wrong. But they do try to look at it and, as I say, the advice now from the Board of Agriculture is invaluable as to whether or not a certain holding is a viable unit. We have other cases at the moment where we have people who have come in and got planning permission for a new house. Subsequently they want to sell the farm. The fact that the house is there, valued at £60,000 or £70,000, they can say, well, we cannot sell the farm because it is not a viable unit, with the amount of money we have got to ask for it, so can we have the planning permission taken off and sell the farmhouse separately? And, of course, by the very fact that it exists in the countryside with open planning, et cetera, it is worth maybe £50,000 more than it would be otherwise. This is the dilemma in which we find ourselves, terrific pressure being exerted on the Planning Committee to change criteria that had been laid down when the plan is actually being passed. The Speaker: Your Excellency, will the hon. Chairman assure the Court that in future there will be no nonsensical reasons for rejection of planning applications in respect of agricultural dwellings such as this? Mr. Anderson: I will assure the Court, Your Excellency, that there will be no appli- cations forthcoming to non-viable units.

RUSHEN VOTERS AND JURY LISTS — NON-COLLECTION OF FORMS — QUESTION BY MR. LOWEY. The Governor: Question number 5. I call upon the hon. member for Rushen, Mr. Lowey.

Rushen Voters and Jury Lists—Non-Collection of Forms - Question by Mr. Lowey. T1280 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981

Mr. Lowey: Your Excellency, 1 beg to ask the Chairman of the Isle of Man Assess- ment Board:— In view of the considerable number of forms issued to householders in the Sheading of Rushen for completion in connection with the preparation of voters lists and jury lists which were not collected by the appropriate officers— (a) will you giVe the reason such forms were not collected; and (b) what steps is your Board taking to bring to the attention of the public the necessity of taking steps to ensure their votes in the coming General Election by checking the lists, et cetera? Mr. Craine: Your Excellency, the registration officer appointed to the constituencies of Rushen and Castletown was unable to complete the normal personal canvass of the constituency during the period 1st January to 31st March 1981 for personal reasons, which included the illness and death of his wife. Failure to collect the forms, however, does not mean that those persons are not included in the voters lists because no person has been deleted from the current voters list unless he or she has advised the registration officer of removal from the district, or whose name has been included in a list of debts supplied under section 9 of the 1951 Act. The reason for the forms having been sent out by post to households this year was that the Jury Act 1980 made the forms, which had been maintained over recent years, obsolete in respect of particulars relating to jury service. The Board has taken all steps it is required to by the Representation of the People Act to draw the attention of persons to having a right to have their names on the voters list, to the places at which the draft list may be inspected, and the location and date of the respective Revision Courts at which any notified omissions may be rectified. The position at this time is identical to that in previous years, that the onus of ensuring that a person has the right to vote in any election, General or otherwise, ultimately rests on the shoulders of the individual. Mr. Lowey: Your Excellency, a supplementary? In view of the reply by the hon. Chairman, would the Chairman not agree that as the Assessment Board were obviously aware of the indisposition of the officer in the constituencies of Rushen and Castletown, it was incumbent upon the Assesment Board to get a replacement to do that particular job? Although the exercise undertaken by the Assessment Board this year is the same as in other years, would he not also agree that in other years it has proved unsatisfac- tory, and that the object of this exercise is to get satisfaction for the electorate?

Mr. Delaney: A supplementary, Your Excellency? Will the Chairman give some idea when these lists will be available to the public to find out whether or not they are on the lists?

Mr. Cringle: Your Excellency, will the Chairman give an undertaking to give additional advertising, particuarly to the Rushen constituency, in the event of these forms not being collected, as we are very well aware that this is Election year and five years ago there were considerable anomalies in the Rushen voters lists?

Mr. Craine: Yes, in reply to the hon. member for Rushen, Mr. Lowey, we were not aware of the indisposition of this officer until after 31st March when the forms were sent back by post. In the forms that were sent out it was stated that if the forms were not collected it was up to the individual to send the forms back to the Assessment Board by post. The lists will be available at the usual time, in reply to Mr. Delaney, and we have advertised in the press when they are available and where they are available.

Rushen Voters and Jury Lists—Non-Collection of Forms—Question by Mr. Lowey. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981 T1281

Mr. Delaney: What is the usual time? Mr. Craine: Well, the lists are available after 12th May. Mr. Quinney: Your Excellency, would not the hon. Chairman of the Assessment Board agree that a statement is made in the press, and the people have the right to, if they are not on the voters list, after inspection at local authorities and police stations and Government Office, they have the right to appeal to the courts which are published in that public notice? It was also indicated last year that any person who is not on the voters list on inspection may go to the Assessment Board and have their name inserted, and not wait until the Revision Courts are held. The publication of the lists will be available immediately after the Revision Court has been concluded. Mr. Delaney: The 12th May? Mr. Quinney: No, if I am right, I think this is August.

Mr. Delaney: Well, tell your Chairman.

Mr. Quinney: No, I am only asking the Chairman to confirm.

Mr. Lowey: I would like to thank the Chairman.

ONCHAN SECONDARY SCHOOL — PRELIMINARY EXPENSES — QUESTION BY MR. CALLIN.

The Governor: Question number 6. I call upon the hon. member for Middle, Mr. Callin.

Mr. Catlin: Your Excellency, I beg to ask the Chairman of the Isle of Man Board of Education:— What is the total sum so far spent on preliminary expenses connected with the highly desirable new secondary school for Onchan and how is that sum made up?

Mrs. Hanson: Your Excellency, up to 31st March 1981 the total spent on preliminary expenses for Onchan School was £345,000 in respect of payments to the architects and consultants. There remains to be paid the balance of outstanding fees, totalling in the region of £100,000, making approximately £445,000. The Board has also paid £77,500 for the purchase of the land from the Government Property Trustees, but this has not involved the Government in expenditure as the transaction was in the nature of a book entry only.

Mr. Callin: A supplementary, Your Excellency? Would the hon. Chairman be good enough to state the sum that was agreed between the Board of Education and Mr. Snow for the work done while he was in the employ of the Local Government Board? What further costs are likely to be involved for architectural and consultancy fees when the building of Onchan School gets under way? And what is Mr. Snow's future commitment to this project? Finally, would the hon. Chairman be good enough to state what was the total cost to Government for the architects, including consultancy fees, for the Queen Elizabeth High School in Peel?

Onchan Secondary School—Preliminary Expenses—Question by Mr. Callin. T1282 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981

Mrs. Hanson: Your Excellency, the last part of the question is not relevant to the question before us so I have not got that information with me as regards the Queen Elizabeth School. The question is regarding Onchan School, and that is all I am prepared to reply to. The first part of the question, the reduction for the architects' fees, it was 0.6 per cent, which would be — and I am giving this approximately — about £1,440. The second part of the question is, am I not correct, the amount of money that was due to the architects. At the moment it would be approximately 80 per cent. We are now actually under discussion, and hoping to receive a legal opinion on our obligations with regard to the fees which will be payable. That is all I can say at this moment. I would also like to add that I was very surprised during the Estimates debates that not one of the Middle members spoke in support of the new Onchan School.

Mr. Kermeen: Your Excellency, may I ask a supplementary? In view of the announce- ment today by Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom that there will be a reduction in the number of schools, based on the predictions of the falling birth rate and the diminution of pupils, will the hon. member's Board reconsider the whole question of whether there should be a school at Onchan?

Mrs. Hanson: That, indeed, will be done. sir.

The Speaker: Your Excellency, would the hon. Chairman agree that her reply portrays the folly of the decision to change the status of the architect in respect of this school? Would she also agree that it is likely that the architect's fees will amount to, possibly, £1 million if the delay is up to four years? And, finally, would she agree that the system whereby Government are paying architects for doing nothing, except to benefit from the escalation in costs, is a ridiculous one?

Mrs. Hanson: Your Excellency, the first part of the question, whether it was a folly to appoint the architect, the architect was appointed by the Local Government Board specifically for, originally, the Queen Elizabeth School, and at that time, I understand- 1 was not the Chairman of the Board at the time — there was a lot of controversy and disagreement in this Court that it should be placed in the private sector. At the end of the three years' commitment of Mr. Snow, Mr. Snow indicated to us long before his three years' term was up that he did not wish to continue in the specific employ of the Local Government Board for school buildings, so the Board made the choice to go to the private sector and Mr. Snow quite properly was considered. I gave this answer very carefully and correctly. Only the other day I read the debate, my reply, actually, to this particular question, and I think 1 gave it very fully at that time. Now if Mr. Speaker would please tell me the second part of his question, it was rather involved, I will endeavour to answer it.

The Speaker: The second part, Your Excellency, related to the fact that this architect is likely, with the delay of four years, to draw some £1 million in fees from this Govern- ment and would the Chairman agree this pattern of operation is so ridiculous on the part of Government that it should be abolished in respect of architects' fees?

Mrs. Hanson: Well, the last part of the question, 1 would think, perhaps, that the Speaker has a good point, but under the R.I.B.A. Regulations, which we have to follow, the architects are under contract under those regulations, I gather that after six months

Onchan Secondary School —Preliminary Expenses--Question by Mr. Callin. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981 T1283

there is a special condition. After six months a project is considered abandoned and they are only paid the fees for the work that they have done. This has got to be clarified with the Attorney-General in the next few days. if Mr. Speaker is meaning that the architect will get up to £1 million, this is whether the architect will be reappointed, if the project goes forward, and if the cost rises, which it will, no doubt, if the project goes forward in a few years' unless inflation comes down dramatically, and then the project will be considerably more expensive than the almost £8 million at the time envisaged.

The Governor: Hon. members, 1 would draw your attention to the fact that a supple- mentary question must not introduce matter not in the original question. I know you are on the right trail but I think the hon. Chairman is having a difficult time on matters not directly related to her question, which is the expense of Onchan School.

Mrs. Hanson: Thank you, Your Excellency.

Mr. Lowey: Your Excellency, I rise on a point of order. I find it rather alarming that individuals can be named in this Court without any prior knowledge and they have no right to defend themselves. They have no advocate here to defend them and I would urge members, rather than to name individuals on the floor of this Court, they should keep to general principles, and I just rise to ask for a direction.

The Governor: I would draw members' attention to Standing Order 35(2). "A question must not publish the name of any person or any statement not strictly necessary to make the question intelligible."

Mr. Lowey: Thank you, Your Excellency.

Mr. MacDonald: Your Excellency, could I ask the Chairman a supplementary? Is it not a fact that one of the problems faced by the Board of Education and, in fact, by most Boards of Tynwald, is that resolutions are passed in Tynwald Court for projects which cannot be financed? This is not the first time. We had this with the new police station or, I think, the new court-house, where about £100,000 was spent quite a long time ago, which never got off the ground. Surely the answer lies in Tynwald itself. It must accept the Finance Board's decisions. If money is not there, it is not forthcoming, so there is no point in going ahead with the planning and spending money.

Mr. Delaney: May 1 ask a supplementary relevant to the point, Your Excellency? In the debate mentioned by the hon. Chairman of the Board of Education, would she agree now that those people who put forward the case of keeping in-house planning as a policy of this Government was a sensible solution and that taxpayers' money would not have been spent if we had carried out that policy?

Mrs. Hanson: Your Excellency, I am not here to give my personal opinion.

Mr. Delaney: You are the Chairman of the Board of Education.

Mrs. Hanson: 1 cannot give my personal opinion. The Board makes the decisions. I am not prepared to give a personal opinion, I have to give my Board's opinion.

Onchan Secondary School—Preliminary Expenses--Question by Mr. Callin. T1284 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981

AIR TRANSPORT — ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ISLAND'S SPECIAL NEEDS BY CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY — QUESTION BY THE SPEAKER. The Governor: Question number 7. I call on the hon. Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker: Your Excellency, I beg to ask the Chairman of the Airports Board:— What assurance has your board received from the Home Secretary that, irrespective of the provisions of the 1980 Civil Aviation Act, the Civil Aviation Authority will pay due regard to the Island's special needs in respect of air transport?

The President of the Council: Your Excellency, because the Isle of Man Airports Board had received notification from the Civil Aviation Authority that it will, after consultation with the Isle of Man Airports Board, pay special regard to the Island's aviation require- ments, the Board believes that it is unnecessary to receive a further assurance from the Home Secretary. The Civil Aviation Act 1980 has abolished the Secretary of State's power to give policy guidance to the Civil Aviation Authority and requires the Authority to publish from time to time a statement of the policies it intends to adopt. This statement has now been published and it states that, and here I quote: "It will, after consultation, have regard to the particular interests of the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and Gibraltar when regulating air services to and among them." The Board has regular meetings with the Civil Aviation Authority to discuss the Isle of Man's needs and has always found these consultations most constructive. The Civil Aviation Act 1980, with the approval of Tynwald, will be extended to the Isle of Man with certain exceptions and modifications in the near future. The Home Secretary has no power over the Civil Aviation Authority, but as far as the Isle of Man is concerned, if the Authority came to a decision in a manner which appeared to go against the views and interests of the Isle of Man, it is always open to the Isle of Man Airports Board to appeal to the Secretary of State. The Isle of Man Airports Board regard this as par- ticularly appropriate. I would also like to state that quite recently the Home Secretary, when being questioned as to the future of civil aviation to the Channel Islands, in particular, did say that he fully understood the critical importance of civil aviation to the Islands, and this could be adversely affected by the 1980 Civil Aviation Act, but he said that he was sure that all would be well and the Civil Aviation Authority have stated publicly that they would continue to have due regard to the Island's special needs. Mr. Whitelaw, the Home Secretary, said: "And I will make perfectly certain that the Civil Aviation Authority do what they say they will do." In the light of this, Your Excellency, we consider that no further assurances are necessary from the Home Secretary.

The Speaker: May 1 ask a supplementary, Your Excellency? As you have indicated that the Home Secretary has given such assurances to other dependencies which come under the control of his office, and you now say he has no authority to give those assurances, how can you account for his statement that he will make perfectly certain that the Civil Aviation Authority actually fulfils the needs of the Island's airlines?

The President of the Council: Your Excellency, under previous agreements and arrangements with the Civil Aviation Authority, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands and Malta have a special case. They are different from all the other domestic scheduled

Air Transport—Acknowledgement of Island's Special Needs by Civil Aviation Authority -Question by the Speaker. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981 T1285 routes that are run, in so far that way back in 1946, when a monopoly was created by British European Airways as it was then, assurances were given to the Islands — the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and Gibraltar — that there would always be an adequate service provided to the Isle of Man. We find that this authority now is given entirely to the Civil Aviation Authority and we find that they are always eager and anxious to consult the Isle of Man and have never, since I have been Chairman, taken any decision that has been contrary to the wishes of the Isle of Man. We know that it is written in the agreement with the Isle of Man, although the Home Secretary does not give a lead in the first place, that if a dispute did arise the Isle of Man has open to it the channels of the Home Secretary which they could take up in the event of, and we do not anticipate that there would be any difficulty, in the event of any disagreement between the Civil Aviation Authority and ourselves.

ALL-NIGHT PARKING OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES — INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION TO PROHIBIT OR RESTRICT — QUESTION BY MR. CALLIN.

The Governor: Question number 8. I call on the hon. member for Middle, Mr. Callin.

Mr. Catlin: Your Excellency, I beg to ask the Chairman of the Highway and Trans- port Board:— In May 1977, the then Chairman of the Isle of Man Highway and Transport Board stated in Tynwald Court that legislation had been recommended which would prohibit or restrict the all-night parking of commercial vehicles in areas where their presence was detrimental to the amenities of the area concerned. Why is it taking so long to bring forward this very necessary legislation?

Mr. J. N. Radcliffe: Your Excellency, in the first instance let me correct the date quoted by the hon. member. It was in May 1977 and not 1976 that my illustrious predecessor advised this hon. Court as stated in this question. In reply to a follow-up question in February 1978, the former Chairman of the Highway Board informed the hon. member that on 29th December 1977, your hon. predecessor in Executive Council had recommended that the learned Attorney-General be requested to introduce enabling legislation which would, with the support of Tynwald, of course, enable the Highway Board to deal with this very problem. This particular amendment to road traffic law was one of numerous amendments for inclusion in new legislation, all of which the Highway Board regarded as important. Embodied in existing Road Traffic Acts are matters relating to both road traffic and the regulation of road traffic on highways and in view of the amendments to be made it was decided that this would be an ideal opportunity to adopt the principle of the United Kingdom traffic law in that we would have separate statutes, one for road traffic and one for the regulation of road traffic. This task has created more work for the legislative draftsman but I am pleased to inform the hon. member .that both a Road Traffic Regulation Bill is in draft and the Highway Board has already made their comments on it, and there is also a draft Road Traffic Bill which provides, amongst other things, for the consolidation of the present Road Traffic Acts, and this is now under active consideration by my Board. It will, of course, be necessary for both Bills to come into operation at the same time and the projected time-table for their introduction into the Branches is immediately after November next.

All-Nify.ht Parking of Commercial Vehicles—Introduction of Legislation to Prohibit or Restrict—Question by Mr. Callin. T1286 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981

Mr. Kermeen: Your Excellency, may I ask a supplementary? Would the hon. Chair- man of the Highway Board confirm that the legislation to which he now refers is identical to the legislation to which he refers in the written answer to the question I have tabled at number 12 on the Question Paper, and would his Board make every effort to expedite the presentation of this as soon as possible? Mr. J. N. Radcliffe: Your Excellency, yes, I would confirm that it is as set out in the written answer to the hon. member for West Douglas and, of course, every effort will be made to bring this legislation forward when the time is ripe for it. Mr. Catlin: Your Excellency, I wish to thank the hon. Chairman for his reply. Mr. Delaney: Just one supplementary, Your Excellency? Would the Chairman con- sider in conjunction with the Chief Constable and the Police Board, appropriating next winter through the Government one driver and one labourer to assist in the removal of the derelict cars and commercial vehicles that are littering this Island, and moving them to a place where they can either be claimed or destroyed? Mr. J. N. Radcliffe: Your Excellency, we are aware of problems with derelict cars but there is legislation to deal with the problem.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS — ENCOURAGEMENT OF YOUNG FARMERS — QUESTION BY THE SPEAKER. The Governor: Question number 9. 1 call on the hon. Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: Your Excellency, I beg to ask the Chairman of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries:— (1) With a large number of agricultural holdings now available on the market, will you state the form which your Board's policy takes to encourage young farmers to farm such holdings? (2) Under what circumstances does your Board actively oppose the development of holdings for such purpose? Dr. Mann: Your Excellency, I find the content of this question a bit inconsistent but I will try and answer it as best I can. As far as part (1) is concerned, the hon. questioner, Mr. Speaker, was the leading opponent of the Board of Agriculture when it submitted plans for an Agricultural Land Commission to have powers of notification of proposed land sales for the monitoring of the land utilisation and availability. Perhaps he is advising us of a change of mind in this question, so from an official position I cannot confirm or deny the allegation that there are large numbers of agricultural holdings now available on the market. If there are it is probable that the prices being asked are too high in present circumstances as the result of the play of market forces to which the questioner has previously been a devotee. However, it seems that he is now suggesting a possible increased intervention by the Board in these forces which would, of course, sustain the price levels being asked. Once again I must congratulate him on his new- found concern. It is the policy of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to encourage young Manx farmers and, indeed, the not-so-young, to purchase agricultural land for their own occupation and agricultural activities. This policy is, in practice, pursued by way of financial assistance under the Agricultural Holdings (Loans) Scheme and the Loans to New Farmers Scheme. The Agricultural Holdings (Loans) Scheme provides

Agricultural Holdings—Encouragement of Young Farmers—Question by the Speaker. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981 T1287

financial assistance towards purchase by way of low interest loans of up to 90 per cent. of the agricultural valuation of the land. Assistance is available to both prospective farmers and sitting farm tenants and such loans are repayable over a period of up to 40 years, bearing interest at a rate to be fixed by the Finance Board which currently is eight per cent. per annum other than for intra-family transactions some of which are rated at 11 per cent. The scheme came into operation in May 1978 and since then 42 applications have been considered, of which 32 applications have been approved, involving Government loans totalling £1,185,460. In the current financial year the Board has an expenditure vote of £400,000 for the scheme. Of the remaining 10 applications, only four were not approved and the rest just not progressed by the applicants. The Loans to New Farmers Scheme provides financial assistance by way of loans of up to £5,000 for new entrants into farming to enable the purchase of new or second-hand farming machinery. Such loans are repayable over six years and bear interest at eight per cent. per annum. In order to obtain assistance under the scheme, a new farmer must satisfy certain eligibility criteria and must make a down payment of at least 25 per cent. of the cost of such machinery. The present scheme came into operation in February 1978, although a similiar scheme had been in operation since 1968. Since 1978, assistance totalling £34,101 has been approved in respect of 14 applications. As far as the second part of the question is concerned, I have never been aware personally that the Board of Agriculture has ever actively opposed the development of holdings for use by young farmers, although on occasions the Board will not actually encourage such use by providing financial assistance. In particular, if the applicant did not satisfy his eligibility criteria or the proposal did not appear to the Board to be financially viable, the appli- cation for financial assistance would be refused. In order to be eligible for assistance an applicant must either have been resident in the Island for a total of 20 years or must have been in full-time tenancy of a farm in the Island for a period of at least 10 years immediately prior to the date of application. in either case he must satisfy the Board that he has agricultural experience and ability. 1 might add that there have been some recent cases. In fact, the more recent applications have been intra-family trans- actions and this is introducing a very difficult new element into this scheme as to how far Government money being loaned at especially low rates of interest should be used in family transactions, and some sort of compromise on individual cases has to be arrived at both between the Board and the Finance Board and to some extent, of course, the overall availability of funds must in the end put some sort of ceiling on the amount of aid that can be forthcoming in any one financial year, but up to now we certainly have not refused or had to refuse any case due to financial restrictions from the Finance Board. I hope that answers the question.

The Speaker: Your Excellency, 1 do accept the hon. member's apology for his lack of knowledge in respect of land values and land availability and I am sure it must be ,the only chink in his armour. However, I would like to ask the hon. Chairman if his Board will make the provisions he has stated to us this morning more widely known. 1 would also ask, what authority does his Board have to act as advisers to the Planning Committee, bearing in mind that the Board have recently advised against the develop- ment of an agricultural holding of some 60 or 70 acres as being a non-viable unit, and I would ask him what constitutes a viable unit in the opinion of his Board when the total funding of that unit is being borne by private capital?

Agricultural Holdings—Encouragement of Young Farmers —Question by the Speaker. T1288 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981

Mr. MacDonald: Your Excellency, could I ask a supplementary? Would the Chair- man of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, accepting that an amendment to the Agricultural Holdings Act may be necessary, but in co-operation with the Government Property Trustees, the Water Board and the Forestry, Mines and Lands Board, examine and report to Tynwald on the feasibility of dividing up 21,480 acres of public land held by them for the public service, into suitably sized small holdings for sheep farmers? Being public lands this would require very little capital outlay apart from the initial purchase of breeding ewes and lambs which I believe are already supported by Govern- ment on production. Would he not agree that this would encourage young Manxmen interested in animal rearing to get their foot in the door of what is, I believe, due to the very high prices being asked for lowland pasture, becoming a closed shop to all but the wealthy and in many cases the non-Manx?

Dr. Mann: Firstly, if I could deal with Mr. Speaker's supplementary question, the Board does rely on its professional officers in assessing the viability of a unit. It is accepted that perhaps at times they may not be aware, and by the very nature of the scheme cannot be aware, of the exact financial implications of the way in which the holding will be used in the future, because we have no authority to look at accounts of its previous management. Therefore, to some extent there may from time to time be dissatisfaction between the Board's professional advisers and a particular applicant. I do not think and cannot recall one where the applicant has not come back and has not worked out more closely the future policy to be pursued in such a holding. If one has been so we will certainly reconsider it because any viability for any farming policy is, of necessity, a personal matter and to some extent depends on the amount of work that an individual owner of that holding is likely to put into that holding, so we are not the final arbiters in how a holding will go in the future, we can only act as advisers. As far as the question from the hon. member of Council is concerned, this matter has from time to time been considered and once again one comes to the question of how small do you get and still remain viable and most hill sheep men are of the opinion that you have to have a fairly large holding to be viable, but we do have a joint committee with the Forestry Board and our own Board and certainly we will reconsider this matter in the light of your supplementary question.

T.T. COURSE — FEE CHARGED TO LOCAL PHOTOGRAPHERS — QUESTION BY MR. CALLIN.

The Governor: Question number 10. I call on the hon. member for Middle, Mr. Callin.

Mr. Callin: Your Excellency, I beg to ask the Chairman of the Tourist Board:— Is it correct that local photographers have been requested to pay the sum of £200 to obtain a pass for the purpose of taking photographs inside the T.T. course this year? If so, on what authority would this charge be made? The Governor: Before inviting the Chairman of the Tourist Board to answer, I would reiterate that I would prefer not to have names bandied round this Court unless it is absolutely essential. The Chairman of the Tourist Board.

T.T. Course—Fee Charged to Local Photographers—Question by Mr. Callin. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981 T1289

Mr. Irving: Your Excellency, the answer is yes, some local photographers have been requested to pay. The copyright of the T.T. Races is vested in the Auto-Cycle Union which decided to charge a film facility fee to all photographers who were not accredited to newspapers or magazines. This is to discourage the freelance operators who take photographs of the races and the riders, not for news or publicity purposes but for private business or commercial reasons. The activities of freelance photographers inhibit the work of photographers employed by newspapers and magazines and there are a large number of people who think they only have to appear at the press centre at the T.T. grandstand with a camera round their neck and they are going to be given special facilities. The fees payable by free-lance photographers would be set off against the cost of staging the T.T. races. This year no locals are being charged. I understand that one local photographer, and most of them are attached to newspapers and magazines, has paid a fee of £200 which I am informed by the Auto-Cycle Union, before the hon. member's question was tabled, is to be refunded, but I would say that the Tourist Board considers that commercial photographers should pay something and I would imagine that all will be required to do so next year unless they are accredited to news- papers or magazines. I would inform the hon. member that we believe on the Tourist Board that it should never be assumed that the T.T. races are so important that there should be any relaxation in the strict financial control or of efforts to increase revenue.

Mr. Catlin: A supplementary, Your Excellency? Would the hon. Chiarman not agree that many of the local photographers, who pay their taxes and pay their rates, have no hope of even taking £200 let alone pay a fee approaching that figure, and would he give an undertaking that in future years, if there is to be a fee, that it is a realistic one so far as local professional photographers are concerned?

Mr. Delaney: A supplementary, Your Excellency? Would my Chairman agree that anyone can take photographs of the T.T. races outside of the track and the press facility gives them access inside the track area and the fee for commercial photographers is to give them access inside the race track?

Mr. Kermeen: The hon. member has mentioned accreditation. How is this determined?

Mr. Irving: Your Excellency, in reply to the hon. member for West Douglas, Mr. Kermeen, accreditation is determined by the Press Officer being satisfied that the people concerned can show that they are accredited representatives of a particular newspaper or magazine and can produce proof to that effect. Now as to the question posed by my hon. colleague, the charge is for granting of special press facilities. There is nothing to stop anybody on the T.T. course taking pictures and selling those pictures, but if persons want special facilities then we think they should pay for them. The hon. member thinks that the fee is perhaps too high in relation to some local photographers. It may well be, but one must remember that fees charged for commercial photographers at other similar events would be, and are, considerably higher than £200. The hon. member said, can I give an undertaking in respect of next year. I am happy to inform the hon. member that whatever happens in November of this year, I shall be free of any obligations in relation to the Tourist Board or the Race Committee but I am sure that those who will be there will bear in mind the plea of the hon. member.

T.T. Course—Fee Charged to Local Photographers—Question by Mr. Catlin. T1290 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981

Mr. Kneale: Your Excellency, in view of the question posed by the hon. member, Mr. Delaney, how many people do you expect to apply for a licence at £200? I would suggest you will have none, they will all be on the other side of the hedge. I am speaking from experience. (Laughter.) Mr. Irving: Your Excellency, if the persons referred to by the hon. member of Council did not want special facilities, moving around the course and being in places not open to the general public, unless they want this they can be on the other side of the hedge and take any number of photographs they wish.

COASTAL EROSION—MEETING BETWEEN HARBOUR BOARD AND BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES—QUESTION BY MRS. CHRISTIAN. The Governor: Question number I1. I call on the hon. member for Ayre, Mrs. Christian. Mrs. Christian: Your Excellency, I beg to ask the Chairman of Executive Council:— Whereas on 28th May 1980 Tynwald resolved that the Isle of Man Harbour Board and the Isle of Man Board of Agriculture and Fisheries should jointly consider— (1) the extent and effects of erosion; (2) the practical possibilities, if such exist, of curtailing the rate of erosion; (3) ways and means of assisting those persons vitally affected by Govern- ment's inability to protect the whole of the coastline, and to report within one year to Tynwald. Will you give details of the dates when these Boards have met to give joint consideration to these matters? Mr. Irving: Your Excellency, 1 understand this question was originally tabled to the Chairman of the Harbour Board and the Chairman of the Board of Agriculture and has now been switched to me. "The proper object of a question shall be" — I am quoting from Standing Orders — "to obtain information on a matter of fact within the special cognizance of the person to whom the question is addressed." I have no special cognizance, but I do wish to be helpful to the hon. member who is asking the question and if I fail in giving the required information I hope she will forgive me. I am not entirely sure that my reply has been agreed by the Harbour Board, but no doubt the Chairman of the Harbour Board may wish to ask informative supplementaries when I have finished. The motion referred to in the Question Paper was one put forward by the hon. member for Ayre, Mrs. Christian. There was no debate, Tynwald agreed. Immediately following the resolution, the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries approached the Harbour Board for an early preliminary joint meeting to discuss the matter. The Harbour Board put the meeting off as they were awaiting advice from Dr. Jolliffe of the University of London who was commissioned by them to report on coastal erosion on the Island. Eventually, following further representations or inquiries, if you like, from the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, the joint meeting first requested on 5th June 1980 took place on 18th September 1980 when Dr. Jolliffe was also in attendance. It is understood that arrangements were made for Dr. Jolliffe to meet the hon. member and other members of the House of Keys who had expressed concern in that matter. Dr. Jolliffe indicated that his report would be available in early 1981. The Board of

Coastal Erosion— Meeting Between Harbour Board and Board of Agriculture and Fisheries—Question by Mrs. Christian. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981 T1291

Agriculture and Fisheries made frequent inquiries from the Harbour Board as to the progress and were informed on 4th February 1981 that Dr. Jolliffe had stated that certain technical difficulties had delayed submission of his report and he hoped it would be to hand within approximately two months. Further inquiries as to the long-awaited report were made by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries on 30th April this year and a reply thereto is still awaited from the Harbour Board. Mrs. Christian: Your Excellency, a supplementary question? I regret that my question was not acceptable in its original form. My supplementary question is, would you not agree that the lack of even an interim report is something of a slight on the instructions given by Tynwald last year that the two Boards should meet to discuss this matter. Could you inform me, sir, I suspect you might not be able to, whether or not we will receive a report before the end of this session? Mr. Lowey: A supplementary, Your Excellency, from the Vice-Chairman of the Harbour Board, not a constructive one I take it, would the hon. Chairman not agree that as the report we are receiving is virtually free, the professional services we are receiving are free, we cannot demand anything? Can I also assure the Court that the hon. members, Mrs. Christian, Mr. Radcliffe and the hon. member for Michael, have been informed, if you like, blow by blow within 14 days of decisions being taken or telephone calls received. They have been informed all the way along the line and there is a leaflet here which I am quite sure can be circluated to every member of the Court. Mr. Irving: Your Excellency, in my ignorance, I agree entirely with both hon. members who have certainly had the opportunity in the form of these questions to put their case forward. Mr. MacDonald: Your Excellency, could I just fill in a little gap in the information, and that is that the members for the area, that is, Ayre and Michael, were given a copy of Dr. Jolliffe's report on 20th May. The letter was dated 4th May. The Board con- sidered it and then passed it to the three members. Also, what we have got to remember is that half way through this exercise Dr. Jolliffe was asked as a matter of urgency to tirop what he was doing on this and concentrate on the Ballure cliffs, so for a while his staff were working on the Ballure cliffs. This pushed our one back. I think hon. members will appreciate that at the moment indicator markers are still being picked up and brought in by the general public and we have had a very good response from the general public on the coastal pattern of tidal way in this area, and I think what we have got to do is await Dr. Jolliffe's report. But the main thing, the meeting between 0 my Board and the Board of Agriculture will depend entirely upon what this expert says. Mrs. Christian: Your Excellency, a supplementary question? Would the Chairman of Executive Council not agree that an interim report of all these various bits of information to all members of Tynwald would certainly have been useful? Mr. Irving: Yes, I would agree.

TRAFFIC CONGESTION — SETTING UP OF WORKING PARTY — QUESTION BY MR. KERMEEN. The Governor: Hon. members, question number 12 is for written answer.

Traffic Congestion—Setting Up of Working Party—Question by Mr, Kermeen. 1 1292 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981

Question:— The hon. member for West Douglas, Mr. Kermeen, to ask the Chairman of the Highway and Transport Board:— Will your Board set up a working party comprising representatives of the Isle of Man constabulary, local authorities and persons with specialist knowledge and experience with terms of reference extending to the examination of current and contemplated road traffic law both on and off the Island and advice to your Board on ways and means of alleviating traffic congestion and allied problems in the Island's urban areas? Answer:— There is presently a draft Road Traffic Bill prepared by the legislative draftsman under consideration by the Highway and Transport Board, which provides, inter alia, for the consolidation of the present Road Traffic Acts and for the introduction of certain matters of new legislation. The scheme of the Bill is to include all the present legislative matters plus new legislative matters relating to road traffic. A second Bill has been prepared to contain matters relating to the regulation of road traffic on highways, the Road Traffic Regulation Bill, and on which the Board has already commented. These two pieces of legislation have taken some two years in preparation and are inter- related. These Bills being within the purview of the Board, the usual first stage of consultation therewith and discussion of comments thereon is continuing. When con- cluded the draft Bills will be circulated to the police and other interested parties for consideration of the clauses. As this exercise is well advanced and will encompass the appropriate parties concerned, the Highway Board can see no advantage in now setting up a working party as requested, which could delay the introduction of this legislation. Existing road traffic law contains adequate provision that enables measures to be taken for alleviating traffic congestion by means of traffic regulatory orders, for example, prohibiting or restricting the waiting of vehicles, one-way traffic, clearways. The effect of such orders is a matter of law enforcement. To assist in law enforcement, one possibility which is to be considered by the Board is the introduction of legislation permitting fixed penalty tickets to be issued for minor traffic offences, for example, parking. The Govenor: That concludes the questions. I would ask the hon. members in our remaining sessions to study the rules on questions. I know it is a great temptation at the present time to abuse them, but they are not there for that purpose.

ROYAL WEDDING — STATEMENT BY CHAIRMAN OF EXECUTIVE COUNCIL. The Governor: We now turn to the main Agenda and 1 call upon the Chairman of Executive Council who wishes to make a statement. Mr. Irving: Your Excellency, a report of the Executive Council Committee appointed to consider arrangements for events to mark and celebrate the wedding of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and Lady Diana Spencer has been circulated for informa- tion to members of Tynwald. Hon. members will note that an addendum has been placed on their desks today which shows certain happy arrangements to be made by Ballaugh and Marown Parish Commissioners. Hon. members will wish to know that with the approval of Finance Board, Government expenditure associated with the royal wedding celebrations, including the cost of the Island's wedding present to His Royal Highness

Royal Wedding- Statement by Chairman of Executive Council. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981 T1293

and the Lady Diana Spencer, will be provided from the amount of £1,000 previously estimated in this respect and contained in the Budget items approved by Tynwald last month. In considering the possible range of events to celebrate this happy occasion, the Committee sought the views of His Excellency as the Queen's personal representative in the Island and were guided and reinforced by his opinion that there should be no pressure whatsoever on authorities or individuals as regards extra financial expenditure or effort and that 29th July 1981 should be a family day when the Island should feel free to share in the personal joy of His Royal Highness and the Lady Diana Spencer, and to demonstrate their loyalty and affection towards them in a wholly natural and spontaneous spirit of shared happiness and in any way that individuals, organisations, schools or authorities felt so inclined. The Committee senses that it has the support of Tynwald in its approach but is conscious that members may wish to contribute individual views and further proposals and, accordingly, would be very willing to discuss any matter connected with the Island's participation in the royal wedding celebrations with individual members in private.

ISLE OF MAN GOVERNMENT — CONSTITUTION (BY ADJOURNMENT) — MOTION AMENDED AND AGREED.

The Governor: item number 5 is the resumed debate on the motion in the name of the hon. member of Council, Mr. Kneale, which stands adjourned from the April sitting. The resolution reads as follows:— That Tynwald is of the opinion that— (1) the Government of the Isle of Man should continue to consist of two Branches — the House of Keys and the Legislative Council. (2) the two Branches should meet separately for the purpose of dealing with Legislation. (3) the two Branches should meet as one body, to he known as Tynwald, with all members having equal rights without any dividing barriers to deal with all matters of finance and Government policy. (4) that His Excellency the Lieutenant-Governor should preside over this body. (5) that the Legislative Council should become a body elected by popular franchise based on four areas of the Island—one member from the west, two from the north, two from the south and three from the east. (6) the Attorney-General and the Lord Bishop should continue to be members of the Legislative Council — the Attorney-General being a non-voting member. (7) that all Board or Committee Chairmen, and members of such bodies, should be elected from the total membership of Tynwald on the basis of putting the best person in a particular job. The hon. and learned member for Ramsey, Mr. Christian, who moved the adjournment, has the right to speak first under the terms of Standing Order 91 but he has informed me that he does not wish to exercise that right. The hon. Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: Your Excellency, hon. members will recall that when we last considered this matter reference was made to the desirability of the Branches examining the

Isle of Man Government ---Constitution (by Adjournment)—Motion Amended and Agreed. T1294 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981 resolution and I have to inform Tynwald that the Consultative Committee of the House of Keys, the appropriate body of the House of Keys, have actually examined the resolution and have come to the conclusion that no change is warranted at this stage, the motion should be rejected as being contrary to the interests of the House of Keys and of good government in the Isle of Man. Even if passed in a drastically amended form, the resulting resolution, they believe, could be open to misinterpretation and conducive to discord. Accordingly, Your Excellency, this morning I beg to move: That the motion be adjourned sine die. I believe that would reflect the wishes of the majority of the membership of the House of Keys. Mr. Catlin: I beg to second, Your Excellency, and reserve my remarks. Mr. Kermeen: Your Excellency, I did not have the opportunity of taking part in the debate on the last occasion when the hon. member of Council put forward this motion, but I would like to say at this stage that I appreciate very much indeed the good intentions of the hon. member of Council. I have read in the report of the debate what he had to say, and particularly his own efforts over the last years to progress constitu- tional reform. However, having read it, I think there was a considerable omission in what he said, namely, that most of us here in some form or other have, indeed, participated in that progress towards constitutional reform. It was not a one-man effort. I appreciate the manner in which the hon. member of Council put forward his proposals but we are all concerned in having, as has been said in the past, change of practice in Tynwald when and if it is required. So I think the hon. Mr. Speaker has really expressed the wish of this Court at this time. Again, timing is important here, that we should not progress at this moment along the lines suggested by the hon. member. Progress will come but it will come naturally and, I think, by and large over the years Tynwald has achieved that degree of sense and sensibility in putting forward constitutional reform. So I would ask the hon. member of Council not to be dismayed because we cannot progress at this moment. He is, like myself, a member of the Constitutional Issues Committee. We have done a lot, I think, in the past few, years although I am not going to praise myself or my fellow members, but leave it to that Committee to see when the signs are right and the time is right for this sort of development.

The Governor: Hon. members, we are now debating the adjournment and the five- minute rule applies.

Mr. Crellin: Your Excellency, that was what 1 wanted to ask because I feel that we are not able to talk to the main resolution.

The Governor: We are talking to the adjournment.

Mr. Crellin: Just to the adjournment. All I would like to say with regard to the adjournment is that I oppose it very strongly. I think it is very important that, par- ticularly the elected members of this hon. Court, that is, those who are elected by popular franchise, should express their views clearly and distinctly for everybody to hear and this vehicle, to my mind, was a wonderful vehicle for that to take place. I think we would be making a very great mistake if, purely and simply because it is inconvenient, we should turn our backs on this resolution which is a thing which, as you

Isle of Man Government--Constitution (by Adjournment)—Motion Amended and Agreed. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981 TI295

know, Your Excellency, Tynwald can be very guilty of on occasion, so I oppose the adjournment. Mr. Anderson: Your Excellency, I find it somewhat difficult to grasp this situation in which I find myself because a Committee of the House, apparently, have made a decision of which I was not at all aware. The Speaker: It was circulated to you. Mr. Anderson: I must have missed that one amongst the pile of material that 1 had on my return. Again, I do not know that one has got to be tied to the views of a Committee of the Keys in this respect because I would have liked to have seen it debated because I would have liked to, in fact, have seen each of these items taken individually, I and that is the reason I would have liked to have seen it because there are only two items in this that I would not have agreed with. I think the others all make sense, and that is in relation to designating an area and in relation to the fact that they were going to have a vote for the Keys. I think that is inappropriate. Maybe the Consultative Committee are right in saying at this stage in the life of the House of Keys it is difficult to do something about that, but I really think that I would have preferred to see it debated rather than adjourned today. Mr. MacDonald: Your Excellency, like my colleague, Major Crellin, I, too, oppose the adjournment. I am not too happy that what is to be the democratic process is being adhered to. I am rather alarmed to think that in Tynwald Court apparently we can now speak as Chambers or it would appear we can speak as Chambers and not as individuals. Another thing that rather disturbs me, if the Consultative Committee, our colleagues in the Keys, sat and discussed this and reported, I am very sorry it was not debated and discussed in public. I think the public have the right to know. (Interruption.) I think the public should know this. Also, I do believe that it is important, and I was very pleased that my successor in Peel, because I, too, fought the last General Election, and I was very pleased indeed that he did call a public meeting to discuss this matter, and unani- mously the meeting decided that they would put full support in the Legislative Council as it existed because they thought it was necessary for good government and they thought it was essential that experienced people are available from the Keys to go to the Council to assist in the good legislation of the Isle of Man. Mr 1 i Radcliffe: Your Excellency, I rise to oppose the adjournment and speaking strictly to that motion, I feel it is right and proper that from time to time we should survey our machinery of administration and I think members should be given the opportunity to express an opinion on such motions rather than they should be adjourned without that debate. Mr. Lowey: Your Excellency, 1, too, rise to oppose the motion to adjourn very much along the lines that the hon. member of Council, Major Crellin, spoke on when he rose. This is a declaratory resolution, and a declaratory resolution will, of necessity, and if it was implemented, would mean legislation. Now this Court has got an excellent track record of agreeing things, if you like, at declaratory resolution stage and then throwing out the legislation. (Interruption.) They have a marvellous track record. However, I believe myself that this is of public import. I can see nothing at all wrong with the resolution as printed. I believe, myself, but I do not wish to go on to that, it is just to

Isle of Man Government —Constitution (by Adjournment)—Motion Amended and Agreed. T1296 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981 the actual not debating it here and leaving it sine die. That is fudging issues, it is leaving it for another day. I can take issue with my hon. friend from West Douglas when he says, "Constitutional reform", I noted the words very carefully, "will come naturally" — come naturally, sir? Constitutional reform in this Chamber has had to be fought for every inch of the way, as well he knows, and therefore it is almost as natural as the coast erosion in Ayre. The tide comes in and the tide goes out. But now I do not think we should be fudging the issue. We should be here making a decision and I believe it is incumbent on the floor of the House not to leave it for six months or for a new House or a newly elected body to be here. This is important. I think everybody should have their say and everybody should be made to say where they stand on this funda- mental issue, and it is a fundamental issue. I am a great believer in a two Chamber system but I am also a great believer in accountability.

Mr. Simcocks: Your Excellency, 1, too, would like to rise in order to oppose what I regard as a deliberate move to stifle free debate in this hon. Chamber. What the hon. Mr. Speaker has apparently said to us is that there has been a secret private meeting of a Committee of the House of Keys, that that Committee has decided that it would be expedient that the merits of this resolution should not be debated in public and, therefore, it appears without reference to the House in public. An attempt has now been made to establish a sort of unofficial star chamber which decides that it is inexpedient to members of the House of Keys who do not wish to be criticised, it is inexpedient that an opportunity should be given for a full debate on a matter of important consti- tutional consideration. I believe that it will be a very sad day indeed for this democratic assembly if we allow a Committee of one of its Branches effectively to stop proper public debate on a matter of very considerable interest.

Mr. Irving: Your Excellency, in supporting the motion for adjournment, I would like to say that in no way has the Keys Consultative Committee suggested to any member that the debate should be adjourned. I was not aware until this morning, with the motion by Mr. Speaker, that there was any question of adjournment. The House of Keys Consultative Committee met, and the result was, the Committee considered the motion in Tynwald in the name of the hon. member of Council, Mr. Kneale, and agreed it was proper for the Committee to consider the matter and advise the House prior to the resumed debate in Tynwald. It states, in a communication sent to all members of the House of Keys, "The Committee is agreed that no change is warranted at this stage" —no change is warranted at this stage — "and the motion should be rejected" — rejected, not adjourned, rejected — "as being contrary to the interests of the House of Keys and the good government of the Isle of Man. Even if passed in a drastically amended form, the resulting resolution could be open to misrepresentation and conducive to discord." That, sir, is the feeling of the Consultative Committee of the Keys, which is advice by a Consultative Committee of this House to hon. members. A Member: Yours is the right version. Mr. Irving: I would say this, sir, I hope this will be adjourned because, firstly, there is no demand for any change. I have said in the House of Keys that the situation may not be perfect in democratic theory and that some day in the not too distant future it will be changed. There has been no demand for a change. The wording of the motion. I believe, is not literally true and can be misleading. I think it is unfortunate if hon.

Isle of Man Government -Constitution (by Adjournment)--Motion Amended and Agreed. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981 T1297

members of the Keys have to vote against certain things as shown here — number 4, that the Lieutenant-Governor should preside over this body. We all agree, sir, but if it is put to the House, to avoid discord, to avoid misunderstanding, it is unfortunate if hon. members of the Keys have to vote against some of the things which we all accept.

Mr. Cringle: Why vote against what we accept?

Mr. Irving: 1 would say it is desirable in the interests of good government and in the interests of the House of Keys that it should be adjourned.

Mr. Kneale: I am not suprised, Your Excellency, at this move on the part of Mr. Speaker to have this debate adjourned. I know full well that certain members in the Lower House are not anxious to declare themselves on this issue before they go to the polls and I would say that Mr. Speaker, especially, is not anxious that people should S know the extent of his own personal ambition, because when you have a new House, that new House will be worked on the same as every new House has been worked on to take more and more power to the Keys. Now I would not have brought this resolution forward at this time if it had not been for the moves that were going on in the Keys, that they would more or less turn Tynwald into a rubber-stamp for the Keys. I strongly oppose the adjournment. I am glad to see that there are members of the Keys who are ready and willing to debate this issue now, because now is the time it should be debated before you go to the polls. After you have been to the polls it is no good coming back and starting to work as you will not have had a mandate for this issue, but if you declare yourselves now which way you want, whether you want to continue the system we have got, because the resolution that I have moved is virtually the status quo with one or two adjustments, and people can express themselves on that, but you should let the people know before you go to the polls whether you are in favour of the present set up or whether you are in favour of a single-Chamber Government, because that is what we are trying to head for in the minds of some people.

Mr. Delaney: Your Excellency. the last speaker, the mover of the resolution, certainly has the knack of putting wild dogs amongst the chickens as far as I am concerned. I agree with him on his ideas but sometimes I feel that these debates do get down to a personal nature and I do actually object to the way he has actually aligned Mr. Speaker with controlling the House. It may be true in some shape or form. (Laughter.) I have no doubt who was pulling the strings and it was not only Mr. Speaker who was pulling the strings. There were other members who came from the floor of the Chamber. There was more than one member who knew exactly what was going to happen and how to achieve certain ambitions and Mr. Speaker was not the least of them. But, Your Excellency, it leaves us in somewhat of a dilemma which has been pointed out by the hon. member for East Douglas who has pointed out that members are going to find them- selves in somewhat of a predicament particularly before the polls. I see two items, and I make no bones about it. I say to my good friend, Mr. Kneale, I will certainly be prepared to debate the issue he has put before us if needs be, but I refer to two items of this particular resolution. Part (5), "that the Legislative Council should become a body elected by popular franchise based on four areas of the Island."

The Governor: We are speaking to the adjournment.

Isle of Man Government—Constitution (by Adjournment)—Motion Amended and Agreed. T1298 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16. 1981

Mr. Delaney: Your Excellency, I am giving my reasons why I am voting one way or the other for adjournment. One member from the west, two from the north, two from the south and three from the east. I would like to hear how the hon. mover of this resolution has come to that particular decision. That is something I would like to hear. (Interruptions.) On the other hand, I would have to decide if we come to debate whether I could accept part (6) in its entirety or move amendments because if you read the wording of that particular part, it is wide open to the question of democracy within this Island and members might want to run away from that issue and some members in the past have run away from the issue. Your Excellency, if it is the wish of the House that this be debated, I think this debate is going to go on for long hours here today. I wait to hear what other members have to say, those who have not spoken, on how they are prepared to approach this particular debate when it arrives. The Governor: Hon. members, before the hon. member for Rushen speaks, it might be helpful if I stated that should this debate be continued I would be putting the vote on each item separately. Mr. Cringle: Your Excellency, I rise to support the adjournment sine die of this resolution, and I do so because the hon. mover has condemned himself largely in his own comments this morning when he said that, in fact, he has thought seriously about this resolution and it largely is the status quo with minor amendments. Well, quite frankly, I could not accept in any respect that this is the status quo with minor amend- ments when, in fact, as the hon. member for East Douglas has commented, part (5) is, of course, a major alteration. Now this body, this Tynwald, in its lifetime has seen considerable constitutional movement, quite considerable in the life of this House, and, Your Excellency, you, yourself, have commented this morning at the outset of this debate on further constitutional moves, as it were. I see no reason at all at the present time to move away from what, to my mind, is a perfectly well reasoned argument which was put forward, if you like, and circulated to members by the Consultative Committee, spelling out that at this stage, and that is important, at this stage they felt there was no need to go any further. The hon. member for Rushen, if you like, to class him like that, the hon. member for the south in the Legislative Council, Mr. Crellin, has com- mented that he wants members to say what they think. Well, if he wants members to say what they think — part (1), yes; part (2), yes; part (3), a question mark, within Standing Orders; part (4), yes; part (5), no; part (6), yes; part (7), yes, within Standing Orders. The Governor: Hon. members, I will put the amendment standing in the name of the hon. Mr. Speaker, which was seconded by the hon. member for Middle, Mr. Callin, that this motion be adjourned sine die. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. A division was called for and voting resulted as follows:—

In the Keys--

For: Messrs. Quirk, J. N. Radcliffe, Mrs. Christian, Dr. Mann, Messrs. Callin, Waiter- son, Cringle, Irving, Kermeen and the Speaker -- 10.

Against: Messrs. Anderson, J. J. Radcliffe, Creer, Lowey, Walker, Quinney, Ward, Craine, Delaney, Mrs. Hanson, Dr. Moore and Mr. Christian -- 12

Isle of Man Government --Constitution (by Adjournment)--Motion Amended and Agreed. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981 T1299

The Speaker: Your Excellency, the amendment fails to carry in the House of Keys, 10 votes being cast in favour and 12 votes against. In the Council—

For: Nil.

Against: The Lord Bishop, Messrs. Kneale, Crellin, Moore, P. Radcliffe, Kerruish, Simcocks, MacDonald and the President of the Council — 9.

The Governor: In the Council, none in favour, nine against, the amendment fails. We will carry on with the debate.

Mr. Crellin: Your Excellency, I regard this resolution and the voting upon it to be a very important matter, albeit a little dilettante exercise, because any amendment to the status quo will require legislation and we all know what happens when the Green Paper is produced resulting from Tynwald resolutions. I have maintained and I shall continue to maintain that Tynwald Court should always be looking at itself to see if we can make ourselves better, more efficient and happier servants and leaders of the people of the Isle of Man, but that does not mean that we must become irresponsible and make changes purely for the sake of making changes. I have great faith in Tynwald and over many years Tynwald has demonstrated its wisdom over major issues. It has also demonstrated its foolishness on occasion, but that is the way democracy goes. I hope that Tynwald today will demonstrate its sense of responsibility. Parts (1) and (2) are sine qua non so far as I am concerned. I am a comparatively new boy to the Manx Legislature but I have studied the bicameral nature of our Government very carefully as, indeed, my training has taught me to consider all parliamentary issues very carefully, whether it be on finance or planning or broadcasting or education or any of the other issues, like assessment of police, with which I have been concerned, and I have come to the conclusion that in any way to destroy or diminish the bicameral nature of our Government, and I have served in both Chambers now for quite a while, is the most retrograde move that Tynwald could recommend. As is well known to many members of this hon. Court, Your Excellency, I have vigorously opposed certain constitutional amending measures which have now become law, and I am sure that eventually I shall be proved right. "The Courier" of last weekend helps me to illustrate this. Perhaps you did not see it, Your Excellency, but I did — or was it the "Manx Star"? (Laughter.) Part (3) requires careful reading. I do not at this stage oppose it because the words "without any dividing barriers" mean to me that the status quo shall continue to be preserved. I hope, sir, that that is what it means to you, but I think it is essential for the Council to know what the spirit and the opinion of the Keys is before we vote and if I am in any doubt whatsoever, I tend to vote with the Keys unless I have a good conscientious reason for not doing so. So I do think that part (3) has a certain degree of urgency about it, particularly with regard to those words "without any dividing barriers". Part (4) is essential, to me. I know that unscrupulous and deceitful devices have been undertaken with semi-official concurrence and connivance to undermine the principle in, mercifully, bygone years, and I hope that they will continue to fail. I think it is essential that His Excellency should preside over this ancient body. On part (5), I am really not suited to speak on the paragraph owing to my age and my strong belief that one has to call a halt sometime. I hope to retire at the end of October 1982, but

Isle of Man Government—Constitution (by Adjournment)—Motion Amended and Agreed. T1300 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981 if this were not so I should favour the election of the Council by popular franchise. I have never been afraid to face my electorate and I have proved it by being elected twice to the House of Keys with an increased majority the second time round but, of course, if this were agreed I would require an increase of the status of the Legislative Council from that of a revising Chamber since we would have a positive mandate from the electorate. On part (6), I regard this as being a measure for a very positive declaratory resolution divided into two parts, and while I have no very strong feelings on the matter, I would be guided by the vote of the Keys, and meanwhile on this resolution I shall vote for the status quo. So far as part (7) is concerned, I am in complete agreement with the resolution. I think it is shameful that senior members of Government should be theoretically consigned to the scrap heap so far as major posts are concerned, solely because they are members of the Legislative Council. I do hope that members, having regard to their future task of facing the elecotrate, will treat this resolution seriously. Mr. Anderson: Your Excellency, the last paragraph, to me, is of vital importance. I have never wavered from this point of view in the 15 years I have been a member of this hon. Court. I do not think that I am here to push out my own boat or my own interests or to get glorification for myself. What I am here for, and I believe all hon. members, whether they belong to the Upper or Lower House, are here to seek the best for the Isle of Man. I believe that in that context it is important to spell it out because, after all, we have only 32 members on whom to call and it could very well be that at the end of the General Election you could have a terrific number of changes and people with very little experience and to rule out the Upper House from taking important posts, to me, would be completely wrong in the interests of the Island. I think that experience does count for something and I, during the time I have been a member of this House, have had a great appreciation of experience and advice that we have had from our senior colleagues. In fact, the hon. member who is moving this will be aware that I would even have differed with him in the view, and I know probably other members might not agree with me, that when we had the two Deemsters sitting here, who very often had vast experience, it was invaluable advice that was given to us and, in my view, had it not been for certain personalities it could have continued for a very long time. I do not think the Island has had all that much better government as a result of those people disappearing from the scene. The advice and continuity were very valuable to members of the House of Keys and I believe that the vast majority of the people, in fact, I have not yet met one who is seeking to change the situation as it is at the moment and they look on Tynwald really as being, in total, the Government of the Isle of Man. I believe that this is absolutely true and I think that the only part of this, as I indicated earlier, at this stage at any rate I would not want to see any change in the way in which the members of the Upper House arrived at that destination. I think that if the present move continues it will be very difficult indeed to persuade members of the Keys to accept nominations to the Upper House because they are not going to accept a situation whereby they are going to be put into the political wilderness. And we know very often, it has been referred to, jokingly perhaps, as being "kicked upstairs" and put out of the way. I think that to deny the Upper House the use of valuable members of the Keys in this way because they are not going to be given office in certain areas is not the way in which we should be heading. As far as the Lord Bishop is concerned, I am not an Anglican, but I support entirely the fact that the Lord Bishop sits in this hon.

Isle of Man Government -Constitution (by Adjournment)—Motion Amended and Agreed. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981 T1301

Chamber. I think that he and I do not always agree, but I think it is important that certain standards are retained and that someone of the calibre of the Bishop is here in this important position to express a point of view if he sees us going off the lines. I think that is important. I think it is important to society. There are things that are worth retaining. There is a terrific amount of tradition in this Island, a lot of which many other people would envy us, and I believe that we should try and retain that tradition. I support wholeheartedly most of what is here, other than the two, and I am pleased that Your Excellency will be putting these individually to the Court. I certainly will support them all bar those two at this particular point in time. The Speaker: Your Excellency, when I hear speeches such as that made by the hon. member for Glenfaba, I wonder what price democracy. Of course I am aware that in this Island we have probably the most belated type of democracy, if one can express it that way, that you find anywhere in the Commonwealth. The Island has never really advanced along the democratic path and the consequence is that we have this type of resolution today as a challenge to the small amount of evolution that has taken place, because to a certain extent that is what it is. You have in the Commonwealth, to which we proudly belong, a large number of examples of the successful operation of bicameral legislatures. We have also seen in certain countries the elimination of the Upper House and one-Chamber Government in operation. Having witnessed both in action, I would say that the Isle of Man must always retain its bicameral pattern of Legislature and that this is desirable in the interests of the people of the Island. But having said that, of course, we must pay due regard to the role that the second Chamber plays in our administration and there is no doubt in my mind that the role being played today by the Legislative Council in Government is far in excess of the role that they should be playing, is far in excess, shall I say, of their responsibilities to the people of the Island. My point is that an elected Chamber should be the Chamber that governs. No question about this. The representatives of the people are the people who should govern. The experienced membership of the Upper House are the people there to provide the balances, the people there to provide the breathing space, if you like, that is required when wild decisions may be taken on the part of the elected membership. That is, after all, what a revising Chamber exists for. To provide the necessary brakes on any extremism, to check on the forms of law which may not be acceptable in a general sense to a community. Here, however, as we have advanced the authority of the House of Keys over the years, one finds I believe embodied in this the sort of demand that this pattern of evolution should not continue, that the House should step back and allow the Legislative Council to come in and govern more effectively than is the case today. I find this thought being reflected throughout this particular resolution and, to me, it is not an acceptable proposition. We must pay, I think, due regard to the fact that despite 1,000 years of government, our administration has not advanced to the extent that other and younger elements of the Commonwealth have advanced to. This disparity, if you like, must be made up and the House of Keys, whoever constitutes the membership of the House of Keys, must take over a greater and ever-increasing responsibility for Government. No question of that. So we come to the resolution. Bearing these points in mind, I agree that at this time, for instance, the first part is appropriate, that we continue for the time being with the two Branches as they are constituted today and in the present format, but when I look at part (2), I realise that part (2) has related to it its own limitations, that the Branches should meet separately for the purposes of dealing

Isle of Man Government —Constitution (by Adjournment)—Motion Amended and Agreed. TI302 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981

with legislation. Implicit in this is a barrier on the House of Keys considering other matters, dealing with resolutions, dealing with government, and you cannot talk of any- thing but legislation in your Chamber. If you are an elected member you would have to do that in the forum of Tynwald. That is a totally unacceptable proposition. If I am wrong on that I would be very interested to know. However, we go on to "Tynwald, with all members having equal rights". Frankly, at the moment I believe that the Council have rights far in excess of those that are possessed by members of the House of Keys. The vote of a Council member will carry much more power, if you like, than any individual vote cast in the House of Keys. But, Your Excellency, I do not see that they have equal rights as far as the Legislative Chamber is concerned, being the target, if you like, or the vision that we should be aiming for. Far from equal rights, the authority of the Legislative Chamber must diminish. No question about that. There is a place for an Upper House and it is not necessarily in the forefront of Government. Now we come again to part (4), "That His Execellency the Lieutenant-Governor should preside over this body." This is, of course, totally wrong. It stems from the Manx people's abhorrence of trusting anybody in their own community and you will find that it is because you cannot get a measure of agreement in the Bran'Cites that you continue, with respect, Your Excellency, with a Lieutenant-Governor presiding over this sort of assembly, when Governors should be relegated to their rightful place, and that is up the road. (Laughter and interruptions.) You get, Your Excellency, a position then where the House should not be considering Governors, as such, as their presiding officers, but there should be an appropriate official designated by the House presiding over it, and this, hon. members, will come when the House begins to accept responsibility. Now, Your Excellency, "the Legislative Council should become a body elected by popular franchise." Well, of course, here we are coming back to it, the power-sharing line. I would have thought that we had achieved a formula which was working fairly well, that there was little need for change unless, of course, the members of the Legis- lative Council were anxious not to maintain their role of, shall I say, the statesmen who were there to advise and guide, but rather when they want to get into the hurly-burly of the political scene and maintain that position. Now, to me, this is totally unacceptable. It would destroy the authority of the House of Keys, and no member of the House of Keys would subscribe, I believe, to that particular viewpoint. The Keys have traditionally, I would suggest, been the spokespeople for the people of the Isle of Man and 1 think it wants to be retained in that form. We come then to the Attorney-General and the Lord Bishop continuing to be members of the Legislative Council, In my view, certainly not. The Attorney-General is not, I believe, the person who should be sitting in the Legislative Council. He is the Attorney-General for the Manx Government and, as such, he may sit in Tynwald, I would suggest, but should at all times be available to both Branches — not the Legislative Council but available to the Keys in particular, and this is something that I feel we should be striving for. As for the Lord Bishop, well, the Bishop is an anachronism and the Bishop should go. There is no question about that.

A Member: Ex-officio.

The Speaker: Not even an ex-officio Bishop as far as I am concerned. There is no role here. We have the traditional baron line being perpetuated in a much more modern assembly now, and as far as any justification for a Bishop sitting in the Legislative Council, there can be none. If there is, well, I feel that the hon. member for Glenfaba's

Isle of Man Government—Constitution (by Adjournment)—Motion Amended and Agreed. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981 T1303

attempt to justify it can scarcely bear examination, and I am very firmly of the opinion that both the role of the Attorney-General and that of the Lord Bishop should be changed. Now we come to part (7), that we should be selecting on the basis of putting the best person into a particular job. Now, whereas you and I, hon. members, might say, "Ah, that is the best person," two other people might say that somebody else was the best person. It is very much a matter of opinion as to who is the best person for any particular job. But one thing I do believe is that the dominant roles in a Govern- ment such as ours must be carried by people who are elected by the people of this Island, and in that sense the House of Keys must take over more and more of the Government, not share it out with the Council on the grounds that they are "better men than we are Gunga Din." Would you be going on an election platform, hon. members, and saying, "Well, I come to you with apologies this afternoon, ladies and gentlemen"— or this evening—PI am not equal in competence to the gentlemen who will be occupying the seats of the Legislative Council but I will go there as second best to do what I can for you." Is that the sort of spirit you will be campaigning in in the days ahead? 1 doubt it very much. You will be contending that your abilities are equal to anyone else's, and who is to gainsay you? This is the point, hon. members. Once the public entrust you with responsibility then I believe that the members of the House of Keys have to discharge that responsibility. If guidance is forthcoming from members of the other Branch, as it rightly should be, that, I think, would be quite appropriate, but should we say, all right, we are all in this thing together and we must pay regard, and what is written in here or not written in here is for the experience of the members of the Legislative Council and give them all the plum posts in Government, the major respon- sibilities in Government, if you describe it as that? That would not be acceptable to me. I would at all times hold the belief that the House of Keys must take over the responsibility for all of the Boards of Tynwald as far as they can possibly man them, and if they cannot man them in their present form they should reduce the number of Boards and man them in that way. So, Your Excellency, I find much in this resolution quite detestable. The bits that I do find acceptable are probably not acceptable to many other members but that, of course, is something that time alone will tell, but I forecast today that the changes that I am seeking will be achieved long before the changes that the hon. member of the Legislative Council is seeking. Mr. P. Radcliffe: Your Excellency, 1 feel certain that this weekend if the press publish the debate that is taking place in this hon. Chamber today there will be greater demand for our local paper than there has been for some considerable time. At least the electorate will know in the future how they are going to be governed. My few comments today will be based on the fact that in 1979 I had the opportunity and the honour of representing the Isle of Man at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in New Zeland, and at that time I was amazed at the interest that was shown by certain Governments, or a majority of Governments, as to how the Isle of Man Government operated in a non-party policy, and I feel certain that the electorate of the Isle of Man today would say they have been extremely satisfied over many, many years with a system of government operating in the Isle of Man. I am putting that point basically in coming to part (5) of this resolution. I, myself, in my short experience on the Finance Board, have found that an awful lot of people who have come to the Isle of Man and estab- lished themselves either in the financial sector or in industry or in any sphere, I categorically will tell you without doubt that one of the reasons and the main reason

Isle of Man Government—Constitution (by Adjournment)—Motion Amended and Agreed. TI304 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981 that they look upon the Isle of Man as being a reasonable place to set down their roots is because of the stability.

Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. P. Radcliffe: And stability, in my estimation, can only come about by experience and 1 would honestly say that the people today and the House of Keys -- Mr. Speaker himself has referred to this situation — the House of Keys today have the situation of two constitutional changes where all the members, basically, in the Legislative Council are now put there by the Keys themselves, elected there by the Keys. I think the people of the Isle of Man would look askance at the situation where possibly you could have a whole Tynwald Court with over 50 per cent., similar to what we had, 50 per cent. changes in the House of Keys at the last Election, and you could have the whole of Tynwald Court made up maybe of 50 per cent, or more of new members, and I think they would be wondering whether or not they were going to get a continuation of a policy that has been satisfactory to the Isle of Man. I think we want to look very, very carefully indeed at the idea that members of the Legislative Council should be actually voted by popular franchise. It is the one point in this resolution. As the hon. mover says, there is very little change in all the other aspects of it, and I would like him to clarify for me where he says "the two Branches should meet as one body". I assume at the present moment, and always have assumed, that we do at the present moment meet as one body, or is he just suggesting that because the Legislative Council sit here and the Keys sit there we do not meet as one body? Surely we are going to accept that that is an argument worth considering. We do meet as a body, in my estimation, and we should continue to do so. But the main point I am making is that the Government of the Isle of Man over the last years has actually established for itself a reputation as being one of a Government of stability. Where you get a change of Government or a possibility of a change of party every five years, any member of the Government, all members will have had experience of knowing that members will say to them, well, by the time you are in for a five-year period, two years have gone before you have actually got anything established and the next consideration is that we are now facing another Election at the end of the five years, deciding what is suitable for the electorate them- selves. So the first two years you are only actually considering what you are going to do and the last two years you are considering what is popular for the electorate or you will not be re-elected. So, to me, 1 think you want to think very carefully about this situation because it is the one point of this resolution I will be opposing because I do feel that the Government of the Isle of Man has established itself a reputation that we should try to maintain.

Mr. Kermeen: Your Excellency, I think it is only right and proper that 1 should declare my credentials on a matter like this. Over the last 20 years, both as Clerk of Tynwald and Secretary of the House of Keys, I have been intimately associated with the conduct of business in this hon. Court. So if I do put my proposals forward, 1 do hope they will be accepted as they are, objective and deeply thought out. By chance, a contributor, I think, to the "Isle of Man Examiner" called "Commentator" raised this point, that because of increased activity, I will put it in that form, by the House of Keys there had been a rift opened between the two Branches. As a result, and very rarely do I do it, I wrote a letter to the "Examiner" setting out exactly what was happening

Isle of Man Government—Constitution (by Adjournment)---Motion Amended and Agreed. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981 T1305

and what might happen in the future. This was not in any sense, I can assure you, in any way orientated politically. It was that here we had some discord between the Branches apparent and how could we, in the interests of Government as a whole, get over it. 1 pointed out that although the 1919 Constitution Act said, in fact, that the Keys acting as an electoral college could elect anybody to the Council, in point of fact over those years, with one exception, they had always appointed from their own ranks. So we have this accepted view that when you elect a member here to the Council you are electing somebody with political experience, and so on, to take part as an elder statesman in the Upper revising Chamber of Government. Looking at the resolution, and I think it deserves very, very considerable examination, not just cursory examination, but deep thought, because what it proposes is a policy document on the constitution of Parliament in the Isle of Man. It is, in fact, something which nobody in Britain has tackled, a written constitution. The two Branches, the House of Keys and the Legislative Council, that has proved historically to be the right form of Government. The two Branches to meet separately for the purpose of dealing with legislation, and by implication, with legislation only. 1 think that the Keys, and we have not discussed this as a Branch, would feel very averse to considering whether their powers exercised through a Consul- tative Committee should in any way be curtailed. Two Branches meeting as one Branch to be known as Tynwald, with all members having equal rights without any dividing barriers to deal with all matters of finance and Government policy. Again, are we not, by accepting that, creating unknown problems in the future which will again inhibit the conduct and the good government of the Isle of Man in our business as a Legislature? His Excellency presiding, that has been settled and I am pretty certain will continue. In other words, there will be unanimous support of that and this is what is difficult about this resolution. Some of the proposals must be supported 100 per cent. Now again we come to part (5), what is, in fact, the constitution of a senate — a senate appointed and elected by the electorate in four different constituencies as yet undefined, and what trouble we will have in trying to define their constituencies. (Interruption.) Well, we had trouble in the Keys in defining what constituencies are. We have evolved in the Isle of Man our own form of parliamentary Government. I do not want to see us take on board something like the constitution of the United States where there is the State division. Ours are between the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. What has happened, the Senate in the Congress of the United States is smaller than the House of Representatives as, indeed, the Council will be smaller than the Keys, but it is the 'most powerful body in the whole of Congress, as we all know. So let us not delude ourselves that in seeking this sort of so-called progress we are going to achieve that progress. Now, that the Attorney-General and the Lord Bishop should continue to be members of the Legislative Council. Normally I respect and, indeed, support the hon. Jvlr. Speaker in his proposals and he sees the Lord Bishop as being somebody who is an anachronism. I would say it absolutely differently, that the Lord Bishop, and I know he is, of course, the leader of the Established Church and has been in that capacity appointed by the Crown, nevertheless, it is essential for us as a Legislature to have one person who is not directly responsible to the electorate, who is not subjected to poltical pressures, to put a contrary view on occasion, to express the moral rather than the political point of view in our assembly. I think we would make a very retrograde step if we ever at any time excluded the Lord Bishop, not only from the debates of our Chamber, but from taking an active part in the voting on it. Finally, of course, all Board or Committee Chair-

Isle of Man Government—Constitution (by Adjournment)—Motion Amended and Agreed. T1306 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981 men and members, on the basis of putting the best person in a particular job. There again, of course, who do we consider to be the best person in a particular job? Any one of us is given a job in Tynwald. I accept what job is given to me in Tynwald. I will do it to the best of my ability in Tynwald. Whether I am the best person in a particular job is im- material. I am an elected representative of the voters of West Douglas, and, as such, I can only do what it is within my capabilities to do. Whether I am the best person in a particular job is completely immaterial. So I do hope that this particular resolution will not be dealt with here, at one of our last sittings with the present House of Keys, in a cursory manner. I would like to see it, because there is a lot of virtue in some of these resolutions, go to the Committee which this hon. Court has appointed to deal with constitutional issues, of which the hon. mover of the resolution is a member, as I am, as Mr. Speaker is, because it would be given in Committee a duly unemotional consideration of all these points, and then come back to Tynwald, whether it is this Tynwald or the next Tynwald, and say, this is what we think is the way ahead. If we take inadvisedly and hastily a step now we may well live to regret it.

Mr. Delaney: Your Excellency, we have in front of us really a running buffet of a resolution. You can take your bits out of it, you can digest it and hope that it does you good at the end of the night and you feel well the following day. The last speaker, I think, emphasised that point. We might very well be going into dangerous waters and taking up something we do not very much want.

Mr. MacDonald: We are in them.

Mr. Delaney: We are. That is my answer to that. We are already in them. We have had before in this House three pieces of legislation to do with the constitutional make- up of this Government, and every one of those fell by the wayside because of personal matters or lack of interest. If we do not pursue this particular resolution now that is in front of us to a conclusion, and it is being moved by a member of the Upper House, and I might say straightaway that as far as I am concerned the Upper House have been nothing but good for the Isle of Man as it is presently constituted by the elected representatives, who have spent a long time down here learning the job and then have used the knowledge when they have got upstairs to benefit the new members of the Keys, albeit that they have as much right as the new members when they come into this Court. Surely it has proved successful, but like all political animals and bodies politic you can actually change and amend it to suit the modern day and the modern era. Many years ago I was aware of an anachronism that was inbuilt into the system of the Isle of Man which I could never understand and I do not believe the public will understand, or ever accepted for the last 50 years. It was mentioned by one speaker, and I think it was Mr. Speaker himself, that modern societies that got independence long after we had it, a form of independence, have gone ahead with having democracy. In the Isle of Man we try to pretend we have a democracy, and at the same time allow a situation to sustain itself within the body of this Chamber that is not democratic in any shape or form. We have a system where only two weeks ago a statement was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as he is often referred to, where he went away to our parent Government on the other side and he could not obtain a Minister, a person like you and me, elected, to talk to about the constitution and the financial arrangements of our community. And yet at the same time within this Chamber we have someone

Isle of Man Government—Constitution (by Adjournment)—Motion Amended and Agreed. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981 T1307

elected by the same body to vote alongside us, and who can just as much as you or me change the policies and the line this Government takes and the internal welfare of the Isle of Man by his vote. I believe that the Bishop of the Isle of Man should be in this Chamber, but I will never, ever accept, if you have a democracy you can have someone voting on it who is not voted in in some shape or form by the public, and by the adult suffrage of this community. It is not right. The hon. member for Glenfaba, I totally agree with in relation to the situation that occurred in relation to the Deemsters. I believe the Deemsters should be in this Chamber, in the Legislative Council. We need their advice. The only thing I disagreed with was them having a vote, being able to vote on the constitution and the legislation of this Island. You cannot be two things, the shopkeeper and the customer. Here we have a situation that at that time, if you read the debates on what happened in relation to the Deemsters, the Tynwald Court at that time did not have the courage to carry out their convictions, to clear out all the anachronisms that were there. I am moving an amendment in my name, Your Excel- lency, as follows:— In subsection (6), after the words "Legislative Council" delete the words "the Attorney-General being a non-voting member" and insert the words "both being non-voting members". Because, hon. members, 1 speak more or less not only to the Tynwald Chamber, but also to the members of the House of Keys. The situation that we had before in this Chamber, in November, if we allow the same system to occur in the next five years of this House, the House of Keys, we will be actually turning a blind eye to what you and I know to be wrong if we are talking about democracy. We talk about looking to the future, taking over more control of the Isle of Man. How can you do that and at the same time allow an undemocratic member to vote? Because unless you are elected to the Chamber, rightly or wrongly you might be elected, but you have been given that right to vote. I would not mind if Mrs. Thatcher was sitting in the Legislative Council, and all the Council, as long as they did not have a vote at the end of the day. All the advice we want, all the advice we need, but when it comes down to a system of putting legislation into operation, the only people who should vote on it are those people appointed by the public, otherwise we should all go out of this Chamber and just leave it to somebody to get on with, the same way as Mr. Amin and his colleagues in the minor States of Africa have done for the last 15 years. Mr. MacDonald: He abolished a bicameral Government. Mr. Delaney: That is right. We need a system where elected representatives vote for the people they represent. I hope hon. members will accept it in the good way put forward because I need the Bishop's advice when it comes to moral things, we all do. (Laughter.) But we do not need the Bishop's vote on legislation that affects our con- stituents and their future as far as the body politic is concerned. And I hope that members this time round will have the courage to do what I am asking in relation just to the voting, just to the voting remember, not to do with his position in the Legislative Council, just to the voting and the democratic system we all purport to support. A Member: I beg to second, Your Excellency. Mr. Simcocks: Your Excellency, I was interested to listen to the speech of the hon. Mr. Speaker earlier today when he declared his acceptance of a bicameral Government. What interested me more particularly was the fact that having said that, he then

Isle of Man Government—Constitution (by Adjournment)—Motion Amended and Agreed. T1308 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981 demonstrated very clearly that his idea of a bicameral Government was to have one Branch with all the power and another Branch which merely was, as the hon. and gallant member on my right used to say, free to agree. Mr. Speaker also went on to put forward the astonishing idea that the Legislative Council had greater power than had the House of Keys. I think it is only right that there should be something laid on the line over this, and that we should inspect what has gone on and what is behind what we are talking about today. You see, what the hon. member, Mr. Kneale, has put before us is a resolution which will bring out into the open what has been going on in a way which, whilst apparent to the Legislative Council and members of the House, is perhaps not entirely apparent to the general public who will be voting in a few months' time. Let us take the question of the Petition of the Douglas Corporation for leave to close a lane in Douglas. At that time it will be remembered, a debate started on the Petition and the House of Keys then exercised its undoubted right, its desirable right, to retire to its own Chamber in order to discuss the matter by itself. If matters had rested there and the House had gone to its own Chamber, had come to a decision and then resumed debate in the Tynwald Court, in the bicameral way which Mr. Speaker says he supports so much, if that is what had happened that would have been quite in accordance with the normal procedure of this Court. What actually happened was that the House, having retired to its own Chamber, decided it would act in a way calculated to exclude the Legislative Council from further discussion in the matter. It elected a Committee and the Committee then discussed the question of a Petition which was addressed to you, sir, and the rest of Tynwald. The House then appointed a Committee, the Committee investigated the matter and reported to the House, and the House then purported to come to a decision on that Committee's report. I am glad to say that the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Douglas must have realised that this par- ticular line of conduct was quite contrary to the normal procedures of our Government, and rightly rejected the decision of the House. But what we are seeing is not an outward and clear and open amendment of our constitution. What we are seeing is an under- ground attempt to leave the Legislative Council without any power whatever, without informing the people of the Island what is happening, creating a situation where the House of Keys will be the sole purveyor and exerciser of power. If that is what the people of the Island want, so be it, but I do feel that the people of the Isle of Man should be given the opportunity of seeing just what has been going on behind their backs. I believe that if the people of the Isle of Man realise that what has been happening is that the House of Keys has decided it is time that the constitution of this Island was ignored, and that the House took to itself powers which made it, as it were, an alternative Tynwald, if the people are aware of this and if they accept it, that is what I accept too. But I believe that it was not until this resolution was put down by the hon. member, Mr. Kneale, that an opportunity has occurred under which the people of the Island would be given a chance of finding out. No wonder the hon. Mr. Speaker wished to stifle debate co that this would not come out! But it is coming out, and as it is out I think I would like to take the opportunity of seeing just how much there is in the Speaker's suggestion that the House has got less power than the Legislative Council. Let us look at their powers here in the Court of Tynwald. If a resolution is passed by the House but not passed by the Council, then the resolution is lost, but the House has the opportunity of coming back in a month's time in order that Tynwald should vote by itself as one Chamber, and if a majority of Tynwald votes with the House,

Isle of Man Government —Constitution (by Adjournment)—Motion Amended and Agreed. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981 TI309 then the objection of the Council is overpowered. If, however, the Council say yes and the House say no, there is no opportunity for the Council to have a second bite at the cherry. Similarly, the provision for the House to retire into its own Chamber is a power which is unique to the House. I know of no such power available to the Council.

Mr. Irving: Do you want it?

Mr. Simcocks: Your Excellency, as there appears to be some difficulty in following, I am discussing the relative powers of the House and the Council, and whether or not the Speaker is justified in making what I regard as his wild suggestion that the Council has more power than the House of Keys. Now, having dealt with the question of the relative power within Tynwald, let us look at the situation concerning the Executive Council, an Executive Council which is becoming more and more an executive Branch of the Government, and more and more adopting the position of a Cabinet. Now, the House has a built-in majority of five to two in the Executive Council and, as such, it has a permanent five to two majority in putting forward recommendations to Tynwald. When we come to the question of legislation the hon. member for Rushen, Mr. Lowey, suggested that every stage of constitutional reform had been obtained inch by inch and against severe opposition. In point of fact that was so, perhaps, until the last stage, but the situation has now been reached that if a Bill is passed by the House of Keys and rejected by the Council, at the very next session the House can pass the Bill again and it will prevail over the objections of the Council. This is a position which the Council accepted. Previously it had been three sessions which had to elapse. In view of that, I would like to know just how Mr. Speaker is able to support his suggestion that the House does not have adequate power. The situation is this, that if the House wishes to and is sufficiently determined to put through its opinion, nothing that the Council can do can stop it. The only thing some members of the House are frightened of is that the greater experience of members of the Council gives them, perhaps, better power of debating and perhaps allows members to change their minds and vote on the merit, rather than on the instruction. But the fact of the matter is that so long as we regard the situation as it exists now, no one can in honesty say that the House lacks power, no one can in honesty say that the Legislative Council has too much power. The Legislative Council is here merely to act in the way in which the constitution directs them to act. On the question of the resolution, I, myself, take the view that the best way of con- sidering the Council is that it should continue to be elected in the way in which it is elected at the moment.

Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Simcocks: It is only because 1 am here as the result of having been elected by the House of Keys acting as an electoral college, it is only because of that that I accept the situation which I have just enunciated under which the Legislative Council has so much less power than has the House of Keys. If I were to stand for election to the Senate and get myself elected, I would certainly not accept any constitution which gave me any less power than anybody else who was elected, and I believe that the suggestion by Mr. Kneale that there should be a Senate form of Legislative Council is the road to constant friction and constant confrontation. I do agree with him on that. I believe that the Legislative Council should continue to be elected as it is at the moment, and consider that there should be no steps taken by the House, either overt or covert, to

Isle of Man Government—Constitution (by Adjournment)—Motion Amended and Agreed. T1310 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981 undermine the present constitutional position and relationship between the two Branches. I believe that it is a mistake for Question Time to have been started in the House of Keys. I do not deny the House the right to do so, but I consider that to have Question Time in a House which does not necessarily have all the Chairmen or the Chairmen in question in it, is a mistake, and I, too, feel that the question of the Bishop and the Attorney-General is one which should be left as it is. I noticed the hon. member for Douglas East, Mr. Delaney, suggested there was something wrong in the way that the Lord Bishop was allowed to vote. I have sat here throughout the life of this present House and I have observed the way in which the Bishop has voted, and I cannot remember a single occasion, there may be one, but I cannot remember a single occasion where the Lord Bishop has, in fact, voted against the House in Tynwald. (Interruption.) Well now, that may be, but I feel that if we are to have a legitimate objection, it should be an objection based on something a little more concrete than the sort of thing mentioned by Mr. Delaney. The fact is that the House has nothing to complain of in the way that the Lord Bishop has voted throughout the time of this present House. As for the Attorney-General, it was suggested that the Attorney-General is the Attorney- General for the Manx Government. I do not agree with that. He is not the Attorney-General for the Manx Government, he is Her Majesty's Attorney-General for the Isle of Man, and as such he is the legal adviser to you, Your Excellency, but he is not at the behest of the Branches of the Legislature. But I, myself, would be prepared to vote for all the items of this resolution except that I would not agree that the Legislative Council should be directly elected, because I believe that a directly elected Senate is nothing but a cause of dissension and dispute between the Branches. The Governor: Hon. members, the order of speaking after we resume will be the hon. member for East Douglas, Mr. Irving, followed by the hon. member for Peel, Dr. Moore, followed by the hon. member for Middle, Mr. Callin.

BILLS FOR SIGNATURE — REQUISITE SIGNATURES OBTAINED.

The Governor: 1 have to announce that the following Bills have been signed by a quorum of both Branches:— Board of Consumer Affairs Bill, Animals Bill, Civil Liability (Contribution) Bill, Employment Agencies (Amendment) Bill, Highway (Un- adopted Roads) (Amendment) Bill, Forestry, Mines and Lands Board (Constitution) Bill. We will adjourn until 2.30 p.m., hon. members.

ISLE OF MAN GOVERNMENT — CONSTITUTION — DEBATE CONTINUED. The Governor: We will continue our debate. The hon. member for East Douglas, Mr. Irving. Mr. Irving: Your Excellency, I have been interested for many years in the constitution of the Isle of Man and I think I have supported the reforms which we have had before us, but I must say that at the moment I seek no changes in the present constitution. But we know, of course, that our Manx constitution will continue to evolve, and we know,

Bills for Signature—Requisite Signatures Obtained. - Isle of Man Government —Constitution—Debate Continued. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981 T1311

too, that the dominant theme throughout all the changes will be the increased political power and responsibilities of the House of Keys. This has happened for years and years and will go on and on. And, of course, there will be at the same time plenty of con- stitutional checks and even more checks, perhaps, brought into operation. I would agree with part (1), that we have a bicameral Legislature, but with the proviso that the Keys are the predominant Branch. As for part (2), it would suggest, as hon. members have said, that the Branches could deal only with legislation. Now it may be that the hon. member who has put the motion before us will qualify this and say that it does not mean anything of the kind, it merely means that legislation would be dealt with separately in the approved Chambers. If it means that we cannot in the House of Keys deal with anything else but legislation or, indeed, even if the Legislative Council cannot deal with anything else but legislation, then of course I would be bound to oppose part (2). Part (3), when we talk about equal rights, since both Branches have not equal duties and equal responsibilities — and they have not — then they cannot, I believe, have equal rights. The hon. member of the Council, Mr. Simcocks, pointed out that the Council had no greater power than the Keys. It depends how one looks at this. Are you looking at the members individually or collectively? Let us look at the Branches collectively. Is it suggested that the Keys should have no greater power as a body than the Council? Is it suggested, for example, that the delaying power of the Council should go or be changed? Is it suggested that Standing Order 70 be changed to give equal rights? I would remind the hon. member of the Council, if you want to be precise about this, that the member in charge of the motion under Standing Order 70 can invoke the terms of the Standing Order. Now, of course, the Keys have to be in favour of the motion, but there is nothing to stop an hon. member of the Legislative Council invoking the terms of Standing Order 70 any more than there is for a member of the House of Keys. It is not going to be likely to happen, I agree. Is it suggested that the new Standing Order 69, in which the Lieutenant-Governor will give his casting vote for the Keys in the case of a disagreement — should that go to give equal rights? Is it suggested that the membership of the Selection Committee, six from the Keys and three from the Council, should be three each, or four each, or something like that? Is it suggested that the Executive Council membership should change, not five from the Keys and two from the Council? This really is involved in equal rights, and if we are going to have equality between the Branches, these advantages which the Keys have now would certainly have to go. In the case of part (4), I suppose that the Lieutenant-Governor presiding over Tynwald is not in accordance with modern democratic practice and theory, but I do believe that the people of the Isle of Man, for one reason or another, like the idea of a Lieutenant-Governor presiding over Tynwald.

Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Irving: And I believe that that has always been the feeling, certainly of a majority of this Court. Rightly or wrongly, whether it is right democratically or not, I believe the people of the Island want it. I do not think it matters very much, but what we do know is that some day, of course, it is going to change. The important proposal here is in part (5), that the Legislative Council should be elected. I have referred before in this Court to the two different situations of second Chambers; in the first case, that of the House of Lords in the United Kingdom, with very little power at all. Not elected by the people and very little power. On the other hand, the situation referred to by the

Isle of Man Government—Constitution—Debate Continued. T1312 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981

hon. member for West Douglas, Mr. Kermeen, that of the American Senate, two elected from each State with enormous powers. We have always said, certainly in the House of Keys, those who are elected by the people should have political power. So I say, if the Legislative Council is to be elected by the people, then it has got to have power. Now it cannot get the power from the office of the Lieutenant-Governor because that has already been changed. It can only get political power from the House of Keys, and this is quite contrary, I believe, to the wishes of hon. members of this House, that they should give up their powers as elected representatives of the people to the Legislative Council. I am quite amazed to see in front of me an amendment proposed by the hon. member for Rushen, a member of the Manx Labour Party, who would suggest that the second Chamber should be elected by the people, should have political power taken from the Keys. (Interruption.) This surprises me. It does not surprise me that the hon. member for Glenfaba, Mr. Anderson, who is never really in the forefront of constitu- tional reform should regret the absence of the Deemsters in the Council! Does the hon. member want to go back to the situation where we had Deemsters, Receiver-General, Water Bailiff, Archdeacon? Does he want to go back that far, or does he just want to go back to the state where we had two of them appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor? I cannot believe that the hon. member really wants to turn the clock back in terms of our constitution. The hon. member of Council, Mr. Simcocks, fears that the Keys want to change everything, get rid of the Council, cut their powers down to nothing, and will go against the traditional behaviour expected in Tynwald over the case of, I think it was the closure of Woodville Terrace Lane. I would remind the hon. member of the Keys' October revolution of 1959 or 1960.

Mr. Anderson: You were a young man then!

A Member: What happened?

Mr. Irving: He was too. The hon. member marched up and down 15 times in an afternoon from this Chamber to the Keys Chamber, opposed the Selection Committee proposals, and so on. That was a wonderful revolution. I am sure the hon. member is glad he took part in it, and hopes that members of this Court will never lose the revolutionary spirit. Now we come to part (6) concerning the Attorney-General and the Lord Bishop. The Attorney-General is a member of the Council and no longer has a vote. It is, of course, valuable to the Legislative Council to have the presence of the Attorney-General. We, in the House of Keys, have been fortunate recently on one or two occasions to have him there to explain and to advise us. I am a bit ambivalent about the position of the learned Attorney-General. What I feel is more important is the position of the Lord Bishop in the Legislative Council. It is always difficult in con- stitutional reform in this Court to discuss positions without considering the present occupants of the office and the present people involved. It makes it difficult. I remember many years ago when I wanted to get the Second Deemster out of the Council, I had to confess in this Court that he was probably the best member of the Council, but he had to go. Now, in the case of the present Lord Bishop — and I want to speak about the present Lord Bishop for a moment — I admire the way that the present Bishop has taken part in the work of this Court, the energy, the enthusiasm, the dedication he has shown in connection with the general work of this Court, but in particular the Board of Social Security and the Board of Education. All Bishops were not so enthusiastic. I

Isle of Man Government—Constitution—Debate Continued. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981 T1313

can recall Lord Bishops in this Island who took very little part in the work of Tynwald, but occupied a seat in the Legislative Council. That is not the case now, so it was easier before to say that the Lord Bishop should not be in the Legislative Council. Now, of course, one cannot help remembering personalities and appreciating how much the occupant of the position at the moment is doing. Nevertheless, I believe, yes, I believe that if the Lord Bishop of this Island is to be a member of the Legislative Council, he should be so elected by the House of Keys, not necessarily in an ex officio capacity. If we are talking in terms of democratic theory, I would say it would be difficult to justify his position there as an ex officio member. However, I would have thought that the House of Keys might feel that it was a good thing to have the Lord Bishop, or shall I go further and say, a Christian leader in the Council, and elect one. We are told, there are all sorts of considerations, we are told we might no longer be a diocese if the Lord Bishop was not in the Legislative Council. There are all sorts of considerations here. No one, I believe, is taking any action at the moment to do anything about them, but I still believe the theory is that if a Lord Bishop is in the Council he should be elected in the normal way by the members of the House of Keys. I certainly, I am afraid, cannot support the amendment of my hon. colleague. If a Lord Bishop is a member of the Legislative Council he should have all the rights, voting rights and speaking rights, of any other member. (Interruption.) Now the final one, part (7), the best person for the job. If we are going to carry this out, the best person for the job, why do we stick at Tynwald? Why does it have to be a member of Tynwald? If we are looking for the best person, shall we say, to be Chairman of the Finance Board, maybe we should invite the current Chairman of the Isle of Man Bank, or something like that. Why stick at Tynwald?

Mr. Cringle: They have not been elected, that is why.

The President of the Council: Accountability.

Mr. Irving: I am sure that the answer is that important posts in Government should be held by hon. members of the House of Keys, and I would always support that. If hon. members look around the rest of the Commonwealth, bicameral Legislatures, where are the persons who hold the important jobs? They are in the elected House, (Inter- ruption.) Therefore, I think this theory is perfectly just, perfectly proper, and that the important jobs in Government in the Isle of Man should be held in the House of Keys. The Speaker has referred to candidates at Election time. We really do not hear candidates at Election times saying, my policy is so-and-so, I am going to try and do this, if elected I will try and do that. They do not add, providing the Legislative Council members let me. They approach the people with the idea that they are going to be the Government of the Isle of Man. Mr. Speaker said that people in the Lower House should govern. That is not what worries me. What worries me is that people in the Lower House should want to govern, and I do not think they do. Quite frankly, in this particular House I do not think there is the desire, the enthusiasm, the sense of duty amongst members of the House of Keys —I am sorry to say this — which I have seen in other Houses, who realise their political responsibilities — the Speaker must know this — realise their political responsibilities and want to govern, want to take control. As I said earlier, there are all sorts of constitutional checks. But when we talk about the Legislative Council we must remember the policy which the United Kingdom

Isle of Man Government—Constitution—Debate Continued. T1314 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981

Government adopted for years, that throughout the Commonwealth and small depen- dencies, as in the Isle of Man, the will of Whitehall prevailed through a Lieutenant- Governor and a Legislative Council of persons probably appointed by Whitehall and certainly with allegiance, loyalty, to Whitehall. I believe that this was the way in which the United Kingdom Government controlled Government in many territories throughout the Commonwealth. We have seen in the Isle of Man over the years this change from a Council of officials to a Council of persons elected by the House of Keys. I like this system, I propose no change, but I make the reservation that I will strive as long as I am in the House of Keys to ensure that the House of Keys has the predominant position in the Government of the Isle of Man and accepts responsibility for the good government of the Island.

Dr. Moore: Your Excellency, all families have disagreements and the best thing is to bring them out into the open and talk about them, and I welcome this opportunity that members have to state where they stand. Just as in a family, it is usually agreed in these emancipated days that members of the family have equal importance but different roles, so do I believe the members of the two Chambers that make up this hon. Court, and I see no point in changing a system which has worked well for so many years. The common sense and stability which has been mentioned before today which Tynwald has shown so consistently owes a great deal to the present structure of counter- balances and so far, sir, I have heard no convincing arguments as to why we should change the way in which the Upper Chamber is elected. Change for its own sake is bad politics and very dangerous. If the Keys do not think the Council is doing its job as it should — if — they already have the remedy. They elect the Legislative Council. They certainly should and I believe they do elect their most experienced colleagues, and if you elect your best members to the Council it is then nonsense to say, now you must be down-graded in status. If we do not elect our best people to the Council, again it is only the Keys to blame, for we certainly should. The basic system of removing a number of able Councillors from the immediate local pressures of constituencies is of great value, particularly in the proximity to Elections, for they are better able, I believe, to consider issues with objectivity in the longer term interests of the Island, and long may it remain so.

Mr. Callin: Your Excellency, I rise to oppose the resolution, and 1 do so for many of the reasons that have been expressed here today, and I am thinking of the speeches that were made by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat and the hon. member of Council, Mr. Radcliffe, this morning. Now, as a member of the House of Keys Consultative Committee, I did not see anything sinister whatever in the memorandum which was circulated in the name of that Committee. It stated in paragraph 4: "The Committee is agreed that no change is warranted at this stage." I agree with this, I do not think either that change is warranted at this time. I have no wish to prolong this debate because I do not believe any real good will come out of it. I believe that we should all be pulling together and not dividing ourselves, family or otherwise, and the longer this debate goes on, I fear that is what is going to happen. We have already had amendments to the main resolution added to our list and I do not believe that they are in the best interests of this Government either. If we care to look, as other members have commented, on the various parts of the resolution, I, too, have no quarrels with parts (1) and (2); in fact, I support them. Parts (3) and (4), in fact, as far as part (4)

Isle of Man Government—Constitution—Debate Continued. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981 TI315 is concerned, no way would I agree that anyone was to preside over Tynwald other than His Excellency, for the very good reason that I have never met a person anywhere in the Isle of Man amongst the geneal electorate who has ever suggested otherwise, not to me. As far as part (5) is concerned, obviously, I cannot support part (5). Part (6), now I believe myself — we take the Attorney-General first — I believe it is essential that he is a member of the Legislative Council. I would also like to see him, and many members have said also, I would like to have the opportunity of his advice in the House of Keys as well as Tynwald, and I would in no way agree with the removal in any shape or form of the Attorney-General from the Legislative Council. The Lord Bishop, again, I fully support the position of the Lord Bishop as a full member of the Legis- lative Council, and again I do so for the very good reason that I believe he is an influence, a good influence, and again, I do not know whether I live in a different part of the Isle of Man from some of you, but again, nobody has ever suggested to me that he should not be. It has not been suggested to me, and until it is, until the day comes that people do suggest these changes, then I would want very, very good reasons for doing it, for making change. With regard to part (7), I think this is the sting in the tail. What we are really talking about you know, hon. members, today is the power game, that is what we are talking about, and despite the arguments that have been put forward, I believe in the power of Tynwald, and I think I have always said that. As far as I am concerned, when it comes to electing people to positions, if I am honoured to be back, I would always support the best man for the job. I wonder why this resolution was ever put forward in the first place and I have asked myself, could it have been promoted out of mistrust or fear of the Keys and, if so, let us have it spelt out properly because I have, myself, apart from individual comments, I have seen no real effort being made to give cause for any real concern. As far as I am concerned, this Govern- ment has worked very well for a long number of years and I think it is up to us to protect something that we have got that is very valuable, and not upset things.

Mr. Lowey: Your Excellency, I rise, and 1 make no apology for supporting the resolution as printed with the amendment that I proposed to part (5), which reads as follows: Delete part (5) and substitute therefor: "(5) that the Legislative Council should become a body elected by full adult suffrage." I have not heard a lot of what I can only describe as artificial anger being whipped up on both sides, because I really do not think at the end of the day that there is this animosity between them and us, the Legislative Council and the Keys. I look forward to the day when this Chamber itself can be restructured to get rid of the upper shelf and us all, if you like, on a level footing. I would take issue with the hon. member for Middle when he says, the very last thing he says, that he thinks the power of Tynwald is paramount. Well it is a fact that when one stands for election you do not stand for election to Tynwald, you are elected as a member of the House of Keys. Now if the Legislative Council is to be elected, I think it is quite within the parameter, if you like, to be called a member of Tynwald Court, an election to Tynwald Court. There can be no doubt, hon. members, that election to both Branches is desirable and it has been mentioned by the President of the Council that word — "accountability". There is no doubt at all that at the heel of the hunt it is accountability to the people. I am rather surprised at the lack of revolutionary zeal that the hon. member, the leader, if you like,

Isle of Man Government—Constitution--Debate Continued. T1316 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981 of the Isle of Man Government, the Chairman of Executive Council, has displayed this afternoon.

Mr. Irving: Bland?

Mr. Lowey: Not bland, it is decidedly middle-aged. (Laughter.) 1 find it strange that the leader is blaming the troops for the lack of leadership. However, I do believe myself that at the end of the day it is not about us as individuals, it is about the people we represent. Any authority that we exercise here in this Court, the strength of that derives from the people we represent and they, in Government, are accountable. We have talked this morning really about the roles of the Legislative Council and the House of Keys. There is no disagreement at all between any of us on the role that they play in legisla- tive matters, that is, when we discuss Bills and debate them and amend them and send them for revision. There is no disagreement at all, I think, with any of us on that score. They have a role to do and they do it well and I look forward to a healthy, and my word, they look disgustingly healthy, robust, and they are robust, because this resolution is in the name of one of the members of the Legislative Council, and thinking men up there. I look forward to the day when women will actually be represented up there too. There is no disagreement there with us. The disagreement actually arises when we come into this Chamber. Now, whether we like it or whether we do not, this Chamber is rather unique. If there is another Government in the Commonwealth that exercises the format that we do here in Tynwald, I am afraid I am not aware of it. It is a good Chamber, it is ideal for Manx conditions to have Tynwald Court, and I support it, but there is no doubt at all that the Legislative Council, combining with a minority of the elected members in the Lower House, can actually defeat. You can delay. Both Branches, we debate together, but let us remind ourselves, we vote separately. Failing both Branches agreeing, the motion is lost. However, if a majority of the members here then voted for it, we can then call for a joint vote, but hon. members, that can very well be overturned, majorities become minorities in the space of a month. To my knowledge I do not think it has happened but it could happen. You may wonder why I am waving this piece of paper around. I will come to that. This piece of paper happens to be what, it is looking pretty mangy now after five years, but we, when we go before the people, ask our electorate and tell our electorate what we propose to do, and this really is part of what was said by the hon. Chairman of Executive Council. He said we do not tell the people that we will do that subject to the approval of the Legislative Council. Let me tell you, well, I speak for myself, but my friends, my colleagues from Rushen, know that we do talk of these things. My election manifesto was quite clear last time on constitutional reform, it got a whole paragraph to itself, and I will read you the whole paragraph because it shows that you can change. (Interruption.) No, it will be different. (Laughter.) "Constitutional reform. This is a continuing process." — who would disagree with that? "We need reform of both the Upper and Lower Houses of Tynwald and the introduction of single-seat constituencies in the Keys."

Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Lowey: "And a democratically elected Legislative Council."

Members: Hear, hear.

Isle of Man Government—Constitution--Dehate Continued. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981 T1317

Mr. Lowey: "I also want the self-assumed powers of the Finance Board and the Executive Council to be curtailed." (Laughter.) That is what I said. Change from the Executive Council to be curtailed has gone completely the other way, I want them to be strengthened. That is, if you like, in the light of experience.

Mr. MacDonald: If you are not careful you will be put up here. (Laughter.)

Mr. Lowey: The self-assumed powers of the Finance Board, I think they have changed dramatically in the last five years from being, if I dare say it, autocratic to democratic. I have full confidence in the Finance Board at the moment as constituted and the way they perform their duties. I then come back to what I would call the cardinal position regarding the elected Legislative Council. I do believe that we do need, as I said, a strong, robust and effective second Chamber and I believe we can get that by election, I really do believe. We get it by a form of selection now. It has been said that we pick our best men. They certainly are the most experienced men that I have seen in this Court for many a time sitting up there, they really are, but I do not believe in every instance the most senior men are the best men to be serving up there and, there- fore, I do believe myself it is accountability that we come back to. I believe the people have a right when their votes, remember, their votes equal those of the elected repre- sentatives and I do believe that that is the cardinal point as far as I am concerned in this whole resolution. Parts (1) and (2), as I say, I have no objection to. Part (3), to meet in Tynwald, members having equal rights, again I would agree with that wholeheartedly. His Excellency to preside over us. I have no doubt at all, and this is where I state quite clearly my complete satisfaction with Lieutenant-Governors presiding over Tynwald Court. I cannot for the life of me see, when we have got satisfaction, why we should change. On that particular one I have no doubt at all. Now, that the Legislative Council should become a body elected, as I say in my resolution, by full adult suffrage. I stop there, Your Excellency, because I do not personally believe that the area can be divided the way in which it is said in the resolution and what I am after today is a declaratory resolution of principle. The mechanics, I think, can be left to legislation. I do not believe that dividing it, one from the west, two from the north, two from the south and three from the east is the right way of doing it. The correct way, I concede, I do not know myself at this moment in time but the formula can easily be done and so, therefore, I would urge the Court to support my amendment, if you like, to simplify the resolution, to get the principle right, and then we can work out the mechanics. It would be easy for me to slip over part (6). It is very unfortunate that somehow we, at the end of the day, come back to personalities but I believe the Attorney-General, as a servant of both Branches, because the Attorney-General has appeared in the House of Keys and I, personally, have expressed the view that he should appear more often in the House of Keys, and I think, as such, he has played a constructive part in the debates that we have had in this Court, very helpful all the way along the line, and therefore 1 believe his role is clear, precise and unchallengeable. I believe he should be in this Court, take part in our debates, but I am equally certain that the office of the Attorney-General should not, I repeat, not, carry a vote. I then come to the really thorny one, the Bishop's role. I could say the present incumbent is — that is a cold word, because he is a friend to every one of us, and therefore it would be easy to, if you like, blend the friend to the position. I believe the Bishop, any Bishop of Sodor and Man, has a part to play in our debates, but I then have to face the possibility, where and how does he fit in? I

Isle of Man Government—Constitution—Debate Continued. TI318 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981

believe myself, after long thought, that the Lord Bishop should be a member of this Court without voting rights. I think the influence that he should exert in debate would be equally strong. If I follow the logic of my learned friend, the hon. member of Council, Mr. Simcocks, this morning, when he said, in the last five years our Bishop actually never voted contrary to the wishes of the House of Keys, all I can say to that is that that is the one argument that I would put forward for removing the Bishop if he was just acting as a cipher, but the one thing we know of our present Lord Bishop is that he is not a cipher, he is a man of principle who speaks his mind. But, on reflec- tion, I think it would be in the best interests of the Bishop to be a member of this Court and a full member of Tynwald outside on the Boards, but not voting in this Court. I believe that the last paragraph, far from being mischievous, I hope actually spells out what is happening now; in other words, the talent that is available to us is used to the full advantage. It is an amazing fact that the most powerful political post in the Manx Government is undoubtedly the Chairman of the Finance Board and it comes as no surprise that we have sitting up in the Legislative Council the Chairman of Finance Board. This House elected him there. We did not elect him there blind in the knowledge that somehow he would do the job less ably or less well because he was sitting up there, but we, as a House of Keys, if you like, put our best man there because we thought we were doing the right thing by the people of the Isle of Man, and I believe we were. If you go along the whole Legislative Council, every one of those gentlemen is actually in a very important position in the Manx Government. There is nothing second eleven about them, so when I hear this debate that somehow they are to be demoted, that somehow they have not an effective part to play, I refute it emphatically, they have an important part to play. But I come back to part (5), and that is, the accountability of anybody who votes in this Court should be directly to the people, there is no doubt at all in my mind. I would support the resolution with the amendment to part (5) standing in my name.

Mr. Delaney: I beg to second the amendment.

The Governor: I am sure the Lord Bishop is a very delighted that one thing he has not been referred to is a cardinal point. (Laughter.)

Mrs. Christian: Your Excellency, one of the points which occurred to me in relation to this resolution was that we may very well end up with a very considerable number of probable alternatives, as each single one of us would have different ideas, possibly, as to how constitutional change should occur, but as they have been set out in quite a specific form we have to put our minds to them in the way they have been presented on the Agenda. So far as the first part is concerned, it almost hardly needs to be there because I feel that where no change is being proposed it should not really be on the Agenda Paper. I do not believe anybody here would feel that the Government of the Isle of Man should not consist of two Branches, the House of Keys and Legislative Council. On the second point, this is one where it has clearly been indicated by other members speaking today that it does not tell the whole story. On the face of it it seems quite innocuous, that the two Branches should meet separately for the purpose of dealing with legislation, probably no one would quarrel with that, but does it, in fact, go beyond that, as has been suggested by the hon. member for East Douglas, Mr. Irving? Would it prevent us from hearing questions and discussing resolutions of a declaratory

Isle of Man Government—Constitution—Debate Continued. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981 T1319

nature in our own Branches? If this is so then we certainly could not support it. Part (3), "that the two Branches should meet as one body, to be known as Tynwald, with all members having equal rights without any dividing barriers." Does this mean that we should vote as one body on every issue? Would the House of Keys not vote separately? If that were the case we would be making a very considerable constitutional change, in my view, and I would not be happy to support it without looking into the further implications of what again seems to be a fairly innocuous suggestion. His Excellency the Lieutenant-Governor should preside. I feel that under the present circumstances when we have had considerable constitutional reform, this is probably how we would be happy to continue for some time to come. However, that is not to say that in the future we would not wish to change this situation. Having just, under the auspices of the Com- monwealth Parliamentary Association, visited another small island, I was interested to note that their presiding officer is appointed in a very different way and it might well be that in the future we will consider that for our own Court. The most important point probably here is in connection with the election of the Legislative Council. It is suggested that it be elected on a popular franchise basis, from the four areas of the Island. The point made by the hon. member of Council this morning, Mr. Radcliffe, that what is important in the Isle of Man is stability, is one that should be borne in mind most seriously because, in my view, the great value of the Legislative Council is that it carries with it a tremendous amount of experience and if we are to go to a situation where the Legislative Council is elected without any reference to any, shall I say, qualifying standard, without any requirement that they should have had some political experience in the House of Keys, that would, to my mind, be a retrograde step. If the hon. member for Rushen, Mr. Lowey, had suggested perhaps that they be elected by adult suffrage from the House of Keys, I might have felt that was something that I could support. But in so far as I feel that our Legislative Council needs men who have had some experience in the Lower House, I do not believe that they should be elected by popular franchise without that kind of qualification. In addition to that I think it would be detrimental to have a Legislative Council with, shall we say, regional responsibility. To my mind, the members of the Legislative Council generally, well, do behave in a statesmanlike manner and despatch themselves from, shall we say, their roots.

A Member: The parish pump.

Mrs. Christian: Yes, from the parish pump. 1 believe it is their duty so to do and if we have a regionally voted Legislative Council we would see a change in the Legisla- tive Council's attitude, perhaps, towards its various responsibilities and it is not a change that I think would be to our advantage in an island situation. The Attorney-General and Lord Bishop should continue to be members of the Legislative Council. That is some- thing with which I do not disagree, and again I would state that I am not talking about personalities here but officers. We are all aware of the contribution which is made by the present Lord Bishop and it is one which I would say has been a very considerable one, but I have always held the view that the members of the Legislative Council should have had some mandate from the people, either in the first place when they were elected to the House of Keys or elected from the House by the representatives of the people to the Legislative Council. As the only person on the Council with voting power who does not have a mandate in that way, I feel that the position of the Lord Bishop should be changed so that we can have the benefit of his experience and guidance but that he

Isle of Man Government—Constitution —Debate Continued. T1320 TYNWALD COURT. JUNE 16, 1981

should not be a voting member. One might even take the broader view that a representative of the Church on the Legislative Council need not necessarily be a representative of the Established Church, but might be elected from the Churches in general within the Island. That all Board or Committee Chairmen, and members of such bodies, should be elected on the basis of putting the best person in a particular job would, to me, depend on the constitutional changes that take place. If we had a Legislative Council that was elected by the people then I feel it would be reasonable that they should take some form of responsibility as Board Chairmen, but while we continue to have a Legislative Council that is not elected by the people, I feel that the job of Government should lie principally with the House of Keys. Dr. Mann: Your Excellency, I feel we are getting into a very difficult situation this afternoon and we will get deeper and deeper into this difficult situation unless we go back to the very beginning as to why this issue first arose. The issue really arose about a different Council altogether, although it now has become an issue of the Legislative Council. If we go back in terms of history, of course, the Legislative Council was the household of the Lord, and Your Excellency, being the Lord, at that time would have sat down to breakfast with all of these gentlemen every day of the week, and nobody has yet asked you whether you would like still so to do. (Laughter.) In fact, nobody has really considered your position in the matter at all. But I think this whole debate arose in the very first place from a debate in the House of Keys when consideration was given to constitutional changes and to the changes in the Standing Orders, and at that time two comments were made about the House of Keys being the powerhouse of the Isle of Man and it was very unfortunate that those two comments were taken out of context and given a lot of abnormal publicity because, in fact, what was trying to be said at that time was that up until then the Government was represented by yourself as head of Executive Council, who were in an advisory capacity, and in the changes that occurred recently, which have resulted in the more viceregal role of Your Excellency, the actual executive power of the Council has increased considerably. It is the way in which that power of Executive Council should be used in the future that I think sparked off this entire debate, because in every other jurisdiction where the United Kingdom has seen fit to withdraw the head of Government and allow the elected representatives to assume that power, it has always been replaced by the Cabinet form of Government and it is this failure to achieve a Cabinet form of Government quickly which has probably been slowed down by the lack of political parties, but it is not necessarily held up by the lack of political parties. It is this that has got to be corrected first and it is this that is the source of the reaction of the Legislative Council. If Executive Council becomes a true Cabinet, as it should, I feel, and must, within a very short time, then most of the jobs, most of the Chairmen of most of the Boards will inevitably come from the House of Keys, and it was this basis that sparked off the comments that this was the powerhouse of the Manx Government. No attempt at that time was being made to either alter the existing status or powers of the Legislative Council. I know at that time there were odd jibes that, in fact, the members were not directly elected and, therefore, did not have the same standing, but that was not in any of the serious speeches that were made to try and identify the way forward in the constitution of Executive Council. As a result of this reaction we now have a proposal which the Advisory Committee of the Keys quite genuinely thought was wrong. Now, it did not advise the course of action taken this morning by the hon. Mr. Speaker, who has every right to do as he

Isle of Man Government—Constitution—Debate Continued. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981 T1321 thinks fit. It advised the members of the Keys that it thought, in general, this resolution was wrong, certainly at this particular time. It should have gone a bit further than that because now that this resolution is being debated, the individual parts of this resolution are wrong, they are legally wrong in one or two quite definite points. We will shortly be asked to vote for or against each individual part of this resolution, and this is an extremely dangerous situation in which I would urge members at this moment to stick to the status quo until some alternative way is found out of this situation. We have many amendments down and it is a sure sign that the original resolution is wrong. I would suggest as we go through each of these individual items that at this particular moment we stick to the status quo because some of the things that are expressed in each part are incorrect, and it should have been the job, we should have had a further meeting with the Advisory Committee, in my view, to actually spell out exactly what was wrong with each individual part. The first part is wrong by definition anyway, and the second one already has been exposed to the criticism that it may, in fact, restrict in future the activities of the Keys and, for that matter, any further development in the functions of the Legislative Council. As far as two Branches meeting to be known as Tynwald, nobody would deny the fact that the two bodies should continue to meet as Tynwald, but if we are not going to have any dividing barriers then that wooden bench should disappear to start with and, in fact, everybody should be sitting on the same level, side by side. Certainly nobody challenges the position of yourself, the Lieutenant-Governor, presiding over this body. When it comes to the election, there are so many different ways in which this could be done that at this particular moment also I think we should stick to the status quo. I notice the original amendment which did suggest that all members of Tynwald should be elected as members of Tynwald is probably the true, genuine Norse way of dealing with this Assembly but even that, at this particular moment, would have some objections that have not been gone into fully. I would, at this particular moment, urge everybody to not seek the election of individual members of the Legislative Council until this has been looked at further. I do not say %that that is not desirable in the future but this afternoon I think it is very desirable that we do not alter the system. The very fact that we are now exposing the position of the Attorney-General and the Lord Bishop, suddenly out of the blue, is wrong as well. If ever the Diocese of Sodor and Man has a right to be here for sheer historic reasons, that nobody seems to have recognised up to date, that alone is reason enough that the present status quo should continue. I do not think for one moment that anybody would question the Attorney-General being in a similar position to his present one in the Legislative Council at the moment. To make a snap decision this afternoon on a thing of that importance I think also is wrong. As far as the last is concerned, that will be the subject of later resolutions; I do not know whether today or in the future. Nobody will ever agree that anybody is doing the job best suited to themselves, least often the person who is doing it. That really is a load of nonsense. Now let us get down to serious common sense. What we are talking this afternoon is very dangerous indeed. We must try to get back to the situation that existed before this imaginary fight between the two Branches began, because the imaginary fight was never real. It is not real at this moment, there is no aggression between the two Branches. There may be occasional disagreements but nobody is claiming that there is a fight going on, so let us just think and go back. It started on the wrong foot for the wrong reason and

Isle of Man Government—Constitution—Debate Continued. T1322 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981 it has gone too far. Let us go back to the status quo and think again on this in a calm and peaceful attitude some time in the future.

Mr. Watterson: Your Excellency, to an experienced observer of this debate and this hon. Court, they must notice a considerable comparison between the pre-MacMillan wind-of-change days in African Parliaments and the Tynwald of today. (Interruption and laughter.) When I was elected to this Parliament of the Isle of Man, I was aware that also with it were duties as far as the Isle of Man Government was concerned. 1 think it is necessary to say that because it is not always obvious to many people outside this Island that the two offices are combined. In most other countries they are two completely separate issues. But what I would like to know is, do we actually have a Government, a true Government in the Isle of Man, or do we have a classic colonial administration, or do we have, as the learned Attorney-General once said to me in a letter on a completely different issue, Tynwald as an administrative assembly? Now these questions are valid when we are considering the item that is before us this morning because we have heard frequently from various parts of this Court that there is, in some places, a public desire for change in the way that the Council is elected and the way that the Council works — the Legislative Council that is. Now, quite honestly, I would question that in most sources because many of the public, I find, dishearteningly sometimes, do not know the differences between the House of Keys and Tynwald or the Legislative Council, never mind if they want changes. I feel that perhaps this motion this morning, and I feel it is indicative of something, that it is not brought forward by a member of the Keys but it is brought forward by a member of the Council. Perhaps they may feel a threat within the Council and it is quite true that occasionally the Council is often blamed for thwarting by one means or another the wishes and desires of the electorate in the actions of members of the Keys, perhaps through their experience or their political skill. I do not know whether that is so or not, but if those points are valid then what is the solution and is the solution in this particular item on the Agenda? Does it have any merit? I also know that one member of the Council once said to me that they would far rather go to the electorate to be re-elected than go back to the Keys for re-election. So maybe there is a whole series of reasons behind this. 1 think we are in danger, and danger was the word used by the hon. member for Garff, danger of over-reaction this afternoon. The hon. member for Council said that in Africa they very much over-reacted and I think that, nevertheless, we must be extremely careful not to over-react, and whilst trying to maintain the stability which has been talked of earlier on, we must be very careful that we do not go stagnant as well, because inactivity can be just as dangerous. Therefore, we have been asked to stand up and be counted on the seven items that are on this motion today, and based on those reasons I would reply as follows. Yes, the Government of the Isle of Man should continue to be in two Branches, I am extremely happy with that. If they continued to meet separately then I cannot vote for part (2) because I think it is too restrictive. The different Branches must have a far wider sphere of activity than could be deemed to be given in that item there. The two Branches should meet as one body. Well, we do meet as one body and, in fact, the dividing barriers are not all that big when you think about it. I am not too sure whether that is any real reason for declaring it in a resolution of this nature. That His Excellency should continue to preside over this body. Well, we have heard views from the public to say that there is no wish for a change in that either. I have heard views to the contrary, that there is a wish for change, but Iwould willingly agree

Isle of Man Government—Constitution—Debate Continued. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981 T1323 that the majority of the people would wish for that to continue as it is at the moment. But we do have to remember, if you look in American commercial terms, there is a considerable difference between the Chairman and the Chairman of the Board in a particular company, if you think about the differences in those two words for a moment. Therefore, I would be extremely happy in a viceregal role for His Excellency to continue in the role of Chairman of the meetings of Tynwald. But, however, as far as electing the Legislative Council is concerned, there are two arguments there based on the first part, whether they should have more power or whether they should have less power, but certainly if you elect them by public franchise then you are putting all people in a position where they are entilted to be able to do some of the things which will undoubtedly diminish the power of the Keys, and we all know the arguments and discussions we have had in the past where you have a publicly-elected Board of Education which can lead to certain difficulties at certain times. So I would think that before we agree on such a wide-sweeping motion as that, to agree to elect members of Legislative Council, publicly elect them, then a great deal of work has to be done and one could not vote against that now. Part (6) is a very difficult one. I made reference earlier on to the Isle of Man and our administration. We all know the way it stands, that Tynwald, the House of Keys and the Legislative Council, and the Crown as the legislative side of the Isle of Man, and Tynwald in this capacity, if you like, as an administrative assembly, are responsible for the internal activities of the Isle of Man, even if the Royal Assent has to be obtained from without, and the United Kingdom Government acts on our behalf at an international level, but all members surely must realise by now that international events are affecting us so considerably domestically that we can no longer divorce the two in the way that we have done in the past. They overlap each other so much. The Attorney-General, and I must stress this point now, that when referring to both the Attorney-General and the Lord Bishop, 1 am dealing with the office and not the individual. We so often tend to think of individuals when we are referring to the office. The Attorney-General, whoever he is in the Isle of Man, I would like to know in the future with our relationship with Whitehall, with the fact that the Attorney-General is a Crown appointment, and with the fact that they are responsible for our external affairs, before we start passing declaratory resolutions on whether the Attorney-General should be a permanent member of the Legislative Council, I would like to see the relationship as to whose Attorney-General future Attorney- Generals will be, and exactly what the relationship is. However, I would fully agree that the Attorney-General is very welcome in both Branches for the considerable experience and advice that can be brought forward. But that is the word — advice. In the case of the Attorney-General, he does not have a vote. We can take his advice or we cannot take his advice, as the case may be, but when we come to the Lord Bishop, another Crown appointment, that is something different to me. I feel, in principle it is wrong that an individual can be appointed — and he does not necessarily have to know anything about the Isle of Man before the appointment — can be appointed to the Government of this Isle of Man, and who goes on permanently, it is for ever. Even members of the Legislative Council have some termination in their period of office where the Bishop does not; an everlasting vote, if you like, and I believe that that is wrong. However, I am not against a religious voice being in the Legislative Council, and I would suggest that either the Lord Bishop should not have a vote in the fairly foreseeable future, or his office should be filled on a regular basis by an appointment,

Isle of Man Government—Constitution—Debate Continued. T1324 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981 be it by the Council of Churches, be it by whatever, because there does seem an, anachronism as well in having a person permanently within this legislative assembly representing one part of the religious picture when there are many other people who between them may actually make the majority. So the final point is on part (7). Again, well, to a certain degree that goes without saying, but that statement, I think, has been caused by a vacuum within Executive Council at the moment. I am not suggesting that this is the particular fault of the current Executive Council but the situation that sur- rounds it, and we find that now the Chairman of Executive Council will be appointed by Executive Council, and obviously as things will progress there will be, if you like, a little more political patronage and we will be ending up with a form of Cabinet Govern- ment as opposed to the method that we have adopted in the past, and I think we will have to let that take its course because I would detect that whether the Council has the best men for the job or not, by sheer political expediency, unless the Council is fully elected as suggested here, members will be drawn first from the Keys, and so it should be. So, Your Excellency, I think that what I am saying here is that this situation, whatever the reasons, and one can understand some of the reasons, I believe it is highly dangerous at the moment. We have a variety of other issues to deal with before we get down to this. It is all very well the hon. Chairman of Executive Council referring to members of the Keys not wishing to govern, but with reference to my points about international and domestic legislation, there are many times when members of the Keys over the past four or five years would have liked something to have been done and because of the international situation have been almost powerless to effect that issue, and I would like to see that before we start tinkering around with the set up of Tynwald, we have to establish what the role of Tynwald as a whole will be in the next five to 10 years, both on a domestic and international basis, and having established that, then look at the make-up and the constitution within our ranks and decide the best way to set it up to deal with the situation that is at that time. But at the moment, this is an ad hoc measure which does all sorts of tinkering around and we are totally unaware of the potential results of this. We must wait, this is completely the wrong time. With the exception of part (1). which is fairly straightforward. I am afraid I must vote against all the other six. Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, 1 rise as an unashamed supporter of the staus quo of Tynwald as it exists at the moment, and I will vote against the resolution. That Tynwald should continue to be presided over by an independent presiding officer is obviously straightforward. It is my opinion that there are not enough elected members of Govern- ment, that we are too few to allow one of our members to fill that role, even if one was prepared to maintain an isolated and non-functioning role that would be necessary. I would much prefer that the Lieutenant-Governor continue in that office, and if constitu- tional change is necessary in that direction, and I believe it will be within the next decade, then I think I would like to see a Governor who is appointed or elected from within the Isle of Man. There is no question in my mind that the House of Keys will remain the major shareholder of power in Manx politics, and should remain so. The prime mover of legislation, it should contain the major chairmanships, and it should do so because the Keys are directly accountable to the people. I think it is quite simple, quite straightforward and quite right that that be the case. The Question Time that has been introduced into the House of Keys is the natural evolution. It is one that I support and, of course, the House must be free to debate matters of public importance as its

Isle of Man Government—Constitution—Debate Continued. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981 T1325 members see fit. It cannot be confined to one half of legislation. I would support the continuation of the Legislative Council as a revising body in the main, and as an important constituent of Tynwald, utilising its experience, if you like, as a stabilising body. If its function as a revising body is not stimulating enough to members, then they must be free to decide whether or not to stand for election to that body, and if already there, if then the work is not stimulating enough, they should resign and stand for election to the House of Keys. As a revising Chamber, and I think that should be the main purpose of the Legislative Council in its own right, I support its continued election by the House of Keys and as long as that situation prevails then its composition may remain as it is at the moment. If perchance it becomes a popularly elected body, and I would oppose that, certainly at this stage I would oppose that, then there would have to be a whole change in its composition, and I do not think we would be talking about whether or not the Lord Bishop or the Attorney-General had a place in the Council. There would be many more basic changes than that necessary. As I say, I would not support a popularly elected Legislative Council because if I did I would be bound to agree their right to more of the functions of the elected members, and at this stage I would not do that. Finally, Your Excellency, I would say that if constitutional change is needed at this moment then it is not in here we should be looking. There are far more anomalies in the constituencies, in the straightforward representation of the people of the Isle of Man, that we must put right before we turn our attentions here. Mr. J. N. Radcliffe: Your Excellency, I am going to add my voice to the voices that have come in later in the debate pleading to retain the status quo, and I see no demand at all for these resolutions that we have before us today. I want to touch just briefly on part (6) of the resolution regarding the Attorney-General and the Lord Bishop. Her Majesty's Attorney-General's advice and experience and expertise are, I think, invaluable to the Court and he is an essential part of the Upper Bench. My Lord Bishop's role, we do not always agree, but I think historically and as the leader of the Established Church he has every right to be there. The right to vote, perhaps, is a different thing but I do think that his voice should be heard. In fact, we will probably hear it on one of the resolutions that is coming up later on this afternoon, if we ever get to it. I defend the Lord Bishop's position as a member of the Legislative Council. Part (7), that all Board or Committee Chairmen and members, and so on, should be on the basis of putting the best person in a particular job, that will be no change, surely. I think it has been the policy of the Selection Committee, whoever they have been, to always do that, regardless of whether the people come from the upper or the lower benches. But what I do wish to say a few words on is part (5) of the resolution. I feel, sir, that if members of Legislative Council were elected by popular franchise, their role in this Chamber, in fact, in the Government of the Isle of Man, would change completely. At the moment they are, as hon. members have said, a revision body, one could say, and their experience is invaluable on occasions. We have occasions when an ebullient House here can be, I should not perhaps say misled, but in their enthusiasm they can get carried away, and the Council will then look at it, what- ever that piece of legislation may be, and they will amend, alter, in other words, put the brake on things a little bit. They cannot delay it indefinitely but they can allow time for a cool look again. I would say that the role they have now, if they were an elected Council they would never accept that role, I am sure they would not. They would never accept the position as elected members, elected by popular franchise, that the Keys were

Isle of Man Government—Constitution—Debate Continued. T1326 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981 superior and that the Keys could eventually impose their will over Legislative Council's will. They, as elected representatives, feel strongly and I am sure that Legislative Council would feel strongly that they would never stand for the position that the Keys were superior and the Keys could eventually impose their will over Legislative Council's will. At the moment we have a system where the track record, if one could say that, of members of Council is known. The Keys do not, or they have not been in the habit of putting unstable members up there. Their track record, as I say, is known, their views are known, and they are acknowledged, but I am quite sure that if the Council was an elected body you could have a position where you would have a lot of new faces there and they would be people of completely unknown quantity. The hon. member for Middle mentioned earlier on in the debate that we could have the power game in play. Well, if that was the situation where you had an elected Council, elected by popular franchise, you would surely have a power game and it would be a vicious power game, I am quite sure. That is why I plead with members to retain the status quo. Your Excellency, we all have our own ideas on constitutional reform and these which we have before us, indeed, are the ideas of the hon. member of Council, Mr. Kneale. The amendments are other members' ideas on constitutional reform, but I have not heard any good and sufficient case made out for these changes. The original resolution does not commend itself to me and neither do any of the amendments commend themselves to me. I would say again to members, think hard and deep and vote to remain to hold the position as it is, to retain the status quo. If the new House when it comes in, as it will after November, if there is demand from the hustings for change for constitutional reform, members, and I hope to be one of them after November, they will introduce the necessary legislation and then we can get on with it, but not at this moment. The President of the Council: Your Excellency, I think we have heard some remark- able speeches during this particular discussion on the Legislative Council, and I think we should remind ourselves first of all that the members of the Council, with the exception of those that are mentioned particularly here, that is, the Attorney-General and the Lord Bishop, the members of the Council have been elected by the public of the Isle of Man. Some of them once, some of them twice, some of them three times, some of them four times, and perhaps even more, so it cannot be said that the members of the Legislative Council were not elected. I want to say that during the course of the debate one thing that has alarmed me was the fact that someone suggested there could be a difference between the Legislative Council and the House of Keys. Nothing could be further from the truth. There could be differences between individual members of the Council and individual members of the House of Keys, but not the Branch against the Branch. I can say that without the slightest fear of contradiction so far as the Legislative Council is concerned. When this very motion was sprung on us, as it was on you, by the hon. member of Council, Mr. Kneale, Mr. Speaker quite rightly asked for an adjournment in order that he could consult in the Keys about it. I claimed the same right. I said, too, that we would want to, and I say this, that the members of the Council when they discussed it, they decided that we will come to no conclusions. It is for each and every individual member to pass his opinion. This is an individual's proposal, and so that is the way we dealt with it. Another thing that surprised me was the fact and the almost acceptance of the Legislative Council — you are a revising Chamber and just sit back boys, that is all you have got to do. I think we should remind ourselves that we are a part of Tynwald the same as everyone else, and that the Government of the Isle

Isle of Man Government—Constitution—Debate Continued. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981 T1327 of Man as compared with the legislative body is Tynwald, presided over by His Excel- lency the Lieutenant-Governor, and the people of the Isle of Man want this to continue. I believe this myself and if anybody has any doubts they should test the electorate when they come in November and say, I believe there should be a change, I believe we should replace the Governor by somebody else, I believe we should replace the Bishop, I believe we should replace the Legislative Council and have one Chamber. I would say there were some remarkable speeches and some of those speeches required great courage, none greater than the speech of Mr. Speaker himself, although I disagree entirely with many of the things he said. He said when he was advocating perhaps the one-Chamber type of Government, we are falling behind compared with some of the junior communities in the Commonwealth. Thank God we are falling behind. If you were to see the revolu- tions, the military coups, et cetera, that were happening in these particular communities, immaturity was invariably the cause and we could spell them out in no uncertain terms. So thank God we have adopted this situation of traa-dy-liooar. I hope this will continue. I was rather alarmed and surprised to find my friend, the Chairman of Executive Council, giving an impassioned speech about power. Mr. Irving: I always do. The President of the Council: I was very surprised to find that this man has suddenly been injected with something. (Laughter.) It was delightful to see that fire, that fire in the blood, but it was misdirected. I would say that as far as intending taking any power away from the Keys or the individual members of the Keys, nothing could be further from the truth as far as the Council is concerned. (Interruption.) I speak of the Council, I do not speak of the resolution by the hon. member, I speak of the Council and the attack was of the Council, and I do say that nothing could be further from the truth. believe, and I would say that members of this particular Council here carry some very heavy burdens of responsibility and carry it with dignity and carry it with efficiency, and it was your wish that they do this. I would say that these were not self-appointed people. I was much encouraged by the great speeches by the hon. member of the Council, Mr. Radcliffe, by the hon. member for Peel, Dr. Moore, by Mr. Callin, the hon. member for Middle, when they spoke of the desire for stability. Mr. Irving: Do not let it become stagnation. The President of the Council: No, I do not think that. I gave credit to my hon. friend this morning by being one of the progressives and so he will continue to be. I would say that the hon. member who spoke of the great power game, what a lot of help the hon. member has had from some of the members of the Council in his work, and willingly given, and all members of the Council are all willing to play their full part in the Boards of Tynwald. Do we notice any distinction between Council and Keys when we sit together as comrades on the Boards, in the interest of that particular Board? No, we do not. I would hope that this alleged division, I do not find any division, I find that I do not have an enemy amongst you to my knowledge, and I think it equally could be said . . . Mr. Anderson: As long as you do not go on too long. (Laughter.) The President of the Council: This has evidently sown a seed somewhere. This is true, Your Excellency. When we meet in our Boards we pull together as teams for the

Isle of Man Government—Constitution—Debate Continued. T1328 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981

good and interest of the Isle of Man. This system that we have had has worked and has worked well. It has proved successful. One little ripple and you can rock the boat and you can endanger your whole stability as far as your economy is concerned. The hon. member of Council mentioned this morning, when people come to the Isle of Man whether they are in the financial sector, or my hon. friend who is in the industrial sector. What they want to know is, is there stability? Are there people who would over- turn this stable Government for their own good? I do not think there are. I think, generally speaking, we all want to do our bit in our own particular way. Your Excel- lency, this is particularly the message that I want to leave. I hope that after this debate is over we may be able to continue to work as we have done in the past, not for our own particular advantage. Please remember, all these members were elected and I would say, too, that there is not one of them who would fear going to the electorate again under the same circumstances, and they were elected by you, by the House of Keys, for this particular purpose. Do not let us belittle one or belittle the other. Let us work together as Tynwald as the administration, and the legislation is done in the two Branches. Let the two Branches work happily together. I believe as far as the details of this resolution are concerned, there is only part (5) that is of any controversy in my book, and the danger of that is, in my view, I believe that future members — I am talking about future members, I am not talking about myself — future members of this Council must come from the House of Keys. There is no other place where they could come from but the House of Keys. Let us retain that right. If it is to be elected, as my hon. friend from Rushen does say, you must have some qualifying conditions — and the hon. member for Ayre, Mrs. Christian, seemed to suggest that too — some qualifying conditions for the candidates for this Chamber, which is experienced, and incidentally we very rarely, although the experience is there, it is not used in an egotistical way, it is always to help in every possible way. So let us use that method but any future Council, let them come from the House of Keys. Let them graduate. When I was first elected to the Legislative Council, the Keys used to say "We have put him upstairs." Not with a view of getting rid of him or anything like that. It was an honour that was given to your own members. You, yourself, I hope in future will honour some of your own members — honour. It is a very, very important position, as yours is an equally important position, that members after they have been through the hustings once, twice, three, four, five times, that perhaps they might be elected and honoured to go to that other Chamber where they can serve along with you in the best interests of the Isle of Man. Let us put the Isle of Man first and ourselves second. Mr. Christian: Your Excellency, in listening to the long debate and the many different points of view which have been put forward, one thing has become very apparent and that is that there is nothing very much wrong with the system as it is at the moment, because although various people have mentioned theoretical points that some might be more democratic in theory, not one single member has mentioned any great injustice or feeling of something wrong at the present time. We are here as representatives of the Manx people. They are certainly not looking to us and demanding any change in the constitution of Tynwald as it stands at the moment. Someone mentioned this morning that we should be surveying from time to time the administration and the workings of the constitution. It seems to me that perhaps we have been doing more of that than anything else in the last five years. Surely we have already made plenty of changes in this Tynwald and I think we should approach these things as a board of directors would

Isle of Man Government—Constitution—Debate Continued. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981 T1329

in a business and say we have already made a number of changes in the Legislative Council. The Lieutenant-Governor has been removed from the chairmanship of the Legislative Council; their term of office has been reduced; their delaying power for legislation has been reduced, and various other things have been done. So that at the present time we should digest the changes which have already been made, because surely constitutional change, above all things, should be only made with very great thought and treated in depth and slowly. It is not something to go jumping into. When this resolution was put forward two months ago, I wondered what was behind it and I moved that it should be adjourned for a couple of months to try and find out what was 'going on. I am not quite sure yet but I get the feeling in the first place that it was to thrust certain members out into declaring their position before the coming Election. I wonder in the second place whether there was certain doubt in the minds of certain members of the Legislative Council as to whether it would not be better to take their chance with the electorate to be re-elected or to leave it to the present House of Keys. So those seem to be the motives for this debate. Really, I think we will be far better giving more of our time to consider taking steps to increase the prosperity of the people of the Island in this time of recession, and dealing with questions like unemployment, and looking at that instead of always internally saying, can we not alter the constitution of the Island? I get the impression that hardly has the ink dried on one constitutional change before certain members of this Court start to scratch their heads and think, what can we change next? When the hon. Chairman of Executive Council says, the present House of Keys members do not want to govern, I take that as a compliment. I do not think we do want to govern any more than is necessary. We want to leave people to govern themselves as far as we can, but we would rather have less Government looked at in greater depth. One thing I would like to say, that in the five years I have been in this Court I have been delighted all along by the open-mindedness of the Court. .1 am sure the older members may not agree with me, but I think they possibly will, because in the times when I used to sit here and listen to the debates before I became a member of this Court, I think that over the last five years there has been a far more open-minded membership of Tynwald than there used to be in days gone by, and it is perfectly obvious that at the present time we should simply vote for the status quo. The most important point that was made in this debate, to my mind, the thing I had in my mind, but it was first mentioned by the hon. Chairman of the Finance Board, Mr. Radcliffe, is stability. We want progress but we want progress with stability. So, at the present time, having made so many changes in our constitution, let us just hold back, digest them, and in any case whatever we vote today will be of little consequence because no part of it could possibly be brought into effect in the lifetime of this House in any case. So, personally, I would ask members, do not give the impression you want to turn the whole constitution of Tynwald upside-down once more. Let us vote to maintain for the time being the status quo and then leave it to the next Tynwald if they wish then to start to discuss matters of constitutional change in due course, slowly and thoroughly. Mr. J. J. Radcliffe: Your Excellency, bearing in mind that we have one or two more items on the Agenda, I hope to be brief. Constitutionally, as far as I can see it, the will of the Keys will and does prevail, so that if the talents of the Legislative Council are fully utilised in executive and administrative positions, what have the Keys got to fear? I am not aware of anything. Quickly running through the first one, yes, there can be no

Isle of Man Government—Constitution—Debate Continued. T1330 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981

argument with that. Part (2), yes. Perhaps it might be better if we paraphrased that to say that for purposes of legislation Branches shall meet separately. One or two hon. members seem to be a little afraid that there is some hidden sinister meaning there. Look carefully there might be but I cannot see it. Part (3), the two Branches as one body, yes. I thought the hon. member for Peel, Dr. Moore, was going to give us one of St. Paul's texts for a moment. We are all members of one body, all different and yet all equal. (Laughter.) Part (4), no question, of course. Part (5). I certainly can see no value in changing the method of selecting the present membership. The system has worked well. I think the point should be made that now the membership of the Legis- lative Council is down, in effect, to five years. This is an important point and I cannot see any reason why we should change or why we should wish to change. Part (6), the position of the Attorney-General. Of course there is no question that we need him. Long may he reign. As regards my Lord Bishop, not for the first time in history has someone said, "Will no one rid us of this turbulent priest?" (Laughter and interruptions.) I feel that whilst we have an Established Church then in my opinion it is fit and proper that the senior member of that Established Church should take his seat in the Legis- lative Council. 1 think ecclesiastically and, as the hon. member for Garff said, historically, he has a right to be there, and there is no doubt he works hard. From time to time I know hon. members do not always agree with his points of view, but that is quite all right. Part (7), in my opinion there should be no question, the best person for the job. I would suggest that members of the Legislative Council should be given deference but not preference, but then neither should they be passed over for appointment to the senior positions simply because they are members of the Legislative Council and 1 sometimes think that perhaps there is a slight tendency for that situation to arise. If I might, Your Excellency, just say a word to the hon. Chairman of Executive Council who alleges that the Keys has no desire to govern. I assume, of course, he refers to the senior members entrusted with the task of government, and not the junior members who merely carry out the day-to-day chores. (Laughter.) I believe it was the Duke of Plaza Toro who was credited with leading his regiment from behind. At least he did not blame the regiment. (Laughter.)

Mr. Cringle: Your Excellency, I have no desire whatsoever to prolong the debate. In fact, it was almost 44 hours ago that I told members exactly how they should vote on each of the seven items, but I have noticed a turn round in the debate slightly this afternoon and I am concerned when my hon. colleague, Mr. Walker, and the hon. member for Middle, Mr. Watterson, are both suggesting that we should vote against the resolution. I supported the adjournment sine die of the resolution and there is a suggestion coming now that we should vote for the status quo or, in fact, vote against the resolution. Now that puts us in somewhat of a dilemma because, in my mind, we cannot, or I certainly as an individual could not vote against, for example, part (2), which reads that the two Branches should meet separately. I believe they should meet separately, so I cannot vote against that. Members are reading into Mr. Speaker's com- ments the possibility that there is a sinister motive behind it. Bearing in mind and not to go any further, I consider that parts (4), (5) and (6) of the resolution are subject to each individual member making up his or her own mind and, in fact, two members have put amandments already. They are yes/no questions which are easily answered. Therefore, in order to try to assist, Your Excellency, certainly to help myself when it

Isle of Man Government—Constitution—Debate Continued. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981 T1331 comes to voting, I would propose the following amendment, which I think would possibly be the status quo:— Add to parts (2), (3) and (7) the words "subject to Standing Orders." Mr. Lowey: I beg to second. Mr. MacDonald: Your Excellency, I will be very brief indeed. The only reason I got up at all was to give a bit of advice to my former colleague from Peel, originally, the Chairman of Executive Council. (Interruption.) No, but you lived in Peel (Laughter and interruptions.) I was reminded of a section of a hymn, actually, that says that the sun went down in a blaze of red in the western sky, and then he went on, what reminded me of that little quote was that he said, "The members of the House of Keys will never lose their revolutionary spirit." Now this is almost a quote, I do not know where he got it from but it is virtually a quote of Lenin. (Laughter.) Lenin stood at the first assembly and said, "Never will we lose our revolutionary spirit." This was before he came into power, of course. At that time, of course, they believed and they supported revolution, but once in power they believed in repression, and there is no doubt about this. This is what worries me and what worries some members of the Court. I am all for a two-Chamber Government, but I would never accept any form whatsoever, even if there was just an inkling of it, of personal power or dictatorship. Personal power corrupts, and no doubt about it, and we as Tynwald members have got to make certain that the Tynwald we celebrated only a couple of years ago with a great boost of glory and a splash of money, 1,000 years of this thing, we said, and now people are trying to rapidly change it. They are trying to say that the Governor should not be here, the Bishop should not be here. You people should all be moved about, you should have no power, we should have all power. This is not the Tynwald I want and this is not the Tynwald the people want. They want people in this Court who represent people and spend their time looking after people, not debating who is in the power box today and who is going to get on to it or who is going to get off it. It is the people we are here to look after. We have wasted nearly five hours talking about something on which maybe a very, very tiny few in here feel that change definitely is necessary, and rapid change. I am not for it. I am certain that most of the people are not for it. I am certain the sensible members of the Keys and the sensible members of the Council will say today, you can support all of these except part (5) because we proved incapable of solving how the people get the vote, and now somebody is telling the Council that we should try to divide the Island up once more, probably a bigger hash from the one the Com- mitttee brought forward to us giving us all the options, and we accepted none. The Governor: Hon. members, we will adjourn for tea. The hon. member of Council, Mr. Kneale, will reply after tea at 4.30 p.m., and then we will vote. The Court adjourned for tea.

ISLE OF MAN GOVERNMENT — CONSTITUTION — DEBATE CONCLUDED. The Governor: The hon. member of Council, Mr. Kneale, to reply. Dr. Mann: Your Excellency, I do not know what the position is under Standing Orders, but I am personally of the opinion that I ought to put the adjournment sine

Isle of Man Government—Constitution—Debate Concluded. T1332 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981

die, which I know has already been placed by Mr. Speaker, but as an individual member 1 feel that the time has come in this debate to adjourn this debate finally without a vote because I think the position has been reached when in whatever form this resolution is put to individual members, whether it is put totally, individually, section by section, with or without the amendments, the end result will be either dangerous or unsatisfactory or not represent the true position of this hon. Court, and if it is possible under Standing Orders to move the adjournment of this debate sine die I would wish to do so. Mr. Delaney: I would like to second that if it complies with Standing Orders. The Governor: I refer hon. members to Standing Order 57. "Save as otherwise provided by Standing Order 61, no motion may be proposed which is the same in substance as any question which, during the preceding period of six months, has been superseded, or resolved in the affirmative or negative." My decision is that the motion to adjourn has been put and failed. I stated to members how I was going to proceed, namely, to take the vote on each of these sections separately, upon which people have based their contributions to this debate, and it will stand as such. Mr. Kneale: Thank you, sir. 1 am glad you stifled that further undemocratic move. (Laughter.) The resolution as moved by me on 15th April is mainly a restatement of the status quo and I am glad that so many members have come out in support of the status quo. The only variations occur in parts (3) and (5) and, as expected, much of the debate has centred on part (5). The hon. Mr. Speaker, in moving the deferment in April, referred members to part (2) and said it would deprive the House of Keys of the right to have its own Question Time, of the right to table its own resolutions, of the right to conduct its own affairs other than in relation to legislation. Now, other members have commented about this today and, of course, it does no such thing. Part (2) reads simply: "the two Branches should meet separately for the purpose of dealing with legislation." That is simply restating the present position. Nowhere does it say that this will be the sole purpose of either Branch. Part (3) again restates the present position with one exception. I am suggesting that we remove the dividing barrier between the two Branches and that we really do sit as one body with equal rights. Maybe if we voted as one body on the first occasion it would avoid conflict through the Branches being out of line. On the other hand, some might think that the normal delay of one month gives a chance for second thoughts on a subject. I am not taking any hard line on this matter, but what I do believe is necessary is that we should all understand what matters are relevant to Tynwald and what to the Branches sitting separately. The recent incident over Woodville Lane referred to by the hon. member for Council, Mr. Simcocks, was a matter solely for Tynwald and in my opinion the Keys should not have tried to deal with it separately. It will still have to come back to Tynwald. Parts (4), (6) and (7) are all restating the present position. This leaves us with part (5) which suggests that the Legislative Council become a body elected by the general public. Several members have spoken against this proposal. Mr. Speaker in April made an encouraging statement when he said, "Not one of us would in any way, I think, say that the Island should not have bicameral Government." But he added, "What is the role of the Council in a bicameral set-up to be in the future? Is it to be the role of equal partnership or is it to be the role of the revising Chamber traditional in other parliamentary set-ups"? Now Mr. Speaker's effort today to have a further adjournment of the debate was not unexpected. I pointed out when opposing the adjournment that he would not want

1st:, of Man Government --Constitution—Debate Concluded. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981 T1333 anybody to know the extent of his personal ambition. It should be clear to every- one, after listening to his speech this morning, how far that ambition really extends. On part (1) of my resolution relating to the two-branch Government, he says this should continue for the time being, which indicates he has other thoughts for the future. I have already referred to part (2) so I will not make further comment on that. But on part (3) he claimed that the Council have rights in advance of the Keys. The hon. member of Council, Mr. Simcocks, has dealt adequately with that despite what the hon. member for East Douglas, Mr. Irving, tried to imply. Now Mr. Speaker does not accept that equal rights for all members in Tynwald should be a target, but that the powers of the Legislative Council in Tynwald should be diminished. Now remember we are talking about the situation in Tynwald in part (3), not the overall position of the Branches dealing separately. On part (4) he considers that it is totally wrong that the Lieutenant-Governor should continue to preside over Tynwald, and states quite firmly that the Governor should be "sent up the road". Now we in the Isle of Man know that the expression usually refers to Victoria Road. (Laughter.) Is he suggesting that the Governor should be put in gaol and who, I ask myself, does he suggest should preside over Tynwald? Sir Charles Kerruish? Then if we get rid of the Queen as Lord of Man he could become our first President. As far as I am concerned, it is of vital importance that the Governor continues to preside over Tynwald for we certainly need an impartial person. As regards part (5), he refers to the power sharing line. He thought we had achieved a formula which was working well, and so did I, and if we had been left to work well this resolution would not have been on the Agenda today. It is the underground movement by some members of the Keys, a very few, which is undermining what, in effect, is a very good arrangement. The Keys should be careful that they do not debate too many things in private or allow the Speaker to presume to speak on their behalf without consulting them.

The Speaker: Such as?

Mr. Kneale: Such as this morning, the resolution you tried to move. I would remind them that the previous House had to table a motion of no confidence in him and that 14 members voted in support of it. He needs someone continually pulling on his coat- tails to check his impulses. He finds an elected Legislative Council totally unacceptable as it would destroy the authority of the House of Keys. What an inferiority complex! He wants a second Chamber but only if it is made up of puppets who will dance to his tune. Now part (6), the Attorney-General should be available to both Branches — he is. The Bishop should go and not even be ex officio. In fact, get rid of everyone and at the end of the road who will you be left with? — King Charles I of Man — dictator supreme. (Laughter.) I am glad the majority of the Keys rejected the appeal from Mr. Speaker to adjourn discussion sine die. They put democracy first. He wonders what price democracy, and I wonder the same. He says we have the most belated form of democracy in the Commonwealth, that despite 1,000 years our Government has not advanced as far as younger members of the Commonwealth, and I would agree with him, and suggest that he look at his own voting record on recent Bills in the Keys to demonstrate this. I would also suggest he should study the traditional role of speakers in Commonwealth Parliaments. Some members have suggested that if there is to be an election to the Legislative Council then candidates should have had some legislative experience. Otherwise, we could have two Branches with inexperienced people after an

Isle of Man Government—Constitution—Debate Concluded. T1334 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981

Election. I stressed in my opening speech that the present system did provide a wide range of experience in the Legislative Council and this might be a very good reason for retaining the status quo, so long as the Keys do not look on the Legislative Council as some form of second-class citizens. Of course there are examples in the world where both Branches of Parliament are elected by the people and where the second Chamber is something much more positive than just a revising Chamber. As regards the Com- monwealth, Mr. Speaker has told us that they are far ahead of us as far as democracy is concerned. For example, and I will take a Commonwealth country, Australia. Since my visit there in 1970 to attend a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference I have studied their electoral system and I believe they are much further advanced than we are, especially in their methods of election. In all their Parliaments, both Federal and State, they have two Houses and all are elected by the people. The Federal Govern- ment have a House of Representatives and a Senate. The members of the House of Representatives are elected for three years. A Senator is elected for six years and half the Senate seats come up for election every three years. I will refer to the Tasmania set-up as an example of the State Government. The Lower House is known as the House of Assembly and comprises of 35 members elected for a period of four years from five seven-member electorates. The Legislative Council is elected by 19 single-member constituencies and each member holds office for six years. Elections take place every year to elect three members and every sixth year, four members. There is no General Election for the Legislative Council. With the exception of certain matters dealing with the raising of revenue and imposition of taxes, the powers of the two Houses are declared equal in all matters. Now both these methods of election to the Upper House demonstrate that a great degree of continuity can be achieved. My personal view is that members of the Legislative Council should be elected by the general public. It is now nearly 10 years since I last went before the public, and should I continue in office without going before them again to seek a renewed vote of confidence? This is the question I posed myself and I believe every member of the Legislative Council should ask himself the same question. I hope the vote today will show that no member of the present Council is reluctant to go before the public to seek re-election. So long as I remain a member of Tynwald I will always consider myself to be an elected representa- tive for West Douglas. After all, I have represented them for 30 years now; first as their elected representative for the old Education Authority and for nearly 20 years as a member of Tynwald. 1 went before them on six occasions and was never rejected. The two members for Peel, and as far as I know they are the only two who took this resolution to their electorate, needless to say, as normally, they got a poor attendance but we all know that is the usual thing, and both of these people have been elected to the House of Keys during the last five years. They called a public meeting and from press reports it would appear that those who attended the meeting were satisfied with the status quo, with one person supporting election to the Council. Referring to the speech I made on 15th April, I concluded with these words: "Tynwald as at present constituted is the body envisaged by our predecessors of the House of Keys. It is time we started to work together as a team instead of bickering as to which is the most important Branch. Collectively we form the Government of this Island and there are just as many capable people up here as there are down there and it is time we all accepted that." We have heard mention again today of power houses. The only com- plaint I have heard in the Isle of Man of power houses is that they are too noisy—

isle of Man Government—Constitution—Debate Concluded. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981 T1335

(laughter) — and one member of the House of Keys has even threatened to take legal action to try and quieten one of them down. I divided my resolution into seven parts. Your Excellency has already indicated he will put each of these parts separately. "I am not suggesting" — this is what I said last time — "that we take any action on the results of the voting until after the Election in November, but I do feel that everybody should indicate their views today." People have said they are voting against the resolution but they are supporting the status quo. If you are in favour of the status quo then you have to support most of the resolution, and anybody who is not supporting the resolution and still believing that they are supporting the status quo just cannot read.

The Governor: Hon. members, in the debates, I would draw members' attention to Standing Order 101 which may be difficult to appreciate in this particular debate. "No member may use offensive words against Tynwald or either Branch, or in reference to any member of Tynwald." I think it is very important in these sort of debates that we try and maintain our standard of courtesy between people in this hon. Court. Hon. members, I am taking item 5, part (1), upon which part I have no amendment. Those in favour say aye; against, no.

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

In the Keys— For: Messrs. Anderson, Quirk, J. J. Radcliffe, J. N. Radcliffe, Mrs. Christian, Messrs. Callin, Watterson, Creer, Lowey, Walker, Cringle, Quinney, Ward, Craine, Delaney, Irving, Mrs. Hanson, Mr. Kermeen, Dr. Moore, Mr. Christian and the Speaker — 21. Against: Dr. Mann — I.

The Speaker: Your Excellency, that resolution carries in the House of Keys, 21 votes being cast in favour and one vote against.

In the Council— For: The Lord Bishop, Messrs. Kneale, Crellin, Moore, P. Radcliffe, Kerruish, Simcocks, MacDonald and the President of the Council -- 9. Against: Nil.

The Governor: In the Council, nine votes in favour and none against, part (1) carries. Part (2), to which I have an amendment in the name of the hon. membr for Rushen, Mr. Cringle, and I will put that amendment which is adding "subject to Standing Orders" after the word "legislation", the last word. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. I will now put the substantive motion, that is part (2), as amended: "the two Branches should meet separately for the purpose of dealing with legislation, subject to Standing Orders." Those in favour please say aye; against, no.

A division was called for and voting resulted as follows:- - In the Keys— For: Messrs. Anderson, Quirk, J. J. Radcliffe, J. N. Radcliffe, Mrs. Christian, Messrs. Callin, Watterson, Creer, Lowey, Cringle, Quinney, Ward, Craine, Delaney, Mrs. Hanson, Dr. Moore and Mr. Christian — 17.

Isle of Man Government—Constitution—Debate Concluded. T1336 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981

Against: Dr. Mann, Messrs. Walker, Irving, Kermeen and the Speaker — 5.

The Speaker: Your Excellency, that resolution carries in the House of Keys in its amended form, 17 votes in favour and five votes against.

In the Council— For: The Lord Bishop, Messrs. Kneale, Crellin, Moore, P. Radcliffe, Kerruish, Simcocks, MacDonald and the President of the Council --- 9. Against: Nil.

The Governor: In the Council, nine in favour and none against, the motion carries. Now part (3), with the same amendment, adding "subject to Standing Orders" after the words "Government policy". Those in favour please say aye: against. no.

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

In the Keys— For: Messrs. Anderson, Quirk, J. J. Radcliffe, J. N. Radcliffe, Dr. Mann, Messrs. Callin, Creer, Lowey, Cringle, Quinney, Ward, Mrs. Hanson, and Dr. Moore — 13. Against: Mrs. Christian, Messrs. Watterson, Walker, Craine, Delaney, Irving, Kermeen, Christian and the Speaker — 9.

The Governor: Hon. members, 1 wish to make a point of clarification. I am taking the amendment now. If anybody has said what they would not have said if they thought they were voting on the substantive motion you may have a recount.

The Speaker: Your Excellency, not exactly on a point of order. I think the House really understood that there was a general acceptance of the amendment you were putting in its amended form and I think the House would be prepared to accept that was the case. Your Excellency, the voting in the House of Keys, 13 votes in favour of the amended resolution and nine votes against.

Mr. Cringle: Your Excellency, with respect, and 1 am uncertain. but I do hear noises coming immediately from my right that they claim to be unsure. In that case I honestly do think the vote should be retaken.

The Governor: That is accepted. We are dealing with part (3) and I am dealing with Mr. Cringle's amendment to part (3) which is as printed with the words "subject to Standing Orders" included at the end. That is what the vote was on and which Mr. Speaker has said the House has accepted as being the substantive motion as well. We will vote on the amendment in isolation now. We will vote again on the amendment because of doubt.

In the Keys— For: Messrs. Anderson, Quirk, J. J. Radcliffe, 1. N. Radcliffe, Dr. Mann, Messrs. Callin, Watterson, Creer, Lowey, Cringle, Quinney, Ward, Mrs. Hanson, Mr. Kermeen, Dr. Moore and Mr. Christian — 16. Against: Mrs. Christian, Messrs. Walker, Craine, Delaney, Irving and the Speaker — 6.

Isle of Man Government—Constitution--Debate Concluded. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981 T1337

The Speaker: Your Excellency, the amendment carries in the House of Keys, 16 votes being cast in favour and six votes against.

In the Council— For: The Lord Bishop, Messrs. Kneale, Crellin, Moore, P. Radcliffe, Kerruish, Simcocks, MacDonald and the President of the Council — 9. Against: Nil.

The Governor: In the Council, nine in favour and none against, the amendment carries. I will now put the substantive motion, as amended. Those in favour please say aye; against, no.

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

In the Keys— For: Messrs. Anderson, J. J. Radcliffe, J. N. Radcliffe, Callin, Creer, Lowey, Cringle, Quinney, Ward, Mrs. Hanson, Dr. Moore and Mr. Christian — 12. Against: Mr. Quirk, Mrs. Christian, Dr, Mann, Messrs. Watterson, Walker, Craine, Delaney, Irving, Kermeen and the Speaker — 10.

The Speaker: Your Excellency, the amended resolution carries in the House of Keys, 12 votes being cast in favour and 10 votes against.

In the Council— For: The Lord Bishop, Messrs. Kneale, Moore, P. Radcliffe, Kerruish, Simcocks, MacDonald and the President of the Council -- 8. Against: Mr. Crellin — 1.

The Governor: In the Council, eight in favour and one against, the motion carries. Part (4), to which I have no amendment. Those in favour please say aye; against, no.

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

In the Keys— For: Messrs. Anderson, Quirk, J. J. Radcliffe, J. N. Radcliffe, Mrs. Christian, Dr. Mann, Messrs. Callin, Watterson, Creer, Lowey, Walker, Cringle, Quinney, Ward, Craine, Irving, Mrs. Hanson, Mr. Kermeen, Dr. Moore and Mr. Christian — 20. Against: Mr. Delaney and the Speaker — 2.

The Speaker: Your Excellency, the resolution carries in the House of Keys, 20 votes votes being cast in favour and two votes against.

In the Council— For: The Lord Bishop, Messrs. Kneale, Crellin, Moore, P. Radcliffe, Kerruish, Simcocks, MacDonald and the President of the Council — 9. Against: Nil.

The Governor: In the Council, nine in favour and none against, the motion carries. Part (5), to which I have an amendment in the name of Mr. Lowey: "Delete part (5) and

Isle of Man Government—Constitution—Debate Concluded. T1338 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981

substitute therefor: 'that the Legislative Council should become a body elected by full adult suffrage'." Those in favour please say aye; against, no.

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

In the Keys— For: Messrs. Lowey and Delaney — 2. Against: Messrs. Anderson, Quirk, J. J. Radcliffe, J. N. Radcliffe, Mrs. Christian, Dr. Mann, Messrs. Callin, Watterson, Creer, Walker, Cringle, Quinney, Ward, Craine, Irving, Mrs. Hanson, Mr. Kermeen, Dr. Moore, Mr. Christian and the Speaker — 20.

The Speaker: Your Excellency, the amendment fails to carry in the House of Keys, two votes being cast in favour and 20 votes against.

In the Council— For: Messrs. Kneale, Crellin, Moore and the President of the Council — 4. Against: The Lord Bishop, Messrs. P. Radcliffe, Kerruish, Simcocks and MacDonald — 5.

Mr. Lowey: There are more democrats up there than down here. (Laughter.)

The Governor: In the Council, four in favour and five against, the amendment fails. 1 will now put the substantive motion to part (5), as printed on the Agenda. Those in favour please say aye; against, no.

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

In the Keys— For: Nil. Against: Messrs. Anderson, Quirk, J. J. Radcliffe, J. N. Radcliffe, Mrs. Christian, Dr. Mann, Messrs. Callin, Watterson, Creer, Lowey, Walker, Cringle, Quinney, Ward, Craine, Delaney, Irving, Mrs. Hanson, Mr. Kermeen, Dr. Moore, Mr. Christian and the Speaker -- 22.

The Speaker: Your Excellency, that resolution fails to carry in the House of Keys, no votes being cast in favour and 22 votes against.

In the Council— For: Messrs. Kneale, Crellin and Moore — 3. Against: Messrs. P. Radcliffe, Kerruish, Simcocks, MacDonald and the President of the Council — 5.

The Governor: Three in favour and five against in the Council, the motion fails. Part (6), to which I have an amendment from Mr. Delaney, which is: "after the words 'Legislative Council' delete the words 'the Attorney-General being a non-voting member' and insert the words 'both being non-voting members'." I am putting the amendment. Those in favour please say aye; against, no.

Isle of Man Government—Constitution—Debate Concluded. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981 T1339

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

In the Keys --- For: Mrs. Christian, Messrs. Watterson, Lowey, Craine, Delaney and the Speaker — 6. Against: Messrs. Anderson, Quirk, J. J. Radcliffe, J. N. Radcliffe, Dr. Mann, Messrs. Callin, Creer, Walker, Cringle, Quinney, Ward, Irving, Mrs. Hanson, Mr. Kermeen, Dr. Moore and Mr. Christian — 16.

The Speaker: Your Excellency, the amendment fails to carry in the House of Keys, six votes being cast in favour and 16 against.

In the Council--- For: Nil. Against: Messrs. Kneale, Crellin, Moore, P. Radcliffe, Kerruish, Simcocks, Mac- Donald and the President of the Council — 8.

The Governor: In the Council, none in favour and eight against, the amendment fails. I will now put the substantive motion as printed. Those in favour please say aye: against, no.

A division was called for and voting resulted as follows:-- In the Keys — - For: Messrs. Anderson, Quirk, J. J. Radcliffe, J. N. Radcliffe, Mrs. Christian, Dr. Mann, Messrs. Callin, Creer, Walker, Cringle, Quinney, Ward, Irving, Mrs. Hanson, Mr. Kermeen, Dr. Moore and Mr. Christian — 17. Against: Messrs. Watterson, Lowey, Craine, Delaney and the Speaker — 5. The Speaker: Your Excellency, the resolution carries in the House of Keys, 17 votes being cast in favour and five votes against. In the Council— For: Messrs. Kneale, Crellin, Moore, P. Radcliffe, Kerruish, Simcocks, MacDonald and the President of the Council -- 8. Against: Nil. The Governor: In the Council, eight in favour and none against, the motion there- fore carries. Part (7), hon. members, we again have Mr. Cringle's amendment, "subject to Standing Orders", and I am putting the amendment now which is as printed with the words "subject to Standing Orders" added. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. A division was called for and voting resulted as follows: In the Keys-- For: Messrs. Anderson, Quirk, J. J. Radcliffe, J. N. Radcliffe, Dr. Mann, Messrs. Callin, Watterson, Creer, Lowey, Walker, Cringle, Quinney, Ward, Delaney, Mrs. Hanson, Mr. Kermeen, Dr. Moore and Mr. Christian — 18. Against: Mrs. Christian, Messrs. Craine, Irving and the Speaker — 4.

Isle of Man Government—Constitution—Debate Concluded. T1340 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981

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

In the Council— For: The Lord Bishop, Messrs. Kneale, Crellin, Moore, P. Radcliffe, Kerruish, Simcocks, MacDonald and the President of the Council — 9. Against: Nil.

The Governor: In the Council, nine in favour and none against, the amendment carries. I will put the substantive motion, as amended. Those in favour please say aye; against, no.

A division was called for and voting resulted as follows:— In the Keys— For: Messrs. Anderson, Quirk, J. J. Radcliffe, J. N. Radcliffe, Dr. Mann, Messrs. Callin, Creer, Lowey, Walker, Cringle, Quinney, Ward, Delaney, Mrs. Hanson, Mr. Kermeen, Dr. Moore and Mr. Christian — 17. Against: Mrs. Christian, Messrs. Watterson, Craine, Irving and the Speaker — 5. The Speaker: Your Excellency, the resolution carries in the House of Keys, 17 votes being cast in favour and five votes against. In the Council— For: The Lord Bishop, Messrs. Kneale, Crellin, Moore, P. Radcliffe, Kerruish, Simcocks, MacDonald and the President of the Council — 9. Against: Nil. The Governor: In the Council, nine in favour and none against, the substantive motion, as amended, carries.

EXPORT OF GOODS (CONTROL) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 1981 (APPLICATION) ORDER 1981 — APPROVED.

The Governor: Hon. members, we will now turn to item number 6. 1 call upon the Chairman of Finance Board. Mr. P. Radcliffe: Your Excellency, I beg to move:— That the Export of Goods (Control) (Amendment) Order 1981 (Application) Order 1981 made by the Finance Board on 27th June 1981 be and the same is hereby approved. Your Excellency, there is just one point I would like to make. This is purely a formality to keep us in line with our Customs Agreement of 1979, but the date . . . The Governor: I am sorry to interrupt, but are you making a statement of clari- fication? Mr. P. Radcliffe: Yes, sir. The date in the resolution is a misprint. It should have been May, naturally, instead of June, and the hon. member, Major Crellin, will move an amendment.

Export of Goods (Control) (Amendment) Order 1981 (Application) Order 1981 -Approved. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981 T1341

Mr. Crellin: I beg to move the following amendment, sir:— In the motion, for the word "June" substitute the word "May". A Member: I beg to second. The Governor: Is that agreed? It was agreed.

VALUE ADDED TAX (BETTING, GAMING AND LOTTERIES) ORDER 1981 —APPROVED. The Governor: Item number 7. I call upon the Chairman of Finance Board. Mr. P. Radcliffe: Your Excellency, I beg to move:— That the Value Added Tax (Betting, Gaming and Lotteries) Order 1981 made by the Finance Board on 27th May 1981 he and the same is hereby approved. A Member: I beg to second. The Governor: Is that agreed? It was agreed.

INCOME TAX (INSTALMENT PAYMENTS) REGULATIONS 1981 —APPROVED. The Governor: Item number 8. I call upon the Chairman of Finance Board. Mr. P. Radcliffe: Your Excellency, I beg to move:— That in accordance with section 1(2) of the Income Tax (Instalment Payments) Act 1974, the Income Tax (Instalment Payments) Regulations 1981 made by the Finance Board on 6th May 1981 be and the same are hereby approved. Members: Agreed. Dr. Moore: Your Excellency, I would like to ask a question on this one. Mr. P. Radcliffe: Hon. members will recall that this Court approved last month the revised income tax allowances. The Income Tax (Instalment Payments) Regulations 1981 which are before you today introduce new tax deduction tables which incorporate the revised tax allowances. The entry points on the tables have risen as a result of the increases in the allowance which were agreed by this hon. Court. For example, in last year's tables a single man with no children became liable to ITIP deductions when he earned over £35 per week. The corresponding figure in the new tables is £39. Similarly, in last year's tables a married man with no children became subject to ITIP deductions when he earned over £54 per week. The corresponding figure in the new tables is £61 per week. I am certain that every hon. member will be delighted to hear that information for the benefit of all employees. The Income Tax (Instalment Payments) Regulations further amend the ITIP scheme to require an employer to make available additional

Value Added Tax (Betting, Gaming and Lotteries) Order 1981—Approved. — Income Tax (Instalment Payments) Regulations 1981—Approved. 71342 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981

information to ease the collection of ITIP deductions and, where appropriate, issue balance demands and refunds. Lack of information by an employee of an employer registered under the Income Tax (Instalment Payments) Act 1974 in the past delayed the sending of balanced demands and the issuing of refunds by the Treasurer. These regulations provide for an employer to give to an employee a certificate of gross remuneration and the amounts deducted from the gross remuneration in accordance with these regulations. An employee shall be entitled to receive such a certificate at the end of each pay period, on request, annually or on termination of employment. The receipt of a certificate of gross remuneration and the amount of tax deducted from that remuneration is an employee's evidence to the Treasurer of ITIP deductions made from his gross remuneration by his employer. To eliminate any doubts as to which deduction table is to be applied, where an employee's remuneration is not based on a day period, daily, weekly or monthly, as set out in the Schedule to these regulations, the Income Tax (Instalment Payments) Regulations 1981 specify that the ITIP deduction for the pay period is to be calculated as a proportionate amount of the actual pay period in accordance with the weekly table. To enforce these regulations the Treasurer has been given the right to inspect an employer's records and documents which are relevant to the operation of the Income Tax (Instalment Payments) Regulations. To carry out such an inspection the Treasurer must be in possession of basic details of the employer's business operation. A registering employer shall be required to supply to the Treasurer his full name and business name, the business address and registered office, the number of employees and the date the employer commenced to employ. To facilitate the issuing of a tax refund where a taxpayer has overpaid his tax, the Income Tax (Instalment Payments) Regulations 1981 provide for the Treasurer to direct an employee's employer to make the refund. Where the Treasurer directs an employer to refund any money to an employee for overpayment of tax, then the employer shall deduct any money so refunded to an employee from money which would otherwise be paid to the Treasurer. In directing an employer to refund to an employee any overpaid tax, the Treasurer is utilising the mechanism of the ITIP scheme to make a refund to a taxpayer at the earliest possible date. I am sure that hon. members will appreciate if they have been through the Treasury Department and seen the complications that can arise from lack of information that comes forward on forms whereby you get names put on the card and possibly no initial. You get numerous Kelly's and nobody knows which Kelly is which. To try and sort it out, this has been one of the complaints that has been going for some considerable time and what we in the department are trying to do is to make available documentation that will help the Treasury to refund to the people the money due to them that it has been claimed for some considerable time now has been overdue. 1 beg to move. Mr. Kermeen: I beg to second and reserve my remarks. Dr. Moore: Your Excellency, I apologise for putting the Chairman to that trouble. What I would like is a little bit of explanation and clarification. In the summer-time there are large numbers of teenagers who are still at school who take part-time employ- ment, and looking at page 2 of the regulations, which entails a great deal of paper work, what I want to know is, if you have one of these teenagers who works for an employer maybe one day a week and earns £4 or £6, according to the table, the 15 per cent. tables, deductions have to be made, forms have to be filled in. Would this apply if someone is just working in that casual way?

Income Tax (Instalment Payments) Regulations 1981—Approved. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981 T1343

Mr. P. Radcliffe: The answer to the best of my knowledge, Your Excellency, is yes, but I will go into the detail and look into this aspect of the case put by the hon. member for Peel and let him know exactly what the confirmation of that is, but I would say at the moment, yes, you would have to do this.

The Governor: Is that agreed?

It was agreed.

BOARD OF SOCIAL SECURITY — NEW OFFICES — VOTE FOR PREPARATION OF PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC. — APPROVED. The Governor: Item number 9. 1 call upon the Vice-Chairman of the Government Property Trustees.

Mr. Creer: Your Excellency, 1 beg to move: - That Tynwald approves of the Government Property Trustees incurring expenditure not exceeding the sum of £35,000 for the employment of consultants as necessary and the preparation of plans, specifications and other documents for the proposed new offices for the Board of Social Security to be constructed on land owned by the Trustees at Fayles Yard, Well Road Hill, Douglas. (Reference: Item 10, page 13, Treasurer's Capital Estimates 1981182).

Mr. Cringle: Your Excellency, I rise to second the resolution on the Agenda Paper, item number 9, and I do so with considerable, if you like, gusto. In fact, this is long, long overdue and there can be absolutely no doubt I am sure in any member's mind that, in fact, the staff who work in the Hill Street Office of the Board of Social Security are every bit as much entitled to reasonable working conditions as they are on this side of the road, and I am 100 per cent. behind this capital expenditure of Government money. It is long overdue.

Mr. Lowey: Your Excellency, I rise to support the resolution. I have no objection whatsoever, and, in fact, I applaud the fact that we have got this capital expenditure, and at Estimate time I think I raised it in my general approach to priorities of Govern- ment. What I am rising to say is, we are actually here approving the sum of £35,000 for the employment of consultants as necessary for the preparation of plans and specifica- tions. Your Excellency, before we go in for consultants, I would urge the Government Property Trustees, we have a department of Government, the Local Government Board. Every month that goes by in this Court we are told that because of consultants' fees, we know what they are going to cost, they will be 10 per cent. of the finished price. We are talking of a £1 million-plus scheme. The fees for consultants is at least £100,000-plus. Now you can get an awful lot of professional advice for £100,000 within the Local Government Board employing professional staff. It is no use complaining after the event, which we appear to be doing every time. I believe the Government Property Trustees should consult, and this is all I am asking for, before putting this out to the private field. It should be, after consultation with the Local Government Board. I do not wish to delay this building, I know the urgency that is behind it, but I do beileve prevention

Board of Social Security—New Offices—Vote for Preparation of Plans, specifications, etc. —Approved. TI344 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981 is better than cure. The one thing I am certain of is that if we do not go about it the way that I am doing I will guarantee in two years' time we will be wringing, or our successors will be wringing their hands over the amount of professional fees that this particular job will entail and that is why I am on my feet this afternoon. Mr. Callin: Your Excellency, I am not going to oppose this resolution but 1 would like to take this opportunity to make a remark and it follows on what was said by the Chairman of the Board of Social Security, and that is that his staff are entitled to reasonable working conditions. The remark I wish to make is this, that I have only been in those premises once or twice in my time, not being a member of the Board of Social Security, but one of the things that did strike me was this. It is terribly tatty and I believe that there is a lot that could have been done and should have been done in those premises, and it would not have cost a great deal of money, long ago, to make it a lot more respectable. We have got a similar situation down at the court-house. We are talking about a new court-house, but has anybody been down there and had to sit for maybe a couple of hours to wait to give evidence as a witness and had to sit on a hard form in a very drab hall? Even a bit of paint would do a lot of good. The thing that struck me about the Board of Social Security Offices was that a bit of paint and a little bit of tidying up would have done an awful lot for that staff long before now. Mr. Anderson: Your Excellency, just very briefly, I would support wholeheartedly the proposition before us because of the complete inadequacy of the present premises. If it was anybody else but Government they would be closed down, this is the top and bottom of it, under the health and safety at work. With regard to the Local Government Board, and I appreciate the hon. member's desire here, I think the engineering expertise is what we are short of, we have not got an engineer, and this is probably a deficiency which we really ought to look at. We require it in relation to sewage development and that sort of thing and it is something with which maybe we as a Board should come forward in the interests of Government, and while it would cost us probably £10,000 a year plus, it would be money well spent because without an engineer we have not got the expertise to do that job, and really I do believe that we could save Government a lot of money in the future if an engineer was employed by Government in this way. The President of the Council: Your Excellency. I am supporting this resolution, but I want to know, by Tynwald supporting this resolution they really support £1,035,000. We do not want to do a similar exercise to the Onchan School exercise or to the court- house exercise whereby we voted the consultants' fees of £160,000 in one case and nearly £500,000 in the case of Onchan School, and yet when it did come subsequently to the Finance Board, because of circumstances, and so forth, they felt unable to proceed. Now if we turn our hand to the plough we must never look back, so we must vote against this now if we are not going to subsequently support the capital that is required to do the building. It is most important to me that we should do that because I believe by doing those other two exercises we got ourselves into that situation. Only this morning it was suggested as far as the Onchan School exercise was concerned, the Board of Education was asked to see if they could have another look at it and perhaps it was not necessary at all — £500,000 in the meantime down the drain. There is no question about it, I know from long experience that new premises are required. I would say to my hon. friend for Middle, Mr. Callin, when he suggested a slick of paint or a little bit

Board of Social Security—New Offices—Vote for Preparation of Plans, specifications, etc. —Approved. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981 T1345

of this, that and the other, that department has grown enormously. It is undergoing more and more duties with every family, whether it is retirement pensions or blind persons, every family, and more and more staff are required. In fact, in my early days it was shared by the Advertising Board, Mr. Clague, subsequently to be followed by the Tourist Board who went into new premises, but it was shared originally, and the Health Services Board and everything was in there at one time, but as things grow they require additional premises. My only point is that I hope we all understand that by voting for this £35,000 we subsequently support the capital that is required to provide this building. Mr. J. J. Radcliffe: Your Excellency, one point only. I, too, am delighted that this is moving forward for the Board of Social Security. Could I ask the hon. mover to give this Court a complete and categorical assurance that it is not practical to put another storey on the present Government Office? Not necessarily for your department, sir, but to increase Government accommodation. Mr. Quinney: Your Excellency, I must concur with what the hon. President of the Council has said. My Chairman has also made observations. We fully accept this resolution. This is not something new, this has been going on for four years. The Board in its wisdom at one time even had asked permission from the Finance Board to build its own premises out of its own Fund. They were informed after consultation, as I understand, that this was not possible, and that is why this is now on the Estimates of the Government Property Trustees. So, naturally, following on that the Board had to take other steps, and the step they took was to bring in the Fire Officer and then, following on that, the Health and Safety Officer, in order to progress it. I concur with what the hon. President of the Council has said, and that is that this is going to be on-going and not something to be cut off and just this amount of money for this year. Last year it was cut from the Estimates and anybody who has been in that office would agree wholeheartedly that it is an absolute disgrace for workers to be working under such conditions. I can say, and I am sure my Chairman would not object to my saying it, the present premises of the Board of Social Security do not belong to the Government Property Trustees or to the Isle of Man Government, they belong to the Manx National Health Insurance Fund. Mr. Kermeen: Your Excellency, anyone who has seen the premises occupied now by the Board of Social Security would agree that as far as staff accommodation is con- cerned it is not up to an acceptable standard. However, anybody who has been in there will have seen the large amount of space which is taken up by records, written records. In another place I shall be promoting a Bill which concerns another department which also keeps records, and I was hoping that the hon. Chairman of the Board of Social Security would give some assurance that as we advance into a computerised age, as we will do in the 21st century, there will be co-ordination in order to have space by the use of computerisation and by the use of microfiche. I have seen an appropriate analogous department in Jersey operating on microfiche techniques and I would look to this as being the essential space-saving exercise, because if we save space we save money, and that is what concerns me as a member of the Finance Board, that we shall not embark on some big exercise just to provide, as it were, accommodation for existing records. Those records can be reduced by modern means to a much more easily manageable proportion and I look forward to the whole of the archives of Government

Board of Social Security—New Offices—Vote for Preparation of Plans, specifications, etc. —Approved. T1346 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981 ultimately coming within a computer with terminals to each department which wants to use it. The Speaker: Your Excellency, I rise to support the opinion made by the hon. member for Rushen, Mr. Lowey. I feel the time has come for us to look hard and fast at this question of architects and consultants, and I have been delighted in the course of the debate to find the Chairman of the Local Government Board indicating that it could be met by engaging an engineer. Well, let us engage an engineer for a year, let us take somebody on and do the job, because, hon. members, we hear of sums, £400,001) here, £50,000 there, and we are going through the piece like drunken sailors squandering money on architects' fees. I believe the time has come now to take a different line on this and I hope in committing ourselves to this £35,000 the Government Property Trustees will get in consultation with the Local Government Board and they will combine to produce an architectural set-up which will cope with this particular production. Mrs. Hanson: Your Excellency, first of all 1 would like to support the resolution before us, and I only hope they will have better luck and there will be money forth- coming when you wish to take the resolution to Tynwald. But referring once again to these architects' fees which seems to be a very contentious matter here today, both with the Onchan School and now the Board of Social Security's premises, I feel it must be a decision for Tynwald to take. Now Tynwald must make a decision that we are going to enlarge the department of the Local Government Board. We have not got enough staff now to service all public buildings. A firm resolution must be made that we are going to have all public buildings serviced by the Local Government Board departments. That will have to be enlarged. When my predecessors appointed an architect for the Peel School, we had to appoint a special architect because there was not an architect available on the Local Government Board staff. There is one thing that seems to be overlooked here. I know that the fees are very high, I quite agree, but they are according to R.I.B.A. regulations. We must not overlook the fact that these fees that architects or consultants charge, they have got to pay for their employees, they have got to provide premises, they have got to provide all their materials. A Member: Paper. Mrs. Hanson: It is more than paper, sir. They have to provide expertise. Now if we are going to be serviced by the Local Government Board, what seems to be overlooked is that the Government are going to have to pay all the extras for this. They are going to provide premises, the light, the equipment. Mr. Anderson: Mr. Snow was in our office. Mrs. Hanson: 1 know he was in your office, but it was very cramped in your office, I understand. He was working in a cupboard — (laughter) — and on occasions we had to give him facilities in one of our schools to have room to work. (Laughter and inter- ruptions.) This is something about which I think Tynwald must make a decision. We must make a decision whether we are going to have our own employees or employ consultants to service all public buildings in the Island. Mr. Cringle: Your Excellency, the hon. member for West Douglas asked me to give an explanation as to the records and microfilming in the Board's offices. Currently, of

Board of Social Security—New Offices—Vote for Preparation of Plans, specifications, etc. —Approved. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981 T1347

course, we do use microfilm in the office and we do, of course, already have a terminal connected to the Finance Board's computer.

The Governor: The Vice-Chairman to reply.

Mr. Creer: Very briefly, Your Excellency. I do not think I can reply as regards the painting of the Board of Social Security Offices and all that, and the court-house.

Mr. Cringle: It is painted on a regular basis, annually.

Mr. Creer: The Trustees were given this job in 1979. Prior to the Trustees' involve- ment, which Mr. Quinney has already said, on this scheme the Board of Social Security did approach the Finance Board unsuccessfully for permission to use the funds available in the National Insurance Fund for the cost of the new offices. Now that had been done and then it was handed over to the Government Property Trustees. It is hoped that much of the architectural work will be done by the Local Government Board's architectural department, so we have already been in touch with the Local Government Board on this, but it will be necessary to employ outside structural engineers, quantity surveyors and, possibly, consultants on various specialist aspects of the development. The Trustees are seeking authority to spend £35,000, but it is going to cost, finally, £1,105,000. I do hope that you will pass this now. Mr. Radcliffe asked about the possibility of another storey on here, well that was gone into too. In 1979 the architects looked at an additional storey on top of the Central Government Offices so that the Board might be accommo- dated within these offices. It was indicated that this would not be possible without moving certain departments already established in Central Government Offices to alternative accommodation outside the complex. The recommendation was that the Board would be best suited in new offices designed and built at Fayle's Yard. I beg to move. Your Excellency.

Mr. Lowey: Your Excellency, could I ask the Vice-Chairman, could I have an assurance that before he goes to outside consultants he will re-consult with the Local Government Board?

Mr. Creer: We will be doing that all the time, Your Excellency.

Mr. Lowey: I accept that assurance.

The Governor: Hon. members, I will put the motion. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. Hon. members, what I propose to do now is to carry on with the Agenda and, with your agreement, leave out item 15 at this moment and see where we are at six o'clock, because I believe item 15 may take about three-quarters of an hour, or so.

JURBY PRIMARY SCHOOL SITE — CONSTRUCTION OF SHOP AND TWO DWELLINGS — APPROVED.

The Governor: Item number 10. 1 call upon the Chairman of the Local Government Board.

Jurby Primary School Site—Construction of Shop and Two Dwellings--Approved. T1348 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981

Mr. Anderson: Your Excellency, I beg to move:— That Tynwald approves of the expenditure by the Local Government Board of a sum not exceeding f70,000 for the purpose of the construction of a shop and two attached dwellings at the Jurby Primary School site. (Reference: Item 26, page 12, of the Isle of Man Annual Estimates of the Government Treasurer 1981/82). Your Excellency, this development comprises an integrated shop and two housing units, and the site for it is adjacent to the new Jurby Primary School, currently under construc- tion. There is no shop in this area at present, but within range of the proposed site my Board has 144 houses nearby at the Threshold and Bretney Estates, and there are a number of private houses. Nearby is an active industrial estate which also contains premises to which organised coach tours visit during the summer season and, in addition, the shop should also attract business from the farming community in the whole of the Jurby area. It is also hoped that the close proximity of the school will itself increase the viability of the shop. The shop will be let by my Board to one of several persons who have already expressed an interest in running it, and the rent, which has yet to be determined, will be negotiated after my Board has consulted the Government. Valuer. Although it is hoped that a shop will prove a successful commercial proposition, the primary purpose of constructing it in this area is to provide a necessary amenity for Board tenants and, indeed, section 44 of the Housing Act 1955, as amended, empowers my Board to provide and maintain a shop which will serve a beneficial purpose in connection with the requirements of its tenants. In the event, however, of the shop not proving successful, it has been so designed that it can, should my Board so decide, be converted to a housing unit at a moderate cost. Of the two housing units which adjoin the shop, one will provide accommodation for the shop tenant and the other is to be offered in the first instance to the Board of Education for the school caretaker. The Board has agreed that the housing units will attract rents of £15 per week or about 50 per cent. above normal local authority rents for similar properties. The shop rent is a figure suggested by the Senior Government Valuer. Two tenders were received, the lower being from H. & L. Limited, the contractor also for the Jurby Primary School. The tender is fixed price, and my Board is satisfied that it is within a reasonable cost for the develop- ment. The total cost of the development, including an allowance for professional fees and contingencies, is estimated not to exceed £70,000, of which £65,000 is budgeted for this financial year and £5,000 for next. Your Excellency, I beg to move the motion standing in my name.

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

Mr. P. Radcliffe: Your Excellency, reluctantly I have to oppose this resolution. 1 do it basically in my situation as Chairman of the Finance Board. Having been born in Jurby and educated in my younger days at Jurby School, I am a firm supporter of the Jurby development as an industrial site. Having also agreed, reluctantly, finally in the Finance Board to make provision for a new school to be built at Jurby, I think we are now going to the extreme. We are told here in this situation, first of all when it came to the Finance Board, we, as a Finance Board, were asked to approve the building of a shop and then to provide for that shopkeeper a house in which to live. Having estab- lished a school, we were then to provide a house in which the caretaker could live.

Jurby Primary School Site—Construction of Shop and Two Dwellings—Approved. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981 T1349

Looking at the whole complex at that time, both houses were going to run to a deficiency of £50 per week and the shop was going to have a deficiency of £40 per week. I am well aware of the fact that at Jurby there have been several attempts to run shops and they have all failed. Shops have been opened and closed and opened and closed on numerous occasions. We are going to move the school from the accommodation it is in into a new building. First of all, what is going to be the use of what has up to now been the school? I would like to know if the hon. Chairman would tell us that. The hon. Chairman has mentioned the number of houses at Jurby already, but through that unit it must be possible to find a caretaker for the school who is already living there, without having to build a house for the caretaker to live in at a subsidised rent of £50 per week, or it was £50 per week. I give credit to the Local Government Board, when we sent it back previously, they have now come back with the deficiency of £3,790 on the two houses and £2,490 on the shop, but there is still a deficiency of £6,280 on these units. I think it is our responsibility as a Finance Board to warn hon. members that having said to all Boards of Tynwald, we have got to restrict expenditure, we have got to be extremely careful in this situation. If we were building houses for tenants who were unable to get houses in which to live I could understand it but, to me, to build a shop at Jurby and subsidised it with this amount of money and only then to provide two more new houses in which a caretaker shall live and a shopkeeper shall live, I think it is actually extreme expense and an unnecessary expense for the Government to under- take. We did agree to these matters coming forward and gave our concurrence I think it is important that at times the Finance Board does give concurrence to some of these items because if we just sit as a Finance Board and say we do not concur, hon. members of this Court have no idea sometimes of the details and the cases we have to consider as the Finance Board before we give our decision. We concurred with this coming for- ward to let you know exactly what we are faced with today in subsidising premises of this kind. To me, we are establishing a new policy. If we are going to say in other areas we are going to build shops, we are going to subsidise the shops, we are going to build houses in which the shopkeepers can live, I think it is getting absolutely away from the principle of providing houses for people to live in and that is the policy we should be pursuing. I am afraid today I will reluctantly have to vote against this resolution. Mr. Delaney: Your Excellency, I initially supported the school at Jurby, I think it was most necessary, and I can understand, although it is obliged to supply services to certain areas, I totally agree with what has been said by the Chairman of the Finance Board. I look at this with trepidation, in actual fact. If you think about what we are doing now, we are cutting out enterprise from the public, from any side of the public who wish to put their hand to possibly making a profit. We are saying to them, "There you are, you cannot make a profit in the shop but so as you can survive in it we will build a shop for you and we will throw in a house for good measure and the taxpayer will pay £50 a week for you having the pleasure of running a shop which cannot make a profit unless it is subsidised by the taxpayer." I would agree with what the Chairman of the Finance Board has said. We have built the school at Jurby and, as he said, is it not possible that there is somebody living in Jurby who could do it? The person cannot be living in a tent out there. He must be living somewhere. It is no use bringing somebody from across or somebody from Castletown to be a janitor of the school. There must be somebody out there who knows the local area, and he must already have a house, so why are we building him a house? Is he living in a tent? Of course he is not. He

Jurby Primary School Site—Construction of Shop and Two Dwellings—Approved. T1350 TYNWALD COURT. JUNE 16, 1981

is already situated in the Jurby area if he is just going to be a janitor. Therefore, he must have a dwelling that he is in now, and why do we have to build a house when there are so many other people who are in need of accommodation in this Island, when now we are supplying houses for shopkeepers and janitors. I think it is quite ludicrous, although I support it because I know at this moment in time we have an obligation to the people of Jurby that we have put out there in lots of cases to give them a service, but I hope in the future, before we ever, and we are still doing it, I am sure, I think it is wasted, actually, because I am sure the next Government and the Government after that will probably do the same again, will put people into areas as we did at Anagh Coar and then have to supply them with services, which all comes out at the end of the day at extra cost to the ratepayer or the taxpayer. But this has really been bad Government from start to finish and I think that the idea of building someone a house to go with a shop is quite ludicrous in this day and age. You are killing all the ability of the public to be able to see the possibility of running a business and let them get on with it. We are actually underwriting them totally from the time they move the first tin of beans into the shop until the time they go bust or leave to move on to greener pastures. Mr. Simcocks: Your Excellency, I, too, would like to lend my voice in raising doubts as to the wisdom of the resolution before us. I know that this Court accepted the plea of the hon. member for Michael in his plea for "Justice for Jurby", but really this is going a little far. We are living in what we fondly believe to be a private enterprise economy. If there is any justification for a shop in Jurby, if there is any chance of a profit to be made or a service to be provided that is needed in Jurby, private enterprise ought to be perfectly capable of doing it. The fact that private enterprise is not prepared to do it can only mean that there is no real demand for it. Thisi is the take-over of the road service again. We thought we were doing the right thing by taking over the buses because they were needed by country people. We took them over and found they were not wanted so it is costing us fi million a year for finding that out. I believe this is not the right way of going about this business. If there is a need for a shop in Jurby private enterprise will provide it. We certainly should not. Mr. J. J. Radcliffe: Your Excellency, 1 am really astonished at hard-headed business- men such as the Chancellor of the Exchequer and our friend for West Douglas. Mr. Delaney. A Member: East Douglas. Mr. J. J. Radcliffe: I can manage without the interruption. Mr. Chairman of Executive Council, thank you very much. 1 can manage perhaps a little better, sir.

Mr. Irving: Well, you ought to get the right constituency then.

Mr. J. J. Radcliffe: Thank you very much for your kind remarks. We cannot all chop and change. (Laughter.)

Mr. Irving: You do not have to.

Mr. J. J. Radcliffe: I really am astonished, as I said several minutes ago, at the Chairman of the Finance Board who, one might almost say, not quite invented Jurby

Jurby Primary School Site—Construction of Shop and Two Dwellings -- Approved. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981 T1351 but certainly brought it into being — (laughter and interruptions) — as I understand it, when as Chairman of the Local Government Board, I gather, I may be wrong, but he was largely instrumental in making very good use of the housing units when they became the property of the Isle of Man Government by putting people to Jurby; I think that is largely correct. Now, as I understand it, in Government we need to do just a little bit more than putting a roof over people's heads. I think the technical term is infrastructure. They need a shop, they need a public-house, they need a post office, they need a school, and I would have thought that one could even say it was bad planning to have some 100 or 150 houses in that area and then in some mysterious way say, why on earth do they want a shop? The hon. and gallant member of Council, I suppose in the days he was in Ballasalla he saw nothing wrong with having a shop in the housing estate there, I have never heard his voice raised against it, and I think I am right in saying that there is a shop there. Whether it was provided by this Government I am not quite sure but I think it was. Where that shopkeeper lives I do not know either but I strongly suspect he lives very adjacent to that shop, and possibly in what is known as a com- bined business dwelling. So, we are short of money, certainly, therefore Jurby does not apparently need shopping facilities. This resolution is about 15 years late.

Mr. P. Radcliffe: It was there and it was shut.

Mr. J. J. Radcliffe: There was a bit of a but there, if that is what you mean.

Mr. P. Radcliffe: It does not matter.

Mr. J. J. Radcliffe: What we are talking about is premises designed for shopkeeping with suitable accommodation so that we can have this combined business dwelling because, in my opinion, and if I might say so, sir, in my experience, combined business dwelling is the only suitable type of accommodation for a country area and, if I might say so, and do not misunderstand me, particularly in Jurby. This is what we want. We are getting two units of accommodation and one business premise which, if the Jeremiahs and the other prophets of doom are right, can also be turned into a unit of accommodation. We are getting three for £70,000. The Local Government Board is constantly being told to provide living accommodation and this is exactly what we are doing, and surely in a housing estate the size of Jurby, to suggest that there be a shop there and, hopefully, one day a post office so that the people of Jurby can have the same amenities as the rest of us take for granted — is this asking too much? How many more pennies are we going to pinch in the interests of economy?

Mr. MacDonald: Do they pay the same rates?

Mr. J. J. Radcliffe: We are doing a job out there. For goodness' sake let us give them a fair deal. Other shop premises, as the Chairman of Finance Board says, may have failed. Other Chairmen of Finance Board may have failed too, but we have every confidence in the present one. That is no argument at all. The shopkeeper has got to live somewhere. Surely to goodness, the best thing is to have him there adjacent to the premises. I thought this was almost a stroke of genius. We are at long last to get a school at Jurby. At long last we decide that war-time Nissen huts are not quite the sort of image we wish to project to the people who come to see our friends on the Industrial Advisory Council and say, "When you bring your families here we have some excellent

Jurby Primary School Site—Construction of Shop and Two Dwellings—Approved. T1352 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981

Nissen huts where we run our education establishment." We can take them up and say, "This is the type of establishment where your children will be getting educated." If we are going to spend this money on a school, surely then we want a decent caretaker, and what better than to have him reasonably on the premises. We are building houses. Some members are talking as if we are just pouring money down the drain. This is good bricks and mortar. Nobody knows better than the hon. Chairman the value of bricks and mortar and this is what we are spending taxpayers' money on. I really am astonished, for a man of business acumen to get up here, I never thought I would see the day. I am absolutely appalled and astounded. We can provide houses for key workers, to bring them in, and yet we boggle at the idea of building two solitary prefab-type cambar bungalows so that a country community can get a fair crack of the whip. What are we on about? I am absolutely astounded. Mr. Kermeen: Your Excellency, may I share the astonishment of the hon. member for Michael. We have had a Budget which has spelt out pretty clearly this year that we are going to have hard times, and every item that comes forward which affects a member individually is subject to this sort of emotional appeal. The hon. member himself has said, because we have inherited Jurby we must have first of all a school and then a house for the caretaker, and he himself has said the next thing will be a post office, all subsidised by Government, and from there where do we go next? Do we have a cinema? Do we have some other amenity? Mr. Delaney: A swimming pool!

Mr. Kermeen: All at the expense of our hard-pressesd economy, and do not make any mistake about this. We cannot pay lip service to the need to economise and at the same time indulge in this sort of fantasy. I do hope, Your Excellency, that the Court will come to its cake and milk on this and say no, thus far, no further.

Mrs. Hanson: Your Excellency, the Local Government Board co-operated with the Board of Education because this was a community project. There is no doubt about it that Jurby has been deprived — and I will use that word — in the past. We put the people out there. They do not want to stay, I understand, because there are no amenties. We built the school which has been in a shed, let us face it, in a Nissen but since the last war, that is where the children have been educated up there, in a Nissen but since the last war with a factory next door, and for the information of the Chairman of the Finance Board we do not own the building. The factory, I believe, through the Govern- ment Property Trustees, are going to take the whole building over, the factory next door. When the Local Government Board decided very kindly that they would support us and they decided they would build this shop and house to give a community to the people of Jurby, which they sadly lack, we asked if we could have a house for the caretaker because we thought it was very good management, to watch the Government finance, to have a caretaker living on the premises who could keep his eye open for vandalism so we could protect the Government property and save. I thought that was good housekeeping. It would save Government finance. And as for a caretaker living on the estate, if he is, we do not know who is going to be appointed caretaker, let us face it.

Mr. Delaney: He will not get a work permit, that is for sure.

Jurby Primary School Site—Construction of Shop and Two Dwellings—Approved. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981 T1353

Mrs. Hanson: He may not need a work permit. Mr. Delaney: Normal procedure with the Board of Education. Mrs. Hanson: Thank you for the comment. I wish to continue now, talking about the matter in hand, thank you. We may not appoint a caretaker from that area. If we do appoint a caretaker from that area he will vacate a house which a family can move into and it is going to give another house to a family which, and you all said today, we badly need. The caretaker is going to pay rent for that house. It will be on a points system just like all the other publicly built houses are, and if there is any argument about the shop, the shop could be kept separate and the people could be paying an economic rent if the Finance Board are going to quibble over that. It is all very possible. But please let us get this community project off the ground. The Speaker: Your Excellency, I rise to oppose the resolution in the light of the comments made by the Chairman of the Finance Board, which incidentally I welcome. I think guidance of this sort is invaluable to members when approaching a decision on matters such as this. I am always interested to hear about the deprived state of Jurby. I find it quite interesting that this area which has been cosseted to a degree unbelievable in any other community should be termed as deprived. Jurby, bought for the Isle of Man Government for a very modest sum, eventually had quite a number of people housed there. Its children had to go to school in other districts and eventually we provided a school facility for the children. It may not be a palace but the facility was there and the decision has been taken to provide a new school. The design may be ridiculous but the concept is going to be there. Now Jurby has benefited from Govern- ment to a remarkable degree. Jurby was given its own parish hall for free from the Government. Jurby has been given everything it has pretty well asked for. Jurby had a shop — what happened? The shop did not get any support from Jurby and the shop had to close down, this is what happened. So we had a position at Jurby where there even had to be special provision for a family made at Jurby and a new house was produced by the Local Government Board of a unique design and it was portrayed there at Jurby as being the ark that was the answer to all of the problems in relation to possibly large families. That has been turned into a Youth Hostel Association head- quarters. It is no longer a house. So we go on with the provisions for Jurby, I would say, on quite a lavish scale, and I cannot accept today that Jurby is in any way deprived. So when we come to a situaiton of providing, let us face it, a shop at Jurby, I go with those who say, leave it to private enterprise. Private enterprise is developing on the Jurby estate. There are shops there at the present time which could be expanded if the demand is there to sustain them. Now as to providing a house for a caretaker for the school, this in the Jurby setting is the biggest bit of nonsense I have ever heard because I would imagine there are few places that have more potential for supplying that care- taker than Jurby. So, Your Excellency, the justification I feel is not there. When we are talking about deprived Jurby, let us face it, in building this new school we have also spent some £50,000 putting a community hall into the school, having given Jurby already a hall of its own. So it has got two halls, not one. Your Excellency, I cannot support the resolution. Mr. Lowey: Your Excellency, I am forced to my feet by the speech of Mr. Speaker because I shut my eyes and try to think of Jurby as portrayed by Mr. Speaker - paradise lost.

Jurby Primary School Site—Construction of Shop and Two Dwellings—Approved. TI354 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981

The Speaker: You know it?

Mr. Lowey: Yes, I know it very well. I play cricket there. 1 know the area pretty well. It has a shop there at the moment. It is called an awareness shop. It is somewhere where you can eat your baked beans and contemplate your navel. (Laughter.) I would suggest that many members of this Court could go there and learn a thing or two. Really and truly, I was not impressed with the Chairman of the Finance Board this afternoon because he gave us a lecture really on the deficiency of the new property. I would have been much more impressed if he had told us the full story of Government's profit on these houses over the years, which we got for a bargain from the British Govern- ment. The profit made by this Government on those houses, and depriving people, if you like, in a socially unacceptable way. Now, of course, this particular project is being identified with the member for that area, Mr. Radcliffe. Great credit to him. But come back, every area has it. Ballasalla was mentioned. There are two shops built by the planners although in the village we had four existing shops. in those days they recognised the necessity of shops for people, contrary to Colby, for example, where there are no shops, and I have been into the Board on more than one occasion at the request of lots of people in Colby to see if they would provide. I, too, am not over- happy with the amount of money involved in providing a shop and two dwellings, but again, that is not the fault of the people of Jurby, and contrary to the Vice-Chairman of the Finance Board who says that this will be a drain on Government expenditure and a drain on the economy, I somehow wonder where these buildings are going to go up. Are they going to go up overnight like mushrooms? This money will circulate in the economy. It will create employment, the very thing we are talking about, and a lot of this money will come back to Government. The deficiency argument I accept from the Chairman on these, they are high, but I maintain that is part of the price, but not in isolation taken over all with Jurby and the bargain that this Government bought from the British Government. I believe it is necessary in the development of Jurby and tis someone who has got no direct link with Jurby, I believe that this Court owes it to the people of Jurby to support the resolution as on the paper.

The Governor: The Chairman to reply.

Mr. Anderson: Yes, very briefly, Your Excellency, I think actually other hon. mem- bers have answered what is to happen to the school, it is going back to industry. We appreciate that the price of anything today is not very cheap at all. I reiterate, and I think some hon. members indicated they did not know where these houses came from, in fact. I think the Government paid £700,000 for the lot, or was it that even? (Inter- ruption.) Less than that. We are expecting people to live there with the minimum of facilities and I think it is imperative that we look after our own property. We have spent this money on a new school. Somebody living half a mile away from Jurby is not just good enough, they have got to be on the job, and I would advise them probably to get an Alsatian with them to try to protect the property.

Mr. Delaney: We will he subsidising the kennel.

Mr. Anderson: This is the top and bottom of it, looking after your own investment. T should suggest, and I think it is important that the caretaker as far as the school is concerned lives in close proximity to it. If the shop goes as closely to the school as this,

Jurby Primary School Site—Construction of Shop and Two Dwellings—Approved. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 16, 1981 T1355 inevitably mothers will bring their families there to do the shopping when they are there, as they do at St. John's at the moment. It is a requiremnt in the area. I think the hon. member of Council, Mr. Kerruish, and maybe the hon. member for Michael, might indicate that some of the members of this hon. Court would do well to add to their education, Your Excellency, and hold a public meeting down there some time. They will learn a new language, I can assure you, and they can tell you about the deficiencies of that area. I have been subjected to it. Mind you, I have got a very thick skin. They will tell all the deficiencies with which they have had to contend over the years. But I think in all the circumstances, appreciating what other hon. members have said and appreciating the stringencies that there are at this present time, it will never be done cheaper, and we hope that it will bring a new dimension into this area which, in spite of what the hon. Mr. Speaker and others have said, is still deprived, below standard, et cetera. We want to uplift it, we want it up to standard, and I support, Your Excellency.

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

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

In the Keys-

For: Messrs. Anderson, J. J. Radcliffe, J. N. Radcliffe, Mrs. Christian, Dr. Mann, Messrs. Lowey, Walker, Cringle, Quinney, Ward, Delaney, Mrs. Hanson and Mr. Christian — 13.

Against: Messrs. Quirk, Callin, Watterson, Creer, Craine, Irving, Kermeen, Dr. Moore and the Speaker — 9.

The Speaker: Your Excellency, the resolution carries in the House of Keys, 13 votes being cast in favour and nine votes against.

In the Council--- For: The Lord Bishop, Messrs. Moore, Kerruish, MacDonald and the President of the Council — 5.

Against: Messrs. Kneale, Crellin, P. Radcliffe and Simcocks —4.

The Governor: In the Council, five votes in favour, four against. The motion carries. Hon. members, I think it is time the Lord Bishop and I went up the road. (Laughter.) We will adjourn until 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.

The Court adjourned.

Jurby Primary School Site—Construction of Shop and Two Dwellings—Approved.