H O U S E O F K E Y S O F F I C I A L R E P O R T

R E C O R T Y S O I K O I L Y C H I A R E A S F E E D

P R O C E E D I N G S

D A A L T Y N

HANSARD

Douglas, Tuesday, 25th May 2021

All published Official Reports can be found on the Tynwald website:

www.tynwald.org.im/business/hansard

Supplementary material provided subsequent to a sitting is also published to the website as a Hansard Appendix. Reports, maps and other documents referred to in the course of debates may be consulted on application to the Tynwald Library or the Clerk of Tynwald’s Office.

Volume 138, No. 22

ISSN 1742-2264

Published by the Office of the Clerk of Tynwald, Legislative Buildings, Finch Road, Douglas, , IM1 3PW. © Court of Tynwald, 2021 , TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

Present:

The Speaker (Hon. J P Watterson) (); The Chief Minister (Hon. R H Quayle) (); Mr J R Moorhouse and Hon. G D Cregeen (Arbory, Castletown and Malew); Hon. A L Cannan and Hon. T S Baker ( and Michael); Mr C C Thomas and Mrs C A Corlett (Douglas Central); Mrs C L Barber and Mr C R Robertshaw (); Hon. D J Ashford MBE and Mr G R Peake (); Mrs C S B Christian and Mr S P Quine (); Mr M J Perkins and Mrs D H P Caine (); Hon. R K Harmer and Hon. G G Boot ( and Peel); Mr W C Shimmins (Middle); Mr R E Callister and Ms J M Edge (); Hon. A J Allinson and Mr L L Hooper (Ramsey); Hon. L D Skelly (Rushen); with Mr R I S Phillips, Secretary of the House.

______1968 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

Business transacted

Order of the Day ...... 1971 2. Secretary of the House of Keys and Counsel to the Speaker – Dr Jonathan King appointed ...... 1971 Question of Urgent Public Importance ...... 1972 Isle of Man Census 2021 – Call centre capacity; requests for paper copies...... 1972 3. Questions for Oral Answer ...... 1979 3.1. Independent report on tax – Plans to commission for next administration ...... 1979 3.2. Tourism and reopening borders – Sector concerns ...... 1982 3.3. Additional educational needs responses and report – Publication...... 1986 3.4. Buildings conservation schemes – Assistance to improve important buildings ...... 1988 3.5. Dr Rachel Glover PAC testimony – Rebuttal by HSC Minister ...... 1992 3.6. Care Home Assessment and Rapid Response Team – Advanced care planning; assistance to adult care homes ...... 1994 3.7. Corrin Memorial Home – Respite provision contract ...... 1997 3.8. Isle of Man Border Force – Progress in creation ...... 2000 Standing Orders suspended to take remaining Oral Questions after Item 7 ...... 2003 4. Questions for Written Answer ...... 2004 4.1. Arbory Street and Malew Street, Castletown – Consultation over utilities networks 2004 4.2. Arbory Street and Malew Street, Castletown – Gas pipes...... 2004 4.3. Adult care home inspections– Homes requiring improvements; concerns about implementation ...... 2005 4.4. Public sector pension schemes – Value of contributions ...... 2007 4.5. Arbory Street and Malew Street, Castletown – Utilities networks ...... 2009 Statement of Urgent Public Importance ...... 2010 February 2021 COVID-19 Outbreak and IoM Steam Packet Company – Review by Mr Stephen Hind FCCA – Statement by the Chief Minister ...... 2010 Order of the Day ...... 2026 5. Motion ...... 2026 Questions procedure – Amendments to Standing Orders 2.2, 3.6(1) and 3.6(3) – Motion carried ...... 2026 6. Bill for Second Reading...... 2027 6.1. Local Government (Amendment) Bill 2021 – Second Reading approved ...... 2027 The House adjourned at 12.59 p.m. and resumed its sitting at 2.30 p.m...... 2033

______1969 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

7. Consideration of Clauses ...... 2033 7.1. Administration of Justice and other Amendments Bill 2021 – Clauses considered .... 2033 Administration of Justice and other Amendments Bill 2021 – Standing Orders suspended to take Third Reading ...... 2038 Administration of Justice and other Amendments Bill 2021 – Third Reading approved ... 2039 7.2. Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Bill 2021 – Clauses considered ... 2039 Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Bill 2021 – Standing Orders suspended to take Third Reading ...... 2050 Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Bill 2021 – Third Reading approved... 2051 7.3. Liquor Licensing and Public Entertainments Bill 2021 – Clauses considered ...... 2052 Liquor Licensing and Public Entertainments Bill 2021 – Standing Orders suspended to take Third Reading ...... 2070 Liquor Licensing and Public Entertainments Bill 2021 – Third Reading approved ...... 2070 3. Questions for Oral Answer (concluded) ...... 2072 3.9. Prince’s Half-Tide Dock – Impact of new IOMSPCo vessels ...... 2072 3.10. Billown Circuit – Progress with upgrade ...... 2074 3.11. Green-list travel status – Readiness for Manx inclusion ...... 2076 3.12. Lateral flow tests – Stock held ...... 2077 3.13. Electrical vehicle charging points – Selecting locations ...... 2079 3.14. New Steam Packet vessel – Douglas Harbour ...... 2083 3.15. Housing improvement schemes – Assistance to improve living accommodation .... 2085 3.16. Douglas Promenade – Red concrete remedial work ...... 2088 3.17. Ronaldsway Airport – Scheduled taxiway and runway resurfacing ...... 2091 The House adjourned at 5.10 p.m...... 2093

______1970 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

House of Keys

The House met at 10 a.m.

[MR SPEAKER in the Chair]

The Speaker: Moghrey mie, good morning, Hon. Members.

Members: Moghrey mie, good morning, Mr Speaker. 5 The Speaker: I call on the Chaplain to lead us in prayer.

PRAYERS The Chaplain of the House

Order of the Day

2. Secretary of the House of Keys and Counsel to the Speaker – Dr Jonathan King appointed

Mrs Corlett to move:

That in accordance with Standing Order 9.3.1, Dr Jonathan King be appointed Secretary of the House of Keys and Counsel to the Speaker with effect from 23rd September 2021, the appointment to continue during pleasure.

The Speaker: Hon. Members, it is great to see a full House today. We turn to Item 2 on our Order Paper, the appointment of the Secretary to the House of Keys. I call on Mrs Corlett to move. 10 Mrs Corlett: Mr Speaker, the Tynwald Management Committee has agreed to nominate Dr Jonathan King, at present Clerk of the Council and Deputy Secretary of the House of Keys, as the next Secretary of the House and Counsel to Mr Speaker in the place of Roger Phillips, who is retiring at the end of September. 15 The appointment of the Secretary of the House comes before the appointment of the Clerk of Tynwald, even though the same person holds both roles. The Secretary of the House is eligible to become the Clerk of Tynwald by leave of this House. Dr King, of course, very well known to us all, has served Tynwald very ably in his current capacity since 2007. Dr King was the unanimous choice of the Tynwald Management Committee, 20 and I am delighted to be able to move this motion appointing him as Secretary of the House, which I do now. I beg to move, Mr Speaker.

______1971 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

The Speaker: Mr Cregeen.

25 Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second.

The Speaker: I put the question at Item 2 on your Order Paper, that in accordance with Standing Order 9.3.1, Dr Jonathan King be appointed Secretary of the House of Keys and Counsel to the Speaker with effect from 23rd September 2021, the appointment continuing during 30 pleasure. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. I am sure the House will join me in congratulating Dr King and wishing him all the best when he takes over in the office.

Members: Hear, hear.

Question of Urgent Public Importance

POLICY AND REFORM

Isle of Man Census 2021 – Call centre capacity; requests for paper copies

The Hon. Member for Arbory, Castletown and Malew (Mr Moorhouse) to ask the Minister for Policy and Reform:

What the capacity is of the call centre to deal with people requiring paper based copies of the Isle of Man Census 2021; and why these lines were not operational before the letters arrived at people’s homes?

35 The Speaker: We now turn to the Urgent Question in the name of Mr Moorhouse.

Mr Moorhouse: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister for Policy and Reform what the capacity is of the call centre to deal with people requiring paper based copies of the Isle of Man Census 2021; and why these lines 40 were not operational before the letters arrived at people’s homes?

The Speaker: I call on the Minister for Policy and Reform to reply, Mr Harmer.

The Minister for Policy and Reform (Mr Harmer): Thank you, Mr Speaker. 45 If I may take the second part of the question first, the Census Office was operational before the letters went out, and calls were being taken by the team on the first day that the letters were delivered to households. Similarly, the online form was available from the moment letters arrived on the doorsteps. The Census Office did and is experiencing a very high number of calls, which is why some 50 people may have struggled to get through last week. However, I must say that people do have plenty of time to complete their census form. While Census night itself is on 30th May, individuals will have until 14th June 2021 before the chasing process begins, which will initially be by visits by Census officers to help households to complete form.

______1972 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

The Census Office is currently being staffed by 10 staff, which will be increased by another five 55 from the first week in June. This is a notable increase on the size of the Census Office of 2016, recognising the fact that more calls would be received, given the move to digital by default. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Supplementary question, Mr Moorhouse. 60 Mr Moorhouse: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you, Minister, for that Answer. To help the digitally excluded, could paper copies to be made available at post offices, Commissioners’ offices, libraries and other public buildings across the Island? And would it be possible to have a simple download and print-off version on the website to assist these people? 65 Even yesterday evening I was phoned by a lady who was in tears, really concerned that she had still been unable to get through to the people on the call line. Thank you.

The Speaker: Minister to reply. 70 The Minister: Thank you. Certainly I will give consideration to suggestions about printing off a form … Immediately when you say that, that has a logical issue with me in the sense that if you can print it off online, then you could probably fill it in online. But in terms of your suggestions, absolutely. But what I need 75 to remind … just to give some sort of comfort, Hon. Member, you can leave a message. I believe I have been told that the messaging service is switched off by Manx Telecom, and then that was a problem over the weekend; that has now been resolved. So you can leave a message and a paper form will be sent to you. But absolutely, if you are not comfortable with the online, you can have a paper form. You can 80 also have it filled in over the phone by one of the operatives. And just to re-emphasise, there is plenty of time. Yes, it is a snapshot in time on the 30th, but you have plenty of time to complete the form, and after the 14th people will help people and actually go through the form with them after the 14th. So there is plenty of time to complete the form. Thank you. 85 The Speaker: Supplementary question, Mr Callister.

Mr Callister: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Policy Reform Minister for the information this morning. 90 I went online myself this morning just to complete mine. I can understand why people are quite daunted by the amount of information that is required. Therefore, can I ask the Minister if 10 staff will be sufficient to actually deal with any enquiries received? I know that is going to increase to 15 in due course, but is even 15 enough? And can I ask the Minister also if anyone is actually logging the number of complaints being received, in order to ensure that lessons are learned for 95 the future? Thank you.

The Speaker: Minister to reply.

100 The Minister: Thank you. So in terms of calls logged, yes, they are being logged and also complaints and issues, as well as the numbers of people completing. So far, we have 3,311 completed Census forms, and I think there has been another issue where people feel that they cannot complete until the 30th. You can complete it now. And another 1,845 that have started but not yet completed. So yes, all of that 105 will be recorded, and obviously the idea of an online form is that you do not have to complete the

______1973 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

bits, it will automatically take you to the sections that you need to complete. So hopefully I have given you enough information there.

The Speaker: Supplementary question, Ms Edge. 110 Ms Edge: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wonder if the Minister could explain with regard to the accreditation on the bottom of the letter that everybody has received. It clearly states ISO 270001, which is not an accreditation. It is ISO 27001 I believe, and I am just wondering if he could advise what the process the Cabinet Office 115 has gone through to receive that accreditation? Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Minister: Thank you. I do not have that information to hand, but obviously I can supply the Member and all Members 120 that information.

The Speaker: Thank you. Mr Moorhouse.

125 Mr Moorhouse: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Two key points. In terms of providing some reassurance about the date when the information will be filled up, that is clearly defined but there is some uncertainty. If I were to fill my form up today and then visit the Chief Minister on Sunday evening and were fortunate to stay over – (Laughter and interjections) how would that correction be made to avoid double counting ? 130 The other issue is, at this point in time how many people actually contacted the call centre with issues? So how do we correct the form to avoid double counting, and how many people actually contacted the call centre? It has been suggested that 10% of the population are digitally excluded, particularly looking at over 8,000 people contacting the call centre for help. Is that something that can be dealt with? 135 Thank you.

The Speaker: Minister.

The Minister: Thank you. 140 I can confirm I will not be in the Chief Minister’s house on Sunday. (Laughter and interjection) But if there are any issues like that and you have a change of plans then please contact the Census Office and we will make sure that there is no double counting whatsoever.

The Speaker: Thank you. 145 Supplementary question, Mrs Corlett.

Mrs Corlett: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I ask the Minister, does he feel that 1st June is a little late to increase staffing, as people are trying to contact the Census Office now without success? Would it have been sensible to 150 increase staff levels before now? And the Minister has assured us that there is plenty of time, but in the past the Census has been very much targeted to a certain day. Could some publicity be put out to reassure people that they have plenty of time to complete the form? Thank you. 155 The Speaker: Minister to reply.

______1974 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

The Minister: You make very good points. Publicity, absolutely. In fact, this Question is excellent, that it is today, and also the fact that 160 we need to move to communicate. If there is one thing that I think we do not do very well, it is to communicate, so we must communicate. In the past, it has been very difficult, because when you are doing a manual process, if we step back to what it was like before, you would get your form in the post. You might fill it in early, you might fill it in late. You then send it back or have it collected in terms of that process. So it is very 165 similar, except the fact that it is online. In terms of number of staff, we had four last time. I know we have had a couple more over the last couple of days. Certainly, I am very keen that we have as many … The voicemail is absolutely critical, that people can just leave a message and say, ‘Give me a form’, absolutely vitally important. 170 I think the issue we have is a perfect storm at the moment because we have the change in travel that happened yesterday, and also one of the last batches of Census forms were being sent out, so suddenly there was a lot going on and it is the same staff. And obviously we could not have predicted that we were going to have a COVID relaxation at that point. It literally is the same staff. But I have made it very clear, we must resource this, absolutely, and I am obviously of the same 175 opinion as you.

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

Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 180 In the 2016 Census, the advanced notification was seven weeks prior and the Census forms were delivered two weeks prior. The recommendation after the last Census, at 4.27, was:

From contacts received by households around the time that census forms began to be delivered this gap was too long and should be compressed to keep the census current …

Was it planned to have it as compressed as it is now or has the implementation not gone quite as according to plan? And the second question, for the benefit of the public, is there an office of the Census at 185 Fairfield School or is there not an office of Fairfield School, because the address on the letter is Fairfield School and that is obviously a constituency building?

The Speaker: Minister to reply.

190 The Minister: Okay. So a number of points there, I will take the Fairfield School. Fairfield was initially intended to be originally the Census Office for the 2021 Census. However, shortly after the letters were committed to be printed, we were informed by Manx Telecom that the building had a connectivity issue. That was not expected, but this would have taken a minimum of four weeks to rectify. We therefore had to change the Census Office location at late 195 notice to Nivison House so that we could have operationally the phone lines, which was after letters had been printed and delivered to us. So that was that particular issue, and obviously that is not ideal in those terms. Yes, we want to keep it current. I would have to come back to you about whether it is deliberately compressed. I think, in my view, I was always badgering that we need more notice, 200 we need earlier notice, but I think one of the things that came out in the Court and some of the Questions that I have answered is whether we would have a Census at all this year. I think that very much the feeling of this House and the Court was that we should have a Census, but we were continually faced against a huge issue, to be blunt, around COVID and the ability to visit houses, which was why digital default was very much part of that thinking.

______1975 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

205 So I personally would want more notice and more time. I do not think you can under- communicate. I think that is not the best way.

The Speaker: Supplementary question, Mrs Barber.

210 Mrs Barber: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think there have been some important points made already around this need to front-load the information lines. I just wonder whether the Minister would confirm that historically census forms did have to be filled in on Census Day, so there is a large part of the population who believe that is absolutely how this should be done for some of the reasons given by Mr Moorhouse. 215 Enabling people to have the form, if that is the way they wish to do it, in place in order for them to do that on the day is the right way to go about this, rather than messages where they are concerned that they might be breaking the law. So I think a very strong message needs to go out, and I would be grateful if he could confirm that he will be doing that.

220 The Minister: Thank you. I do not disagree with any of what you said there, but I think it is going back to first principles. First principles are that we want a snapshot in time on the 30th and the best way to achieve that, and if you know where you are going to be on 30th, then it is absolutely fine to complete your form. But I totally agree with the sentiment and the worry that in the past it was always the 30th 225 you had to have the form, and that would cause a lot of concern, for which I can only apologise in the sense that we will do everything – and I will push as hard as I can – to make sure that the officers fulfil that for people. But I do want to make it very clear; you can fill it in online now and you have got till June 14th.

230 The Speaker: Further supplementary, Mrs Christian.

Mrs Christian: Thank you, Mr Speaker. On my way to work this morning, I heard the radio advert, Minister, and actually it only confirmed that you could do it online. So talking about communication and how important that 235 is, can you look at the radio advert and please put these alternative methods also on that advert? It is really essential. That is where a lot of our public are hearing this message, so it is really important if you could take a look at that, please. Thank you, Minister.

240 The Speaker: Minister.

The Minister: Yes, absolutely. To reinforce the message – and I think that may be a cause of where one of the issues actually is – that you do not have to do it online. We would like you to do it online, if at all possible. It 245 means the data is better. To be quite frank, we get a lot of forms that are not necessarily filled in correctly and we spend a lot of time correcting those. But by phone, by paper, absolutely fine.

The Speaker: Final three quick supplementaries, if we may. Ms Edge. 250 Ms Edge: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just wonder if the Minister could clarify, because in some news reports it says it is the 10-year Census, which I know is a full census. Is this a five-year or is it a 10-year one? Also with regard to the majority of constituents I have had contact me, they are the more 255 vulnerable in our society who do not have access to digital methods. Can the Minister please provide me with at least 50 Census forms today, so I can help these people today? Not a telephone

______1976 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

call where they will have to have six individual … six minutes some people are waiting and they still do not get an answer. And also, we have had a history of when an individual phones up to request information – we 260 have had it with our contact tracing team or our transport team – where telephone messages went missing. So people are very nervous that they will be fined £1,000 because their information that they want to fill in, in a paper format, has not happened. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

265 The Speaker: Minister.

The Minister: Thank you. I will take the last point first, and I really want to emphasise this point. There is no £1,000 fine going around for people who are trying to fill in the Census form, (Interjection by Ms Edge) so 270 there is a long process. No, it is really important because it is exactly the same as last time. So what happened last time is that, yes, you filled in the form. People came around to help. Then there was a period of making sure, for those that hand-filled it in, maybe checking to see if a property was vacant. Then more investigations, then trying to help again; then a formal letter, perhaps in September. You are really talking quite a lengthy process before we get anywhere near 275 there. So I would really like to reassure everyone there is absolutely time to do this. Now, yes of course, again we can forward a number of forms to you, but the question is please get their addresses and let the Census department know. It may actually be easier, rather than everybody contacting all their MHKs, if you leave a message on the phone line, they will get a form to you. Your phone call will not be lost, there is a voicemail system and you will be … But even in 280 the worst-case scenario, there is absolutely time because there will be follow-up calls, follow-up visits to make sure that you have every opportunity. So I would really like to reassure the Member on that.

The Speaker: Mr Thomas. 285 Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Minister and questioners have been taking us down the line that this Census form is somehow generalised. Can the Minister confirm it is actually personal and he will issue it to a household, and he will issue exact instructions about the fact that the household receives the 290 form and the household fits it in, because I am beginning to worry that ISO 27001 might be compromised if we do not make it specific that you fill in your household form about the information on your date. The second question is, can the Minister confirm that Fairfield School had been earmarked as a GTS operational centre three or four years ago, and it collapsed, I believe, because of issues like 295 telecommunications and the IT infrastructure?

The Speaker: Minister to reply.

The Minister: Thank you. 300 So, taking the last one first, I think I have already explained that Fairfield had connectivity issues, so it was not possible to have the call centre team in there, so we could not do it. Now, maybe long term there will be possible. The Member from Onchan also asked whether it is a full Census. Yes, it is a full Census. That is why we have to be very careful. It is an exception route, really, because we have to absolutely 305 know where the forms have gone to, and it is a form that is filled in by the household and if you fill it online, it is by the household. So, yes.

The Speaker: Final supplementary, the original questioner, Mr Moorhouse.

______1977 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

Mr Moorhouse: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 310 I am really concerned about the approach here. I recognise it is a step forward, but at the same time we are forgetting many people in our society. There is the ignoring of the digitally excluded, and the Minister has made no reference at all to them in terms of that grouping. That really does concern me. Three points that I really need answers on. The first one, if you cannot get through to the call 315 centre, is there any other way in which you can get a copy? I have been contacted by many people; if I could download a copy from the website that would be simple for me to hand over. I asked that question and I have not received an answer. Could one be downloadable from the website so they can be distributed to neighbours and other people? The second one is, how many people have contacted the call centre already? So how many 320 people have contacted and shown a concern? You said that it has not been open over the weekend and there were issues last week, but are there a number of people actually really having issues here? We have heard people, but we need figures. How many people have called the call centre for help at this point? And finally, is there the capacity to deal with potentially 8,000 people? Because that is 325 potentially the worst-case scenario in terms of the digitally excluded on the Isle of Man in 2021. Thank you.

The Speaker: Minister to reply.

330 The Minister: Thank you. No, I do not agree. We are considering everybody. That is why you can do paper copies and you can call. It does involve the digitally … those that are not included. But the point is, if you are doing something by digitally default and making the process better, which is 90% … then obviously you give them the opportunity to fill it in digitally. 335 I do not understand the thing about having the downloaded form. I am really concerned about that. I think the mention was about ISO 27001, that actually that would create a problem because you do not know who has downloaded the form and to which household it is. So I really struggle with that. But in terms of calls, yes, people are calling the number and, as I said, they will be given a form 340 or taken through the form over the phone. So both processes are being done. As I said, there is time. One of the issues was the number of letters dropped all at the same … the letter drop was over a period of five days. We tried to stagger it, but obviously that process will initially create a lot of inquiries. We hope now that things will settle down, but we have increased the number of staff as well, and I will be on the case to make sure that we do have 345 adequate resourcing as well.

______1978 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

3. Questions for Oral Answer

TREASURY

3.1. Independent report on tax – Plans to commission for next administration

The Hon. Member for Arbory, Castletown and Malew (Mr Moorhouse) to ask the Minister for the Treasury:

What plans he has to commission, for the benefit of the next administration, an independent report on (a) the changing landscape of international tax strategies; (b) how other jurisdictions are responding; and (c) how over the next decade the Island can retain a competitive tax structure and remain a destination of choice?

The Speaker: We turn to our Order Paper and Questions for Oral Answer. Question 1 and I call on the Hon. Member for Arbory, Castletown and Malew, Mr Moorhouse.

Mr Moorhouse: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 350 I would like to ask the Treasury Minister what plans he has to commission, for the benefit of the next administration, an independent report on (a) the changing landscape of international tax strategies; (b) how other jurisdictions are responding; and (c) how over the next decade the Island can retain a competitive tax structure and remain a destination of choice? Thank you. 355 The Speaker: I call on the Treasury Minister to reply.

The Minister for the Treasury (Mr Cannan): Mr Speaker, the world of international tax continues to change as new standards are developed and introduced. This is not something new, 360 as there has been continuous change since the early 2000s. During this time, the Island has introduced new measures such as the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) and the Common Reporting Standard, as well as the more recent economic substance requirements. Next month in another place, I will be bringing an order to widen the scope of substance to include partnerships. This will ensure that we can continue to meet those international standards. 365 The Assessor of Income Tax and her officers continuously monitor potential new standards and have been monitoring the latest initiatives from the US, the OECD and the European Union. The OECD’s current work on proposals for a multilateral replacement for digital services taxes in Pillar 1 and a global minimum tax rates system for large multinational companies in Pillar 2 have been generating interest recently. This work has been ongoing for some time now, but recent moves 370 by the Biden administration in the US mean that it is now likely to come to a conclusion later this year. The tax landscape is clearly continuing to change. As you are aware, international tax is always at the forefront of our thinking, and that is why taxation will be a key element of our economic strategy review that we have already commissioned KPMG to undertake. KPMG were appointed 375 by the Treasury as part of a five to 10-year Economic Strategy, which is made up of five key phases. These are: setting the vision; researching and reviewing the current economic position, including strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats for the Island; developing policy levers; formulating a strategic framework and establishing a monitoring programme for the strategy and the economy into the future.

______1979 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

380 As tax is a key part of any economy, it will feature particularly in the second and third phases. As part of the vision, there are a number of themes, including being attractive to people and businesses, and whilst tax should not be the only reason the Island is attractive for people to live and work and, indeed, locate here, it should be part of the overall package. It is hoped that the review phase will be completed by the end of July, with policy lever development beginning 385 immediately afterwards. This will straddle the general election and the formation of the next administration and will therefore allow for options to be prepared, ready to be presented, discussed and agreed by the next administration. This review will help to ensure that the Island can continue to meet international standards whilst remaining competitive.

390 The Speaker: Supplementary question, Mr Moorhouse.

Mr Moorhouse: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you, Minister for that Answer. In terms of the reassurance about the KPMG report, that there is an element of reassurance there. The problem is that it is not going to contain the required focus on taxation. It is a broader 395 based report. In terms of the challenges that we face and in terms of our existing tax structure, that is now going to be drilled down to and looked at in detail. Given the next administration is going to hit the ground running in October, when potentially global change will be coming very soon after that, does he recognise that potentially there is a real need to have something specific linked to the changing tax structure globally? 400 Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Minister to reply.

The Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 405 The Hon. Member speaks as if these matters are things that take us by surprise. As I said in my Answer, this matter has been around for some considerable time. This is not exactly a new initiative that has been brought forward. It has been given added impetus, I would suggest, by the words of the President of the United States and in what he is seeking. I would suggest there is some negotiation still to be undertaken. 410 But I would remind Hon. Members that we have been through these types of scenarios before on many occasions. In 2014, for example, the Island was amongst the first group of countries in the world to move to a new global standard for tax information exchange in an agreement that committed 102 signatories; 2016, automatic exchange of company beneficial ownership information; 2016, base erosion profit shifting; and so on. So Mr Speaker, it is something that we 415 are always paying very close attention to. Indeed, I can assure Hon. Members that the Assessor is liaising very closely with her counterparts, both in the UK and further afield to stay on top of these matters and indeed has close liaisons into the European Union and other bodies who have a great deal of interest in these matters.

420 The Speaker: Hon. Member for Onchan, Ms Edge.

Ms Edge: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wonder if the Minister would advise, I did raise this at the time with the single-rate VAT concerns, whether what impact assessments have been carried out and whether any financial 425 modelling has been done for various scenarios and whether he would share any information if there is any financial modelling being carried out? Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Minister to reply. 430 The Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

______1980 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

As I said, we are always looking at these matters. It is not always that easy to carry out extensive financial modelling for every situation. It is not necessarily clear as to what would impact on business decisions in these scenarios. But I would point out to Hon. Members that in a lot of these 435 cases, these standards have applied internationally and globally, and increasingly companies looking to chase better tax, more tax-efficient jurisdictions is probably something that is not so applicable in the current age. So it is a matter that we continue to pay close attention to and of course we do continue to speak and liaise with the business community on these matters.

440 The Speaker: Hon. Member for Douglas Central, Mr Thomas.

Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does the Minister agree with me that the success in terms of localising effectively international developments in direct tax, customs exercise, financial regulation more generally, is actually one 445 of the biggest achievements in the last five years of Government? Does the Minister agree with me further that that is in large part due to the excellent local expertise that has been developed and also the participation of the Isle of Man in its own right in the international fora where these matters are developed?

450 The Speaker: Minister to reply.

The Minister: Yes, thank you, Mr Speaker. Yes, I would agree with the Hon. Member. I think not only just on the last five years, but probably in the last decade the Island has made considerable steps forward. I think the recent 455 acknowledgment by Moneyval, for example, of the progress that we have made as an international jurisdiction, combating money laundering and crime and setting higher standards when it comes to meeting international standards would evidence that. So it has helped our progress, and it is important that we do remain at the forefront of these negotiations and indeed, ensure that we have the capability to adapt and adopt to meet the latest international standards, 460 and I am sure the Island is going to continue to progress if it continues to do that.

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

Mr Robertshaw: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 465 It is without doubt the case that the American interest, the USA interest in these tax matters, and the EU, are extremely powerful, but can the Treasury Minister assure me that we will proceed very carefully and cautiously in this whole matter, as in fact, global interests are in play here and new competitors may very well appear on the scene, should the traditional West influence apply itself in isolation to interests elsewhere? 470 Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Minister to reply.

The Minister: Indeed, these matters do receive extremely careful consideration. I would 475 suggest to all Hon. Members that our participation in this will require very close consultation with the United Kingdom, particularly as they seek to be at the forefront of any G7 negotiations which I am conscious are fast approaching, and I would understand that this matter is very high on the agenda.

480 The Speaker: Final supplementary, Mr Moorhouse.

Mr Moorhouse: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

______1981 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

With regard to the KPMG report, if that report fails to identify clear tax issues and solutions, is that something the Treasury Minister will be able to give them a nudge towards and produce a 485 separate document before the next administration is in place?

The Speaker: Minister to reply.

The Minister: I am sure the report from KPMG, which is being undertaken with extensive 490 stakeholder consultation, will produce the right outcome in terms of identifying the way forward for the Island.

ENTERPRISE

3.2. Tourism and reopening borders – Sector concerns

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Ms Edge) to ask the Minister for Enterprise:

What concerns, if any, there are within the tourism sector about the opening of the Island’s borders?

The Speaker: Question 2, I call the Hon. Member for Onchan, Ms Edge.

Ms Edge: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 495 I would like to ask the Minister for Enterprise what concerns, if any, there are within the tourism sector about the opening of the Island’s borders?

The Speaker: Minister for Enterprise to reply.

500 The Minister for Enterprise (Mr Skelly): Gura mie eu, Loayreyder. The Island’s tourism sector has been one of the hardest hit following the effects of the pandemic and the resulting restrictions. There has been a difficult period for businesses working in this area of our economy. As we now approach transition stage 2 of the Exit Framework, we look to welcome non-resident mitigated travel from 29th May, with the ambition of unrestricted 505 travel within the British Isles by 28th June. This is subject to progression of the local vaccination programme, as well as the developing situation across the water. Transition stage 2 will focus on supporting businesses and society as we learn to live with COVID, and this is particularly important for the tourism sector as they have been unable to trade at maximum levels and welcome off-Island visitors for well over a year. As such, the gradual lifting 510 of the border restrictions is welcomed by this sector. The Visit Agency continue to support the sector to ensure businesses are prepared to respond to new visitor expectations, which are formed as a result of the pandemic. Work continues with the Department of Infrastructure to sustain air and sea routes to support the growing visitor numbers over the coming months, along with cross-Government working to improve the visitor 515 experience as the sector transitions from recovery to restart. Gura mie eu.

The Speaker: Supplementary question, Ms Edge.

520 Ms Edge: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

______1982 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

I would just like to ask the Minister with regard to … we did talk about the Visit Agency support. Can the Minister advise what the Visit Agency have actually done to promote the Island going forward? Clearly there is concern within the industry that we do not appear to be advertising that the Isle of Man, subject to scientific information, that we will be welcoming visitors from 28th 525 June. And whether any meetings have actually taken place in place with group bookings, because that is one of the key visitor areas of the Island – have any meetings actually taken place between the Member and the Visit Agency with that sector?

The Speaker: Minister to reply. 530 The Minister: Gura mie eu, Loayreyder. Marketing, clearly that is going to be an important aspect of kicking things off again, with regard to this particular sector. We have been very fortunate with regard to editorial coverage of the Island over this last year, and that has generated interest already. We are aware of significant 535 interest in the Island. We do have a campaign ready to go, and one of the key planks to that is that many Members will remember the Extraordinary Story, so we now have ‘Your Space, Your Story’ marketing campaign, and we will be ramping things up beyond that. The Hon. Member highlights groups. Yes, the Isle of Man is always very attractive to various different groups from coaches and so forth beyond that, and we are aware of interest in that 540 particular space as the industry comes back and restarts on the Island.

The Speaker: Supplementary question, Mr Moorhouse.

Mr Moorhouse: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 545 With regard to the latter answer in terms of the marketing campaign, there was a suggestion there that it is something ready to go. In terms of dates, could he give us some clarity, because potentially as early as next month, the Isle of Man will be on the green list of neighbouring jurisdictions and there could be a lot of interest about what there is here. Can we get in there and let people be aware of what there really is and how attractive the Isle of Man is? 550 Thank you. (Interjection by Mr Callister)

The Minister: Gura mie eu, Loayreyder. Yes, the Hon. Member raises the point there also regarding marketing. Yes, indeed, we do want to start that off once we are in a position to say, we are confirmed, we are absolutely going to be 555 open for business. That is ready to go. We do have to bear in mind, I think, with regard to the travelling public in terms of their expectations and how they will feel in terms of travelling at the moment, so there is a bigger issue, I think, with regard to being safe, clean and legal, and that is all about what we call ‘visitor ready’. So we have had a number of meetings with industry to ensure that we can give that confidence 560 for when those visitors do arrive on our shores.

The Speaker: Supplementary question, Mr Shimmins.

Mr Shimmins: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 565 I have been contacted by the tourism sector who are very concerned about the messaging on the Visit Isle of Man website. This compares negatively with the other Crown Dependencies. Is the Minister aware that Visit Jersey’s website says it is this ‘perfect staycation location’, and ‘we are now welcoming back visitors from the UK’ and stresses safety. The Visit Guernsey website says, ‘We are excited to welcome visitors back from 1st July. We cannot wait to see you.’ 570 The Visit Isle of Man website says, ‘the Isle of Man is continuing to work towards the ambition of unrestricted travel, subject to the progression of the local vaccination programme, as well as the developing situation’. (Laughter)

______1983 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

I would like to ask the Minister for Enterprise, which Island do you think UK visitors will book to come and visit, and why is the Visit Isle of Man website’s approach so different, so uninspiring 575 from the other Crown Dependencies’ websites?

Several Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Callister: We have had everything ready to go since January. 580 The Speaker: The Minister to reply.

The Minister: Gura mie eu, Loayreyder. I thank the Hon. Member for the Channel Islands (Laughter) for highlighting the benefits of 585 visiting other islands –

Mr Shimmins: Yes, we should be looking after our Island. That is the point!

The Minister: If the Hon. Member would bear with … Clearly there is competition, and we fully 590 accept there is competition. Both those islands, particularly Jersey, have had different border conditions right from the get-go, so we clearly have taken a different route, and we want to be sure, before we start spending very valuable taxpayers’ money marketing our Island, that we can welcome them here –

595 Mr Shimmins: It is a website.

The Minister: – and they will have an excellent experience. We know, particularly from last year when we had the air bridge with Guernsey, how well our Island was received. Guernsey travellers were coming back repeatedly to our Island and enjoyed 600 it. So we are ready with regard to marketing and we will push that button as soon as we are ready.

The Speaker: Supplementary question, Mrs Christian.

Mrs Christian: Thank you. 605 Sorry to take it to a little bit of a different tack. As always, thank you, Mr Shimmins – that was a very valid point. Reports in the UK today reported in The Telegraph that close contacts of confirmed cases will still be asked to isolate for 10 days, even when all have been fully vaccinated on 21st June. Because masks and social distancing are not mandatory on the Isle of Man, in many settings there will still be close contacts. Does the Minister know if our isolation protocols will be 610 the same, and if so, will the Department for Enterprise, working with Treasury, look at financial support for businesses, tourist sector businesses in particular, who might be forced to isolate? Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Minister to reply. 615 The Minister: Gura mie eu. The Hon. Member raises a very valid point and one of the issues that has been discussed with the sector. We have issued guidance for the sector, and particularly the accommodation sector here, as to what should happen, should somebody test positive. Clearly, first and foremost, they 620 should have insurance – I would strongly recommend that, and we are in discussions with regard to a local insurance company to see whether a special package could be provided – and call 111 as a result of that. So, yes, we have issued guidance both for the sector and also for the visitor as well.

______1984 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

625 The Speaker: Supplementary question, Ms Edge.

Ms Edge: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Minister seems to have more information there about insurance, rather than actually getting visitors to the Island. I do feel I need to ask the Minister, does he feel that he has failed 630 this industry? The Chief Minister at one point in time said that once, beyond the borders opening, that this sector will be back to normal. It is quite clear, if we are not marketing the Island to encourage people to the Island in a positive way, as mentioned by the Hon. Member for Middle, that we are behind the curve. And the Minister might also have forgotten that in a previous Answer, I think there was over £500,000 on marketing for his Department published, so what is 635 happening with that funding? Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Minister to reply.

640 The Minister: Gura mie eu, Loayreyder. Spending taxpayers’ money is obviously of importance for all of us, and clearly we want to market the Island when we know we can actually welcome visitors to our shores. But I would remind Hon. Members that the other point here is the occupancy issues. We are clearly wanting to ensure that our visitors have a great experience, but we want our accommodation sector to 645 maximise the return. We have had strong interest in the Island without having to spend marketing and, as I have repeatedly said, we are ready to spend that money again.

The Speaker: Final two supplementaries. First, Mr Shimmins, Hon. Member for Middle.

650 Mr Shimmins: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was intrigued by the Minister’s response there. I would like to ask him how much taxpayers’ money does it cost to update the messaging on the Visit Isle of Man website to attract bookings? And I would also like to ask him, what is the ongoing negative financial impact on taxpayers and the local economy and the hard-pressed tourist sector which he has just mentioned for every 655 week that we lag behind in such an uninspiring way? Inaction is costing us dearly. What is he going to do about this?

The Speaker: Minister to reply.

660 The Minister: Gura mie eu, Loayreyder. I think what we have done is taken perhaps a cautious approach, which is what the Hon. Member is stating, but I would rather have a visitor who is confident when they do arrive on our shores that they will actually have a good experience. Clearly, flexibility is very important because taking bookings and then having to change any policy, then that is a loss of revenue and that has 665 happened in a number of other jurisdictions that have jumped the gun. Clearly, we are not going to do that, but I would once more confirm to Hon. Members that we are ready to market the Island in full flow.

The Speaker: Final supplementary, Ms Edge. 670 Ms Edge: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wonder, the Minister keeps saying that we are ready to market it, so clearly he has something ready: would he mind circulating that to Hon. Members so that at least we are aware of what they are proposing?

______1985 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

675 And also, could the Minister advise, whilst I appreciate the Department of Infrastructure is involved, what discussions have taken place with the airlines and obviously the Steam Packet to increase any footfall, once this fantastic marketing is out there to the public?

The Speaker: Minister to reply. 680 The Minister: Gura mie eu, Loayreyder. Yes, indeed, both our air and sea routes are going to be very important to this. Clearly, the Steam Packet is a very integral part here. We have had discussions last year with regard to promotions and activities that we can actually kick things off. So that is very much part of the 685 marketing plan going forward. So, in essence there has been marketing of our Island – editorial marketing. I think I was on my feet here only a few short weeks ago when Hon. Members were highlighting in UK national press coverage of the Isle of Man as a destination for tourism, and that did not cost us a penny, so we have interest and we will continue to promote.

EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE

3.3. Additional educational needs responses and report – Publication

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Ms Edge) to ask the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture:

When he will publish the responses and report on additional educational needs?

The Speaker: We turn to Question 3. I call the Hon. Member for Onchan, Ms Edge. 690 Ms Edge: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture when he will publish the responses and report on additional educational needs?

695 The Speaker: I call the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture to reply.

The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture (Dr Allinson): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I can confirm that the two reports summarising the findings of the additional educational needs stakeholder survey were published on the Isle of Man Government Consultation Hub on 7th May 700 2021. One report shows the breakdown of responses, whilst the second report provides a written summary of key themes and the next steps for the Department to take. Thank you.

The Speaker: Supplementary question, Ms Edge. 705 Ms Edge: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Minister for confirming that it is now up on the website. With regard to the actions, can the Minister advise when his Department and how they are considering those going forward and if there will be any budget implications? 710 Thank you.

The Speaker: reply.

The Minister: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

______1986 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

715 I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Onchan for her questions. We did get over 504 responses, just over half from parents and guardians, and these are being looked at by our Additional Needs staff at the Department to go through this. She is quite right that this was in preparation for an AEN Code and we will be working during the summer looking at how we then progress this. 720 Work to develop the code is progressing well, with the Department’s new policy hub providing additional support to officers and professionals drafting the content. A project review is scheduled at the end of this term, which will enable the Department to take stock of progress. The Department still has a number of steps to undertake before the final code can be published. Once the draft is completed it will be shared with our key stakeholders to ensure that 725 they are satisfied with the contents. The Department will then need to liaise with Treasury on any potential financial implications the code may bring, and obtain Treasury approval should additional funding be required. The articles of government will then be needed to be updated to reflect the code. Once this work has been undertaken the final code will then be published. Thank you. 730 The Speaker: Your Supplementary question, Mr Hooper.

Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I heard lots of positive language there about this Additional Educational Needs Code. My question for the Minister is how will it be 735 enforceable? How will parents be able to hold the Department and schools to account when they fail to deliver adequate services for children with additional educational needs? This was envisaged to be covered by the Education Tribunal in the defunct Education Bill, which the Minister said he would look to address rather quickly. Now he is telling us is going to be into the next parliamentary year before this is even going to be progressed. Can the Minister please 740 confirm as a matter of urgency, how this code will be enforceable and how parents and children will be able to ensure that their rights are enshrined in law?

The Speaker: Minister to reply.

745 The Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Hon. Member for Ramsey for his comments and his ongoing concern about the rights and responsibilities both of children and their families with additional educational needs and the responsibilities of the Department to supply those. One of the key and most worrying answers was to question 10, which was ‘how easy is it to 750 understand the current process and procedures for special educational needs in schools?’ Unfortunately, ‘very easy’ – just over 1% of people answered that. We need to do that education in terms of what people are entitled to, what services they should expect, absolutely. But in answer to his question about statutory responsibility, it is proposed that the existing articles of government be updated to include provisions referred to within the code once it is 755 completed. As I have already said, we will be doing this over the summer. In the long term, we will work in collaboration with the key stakeholders to produce primary legislation, which provides a vision for the future, which establishes an educational service which is suitable for the 21st century. It is proposed that this primary legislation will include the AEN Code. This, of course, will be subject to the agreement of the next administration, but I can reassure him that as soon as we 760 get agreement on the code, as soon as we get the information out there in terms of our responsibilities and what people should be expecting, we will be putting this into the articles of government and we will be actually working with all the stakeholders, particularly our excellent staff and teachers in our schools, to make sure that they provide all the services that we should be providing to these particular children and their families. 765 Thank you.

______1987 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

Mr Thomas: Hear, hear.

The Speaker: Final supplementary, Ms Edge. 770 Ms Edge: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am a little concerned that the Minister sounds like they are talking about an Isle of Man AEN Code and that we are not sticking with what professionals within the field actually identify as additional education needs. I just wonder if the Minister has ever seen the previous 775 documentation that was widely available which was authored by John Kermode, who was previously Special Needs and it had clear stages and what parents could expect, and it was Stage 1 to Stage 5. Has the Minister seen that when he is considering this and could that not just be reproduced as a starting point? We need to look at what the professionals in the field and their codes are. 780 Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Minister to reply.

The Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 785 I would like to thank the Hon. Member for her question. Yes, there have been codes in the past; have they worked? The answer from this survey is quite obviously not. Have they been implemented? (Interjection by Ms Edge) The answer from these surveys quite obviously not! Going back to things that have failed in the past is not what this Department is going to do. What we have done with the public consultation is actually asked those professionals who are 790 delivering the services what they want, what they expect and what they want to provide in the future. If I can just say, Mr Speaker, one of the comments from a primary school teacher was: ‘It is not the interventions that are the problem; it is the ability to deliver the interventions effectively that is the problem in most schools. Lack of funding, lack of support staff and too much responsibility 795 placed on the class teacher to meet the needs of every single child means that interventions are often ineffective.’ We need to make those interventions effective. That is what this code will do, and that is what I will promise to this Hon. House we will achieve. Thank you.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND AGRICULTURE

3.4. Buildings conservation schemes – Assistance to improve important buildings

The Hon. Member for Douglas Central (Mr Thomas) to ask the Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture:

What buildings conservation schemes have been made under Part 2 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011; and what plans he has to provide assistance to repair, restore or improve important buildings?

The Speaker: Question 4. I call on the Hon. Member for Douglas Central, Mr Thomas. 800 Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg leave to ask the Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture what buildings conservation schemes have been made under part 2 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions)

______1988 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

Act 2011, and what plans he has to provide assistance to repair, restore or improve important 805 buildings?

The Speaker: I call the Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture to reply.

The Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture (Mr Boot): Thank you, Mr Speaker. 810 The last Historic Buildings Conservation Scheme was approved by Tynwald in 2012 and came into operation on 1st December of that year. However, the budget associated with the grant was reduced, then eventually removed, as part of Government’s saving initiatives; and whilst the Planning and Building Control team were part of the DoI, the team that operated that were also removed. 815 Neither the budget for the grant or personnel were transferred to DEFA when the associated functions under the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011 and Planning and Building Control moved to DEFA in 2015. Of course DEFA and I as its Minister place great importance on the protection of the historic environment, which is why we have developed new posts to undertake work to provide an audit of the historic environment, as per the Programme for 820 Government and the Planning Action Plan. Internal discussions were held in respect of the potential to bid for funding to provide assistance to people who are undertaking work to repair, restore or improve important buildings, but Government had a number of other competing priorities, and it was taken no further. Notwithstanding this, it is recognised that not only would grants assist the ongoing protection and 825 improvement of our historic buildings, but it also has the added benefit of supporting the specialist traditional skills of the building industry. It is hoped that this is something that can be considered, moving forward into the next administration. However, as the Hon. Member will know, responsibility for this matter lies with the Cabinet Office and is part of the portfolio which he held whilst in that office. 830 The Speaker: Supplementary question, Mr Thomas.

Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do not know about how it was my responsibility, but perhaps the Minister could clarify, but 835 more importantly, can the Minister confirm then in summary, that no schemes have been made since this Act came into force because the scheme that he mentioned was actually a grandfather transitioned into the Act, firstly?

Secondly, can he advise, can he confirm, that the historic audit that was promised for three 840 years in the plan for which I had a degree of responsibility was not carried out and is now long overdue? Thirdly, can he confirm that the Department has actually done nothing since it had this responsibility, despite the fact that, for instance, £50 million was earmarked in 2016 for funding old conservation building schemes; it has done nothing to actually develop that idea according to 845 the powers in section 7 of the Act to make schemes?

The Speaker: Minister to reply.

The Minister: Thank you. 850 Starting with the presumption that the Cabinet Office is responsible for this and it was part of the Hon. Member’s portfolio, this is indeed, the case. DEFA is responsible for operation; policy comes through Cabinet Office. Unfortunately, no such policy was developed over the period of this administration to address the issue of grants. There have, as I said, been competing priorities and offering assistance to historic buildings or buildings of importance was not seen as a priority.

______1989 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

855 It is not a matter of nothing being done. There is a lot being done behind the scenes, and in fact, I am very pleased to be able to inform Hon. Members that as a result of a meeting yesterday we will be bringing forward two new conservation zones within this administration, and we have actually registered more buildings in the last four and a half years than any administration in the last 20 years. We have got 27 to 28 buildings in prospect at the moment for registration, so as a 860 Department we have made great strides forward in looking at the historic environment, conservation areas and working with Cabinet Office on the same.

The Speaker: Supplementary question, Mr Thomas.

865 Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and for the avoidance of doubt I do not believe there is any reference whatsoever to Cabinet Office in the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. There is reference to Treasury, there is reference to DEFA, there is reference to the Infrastructure Department and there has been no block transfer of policy to Cabinet Office for responsibility for every area of Government. Could the Minister confirm that? 870 More importantly, we need to look to the future, and does the Minister agree with me that I have not asked about conservation areas, I have not asked about registered buildings? I have asked about the section 7 treatment of important buildings, important for the rural landscape or for the townscape. Can the Minister advise what he sees as being important buildings in towns and in the countryside and whether he believes that he can use part of his Climate Change 875 Transformation Fund or part of the Minster for Enterprise’s or Treasury’s Economic Recovery Fund to actually do something about the problem we have with vacant properties and derelict land and derelict buildings around the Island, using schemes made under the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act?

880 The Speaker: Minister to reply.

The Minister: Sort of digressing from the point in question, Cabinet Office have been responsible for planning policy since 2015, and the Hon. Member should know that, as he was part of that for three and a half years. 885 When it comes to grant aid and schemes to support historic buildings or buildings of importance, that is a matter of policy in co-operation with Treasury and other Departments as to whether that funding is a priority bearing in mind other things that are taking place. Of late from the DEFA perspective, we have tried to prioritise energy efficiency schemes, which work around climate change, and obviously a green living scheme is in prospect that we will provide funds. 890 You went off on a bit of a tangent there talking about vacant buildings and derelict buildings in the countryside and various other places. Well, I am not sure that any of the schemes we are proposing in terms of green living or climate change schemes will address those issues. Buildings are owned by individuals, and if they fall into dereliction there is an element of responsibility to that building, and looking after the building themselves; whereas if we are looking at the situation 895 around climate change, we have a Government policy that we are going to net zero in 2050 and obviously, if we can assist in that process and carrot-and-stick principles apply, then that is what we should be doing as Government.

The Speaker: Final supplementary, Mr Thomas. 900 Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I hope people would agree with me that there is absolutely no reference to planning policy in the Question, so that is entirely tangential. If the Minister wants to answer, that is probably part of the problem. This Question is about the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011, and dealing with important buildings that are neither 905 registered nor are in conservation areas, which is what planning policy is about.

______1990 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

Would the Minister agree with me that his Department and Government more generally have ignored the will of Tynwald by doing nothing to establish a scheme under the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011 and have ignored the will of Tynwald by not using the approved £50 million to work up a scheme of loans, or charges, or assistance inside the housing 910 improvement element, but more recently inside Economic Recovery Programme and the Climate Change Transformation Programme; thus he has is let down the people of the Isle of Man, and that is why we have vacant properties and brownfield sites and towns and countryside looks shabby in places?

915 The Speaker: Minister to reply.

The Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As the Member responsible for planning policy in Cabinet Office for three and a half years, if anyone has let anyone down, maybe it is the Hon. Member himself, and he should have taken 920 action during that time. DEFA is not responsible for planning policy. We work with the Cabinet Office in respect of planning policy and –

Mr Thomas: Mr Speaker, point of order. 925 The Speaker: Mr Thomas, point of order.

Mr Thomas: Can Mr Speaker just clarify whether there is any mention of planning policy in the Question and whether this Answer for the third time is completely out of scope? 930 The Chief Minister: What is the point of order?

The Speaker: It is not a point of order.

935 The Chief Minister: Thank you.

The Speaker: Minister to continue.

The Minister: Thank you. 940 I do not think I can answer any more succinctly than that, really. In terms of grant aid and the building repair, these are policy matters and at operational level we assist Cabinet Office with policy. You say that there is no mention of policy there; you are talking about policy because the policy to fund such aid requires development and at the moment the priority for Government has been climate change, energy efficiency, helping low-income households with their energy bills, 945 and that will remain very current and a priority going forward, as well as addressing climate change issues. Thank you.

______1991 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE

3.5. Dr Rachel Glover PAC testimony – Rebuttal by HSC Minister

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Ms Edge) to ask the Minister for Health and Social Care:

Pursuant to his remarks at a press briefing on 5th April, when he will publish the point-by-point rebuttal that he stated that he would produce?

The Speaker: Question 5 and I call on the Hon. Member for Onchan, Ms Edge.

950 Ms Edge: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would just like to ask the Minister for Health and Social Care, pursuant to his remarks at a press briefing on 5th April, when he will publish the point-by-point rebuttal that he stated he would produce?

955 The Speaker: I call the Minister for Health and Social Care to reply.

The Minister for Health and Social Care (Mr Ashford): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Oral evidence has now been provided to the Public Accounts Committee and evidence has been given by both myself and the Chief Executive Officer, so there is no longer a need to do so, 960 as oral evidence is now public. At the time of the rebuttal, we had not been invited to give evidence. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Supplementary question, Ms Edge. 965 Ms Edge: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Minister says there that all evidence is public. Is he certain of that? And if there had not been a Public Accounts inquiry, would the Minister stand by his word and provide the point-by- point rebuttal? I am feeling that that is a bit of an excuse really from the Minister. You have said 970 it on more than one occasion that you will publish a point-by-point rebuttal, and I feel that perhaps he needs to check with the Committee if they are confident for him to do that.

The Speaker: Minister to reply.

975 The Minister: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. In relation to this, the Hon. Member refers, of course, to a press briefing on 5th April. There was no press briefing on 5th April because that was Easter Monday. There was a press briefing on 6th April, but it was not actually mentioned there. So I assume what the Hon. Member is actually referring to is my interview with Paul Moulton, which was conducted on 5th April – 980 Ms Edge: It is not that.

The Minister: I know sometimes Paul thinks he is a one-man press briefing, but I do not think he has quite got there yet. 985 The Hon. Member needs to actually read the full text of what I actually said. What I actually said in that interview was: ‘We will be issuing a public statement. Obviously I hope as well, and I am sure they will, that the Public Accounts Committee will invite the Department to give evidence. Dr Glover has given evidence to the parliamentary Committee under parliamentary privilege, and

______1992 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

I am certain the Public Accounts Committee will allow the Department the same ability to do so, 990 to put the record from the Department’s point of view.’ I also ended that same interview by saying, ‘I look forward, and I am sure they will, to the Public Accounts Committee inviting the Department to come and give their own evidence in relation to those allegations.’ We spent 30 minutes on this, by my timings, at the Public Accounts Committee. There was a 995 press release issued also on 17th April, which was after the invitation to give evidence was received on 15th April, and as far as I am concerned, Mr Speaker, I have given the evidence that I wish to give.

The Speaker: Supplementary question, Mr Hooper. 1000 Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank the Minister for giving evidence to the Public Accounts Committee. The question I have for him is: he seems very clear he has provided all the evidence that he feels necessary, so can he just confirm for the avoidance of doubt then that he has provided all the 1005 necessary evidence and all the rebuttal he wishes to provide on this issue, and therefore anything that he has not specifically addressed, as far as he is concerned, is already correct for the record?

The Speaker: Minister to reply.

1010 The Minister: Mr Speaker, I am not saying that at all! What I am saying is I have provided what evidence I wish to provide, and I have done so to the Public Accounts Committee which is the appropriate place.

The Speaker: Supplementary question, Ms Edge. 1015 Ms Edge: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Minister has just said, I believe, that he has provided all the evidence that he wishes to provide. Obviously he is the Minister, he is in the Department, but clearly he does not believe that his weekly or whatever he does with Paul Moulton is a public briefing from the Health Minister. I 1020 class it as a public forum, and also on the Manx Radio website on 6th April it clearly states, ‘, speaking to Ewan Gawne … says his department will be issuing a complete rebuttal and has a timeline of events’ about Dr Glover. Minister, please provide for the Isle of Man public what you said you will provide and put it in the public domain. 1025 Thank you, Mr Speaker.

A Member: Hear, hear.

The Speaker: Minister to reply. 1030 The Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will state again exactly what I said. The Hon. Member has referred to the Manx Radio interview on 6th April. If she goes back and listens to that interview, she will also hear again me state that I hope the Public Accounts Committee will call us forward to give evidence to actually 1035 put the record from the Department’s point of view. That invitation then came to me, as far as I can tell, on 15th April. As I have said many times, as far as I am concerned, we have given everything we can in public. She refers to the interview with Paul Moulton. We spent 20 minutes on that topic. That was a public interview where many points were covered. I have spent 30 minutes on this issue with the Public Accounts Committee. There was a press 1040 release issued on 17th April addressing other points that were not covered in either of those as

______1993 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

well, Mr Speaker, and while I always welcome the advice from the Hon. Member for Onchan, ultimately I will decide what I say in public, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Final supplementary, Ms Edge. 1045 Ms Edge: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Government that is going to be open and transparent! I do not know if the Minister remembers his comments with regard to … I will not say which interview, but I think it was the press briefing, when he said that his officers had worked really hard and that the CEO was on 1050 leave; however, he would provide this point-by-point rebuttal by the end of that week. Clearly it has not happened. I do feel, Minister, that you do need to … You have clearly said today you are not going to publish anything else. I do feel that you therefore need to do an apology at least to Dr Glover with regard to the fact that you have said that but you are not going to publish it. 1055 Can the Minister advise when he last had any communication on the matter? Thank you.

Mr Thomas: Hear, hear.

1060 The Speaker: Minister to reply.

The Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am not sure what the Hon. Member means by ‘communication on the matter’. We appeared before the Public Accounts Committee and gave evidence. 1065 Like I said, I have spent 20 minutes in that interview with Mr Moulton and that is the interview the Hon. Member is referring to where that comment came from and, as I say, you need to hear the full interview, because I made absolutely clear, where I stated I am certain the Public Accounts Committee will allow the Department the same ability to do so, to put the record from the Department’s point of view. That was absolutely clear in that. 1070 For some reason, Mr Speaker, there seems to be people who want to continuously create some sort of public spat or facilitate some public spat between the Department and Dr Glover. I will leave others to judge why that is.

Ms Edge: Different from what you said.

3.6. Care Home Assessment and Rapid Response Team – Advanced care planning; assistance to adult care homes

The Hon. Member for Douglas Central (Mr Thomas) to ask the Minister for Health and Social Care:

What the terms of reference are for the Care Home Assessment and Rapid Response Team in respect of advanced care planning; and what adult care homes have received special assistance from it to plan care since May 2020? 1075 The Speaker: We turn to Question 6 and I call on the Hon. Member for Douglas Central, Mr Thomas.

Mr Thomas: Thank you Mr Speaker.

______1994 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

1080 I beg leave to ask the Minister for Health and Social Care what the terms of reference are for the Care Home Assessment and Rapid Response Team in respect of advanced care planning; and what adult care homes have received special assistance from it to plan care since May 2020?

The Speaker: I call on the Minister for Health and Social Care to reply. 1085 The Minister for Health and Social Care (Mr Ashford): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The Care Home Assessment and Rapid Response Team (CHARRT) was established in May 2020 to provide proactive support for older persons’ and dementia care homes and learning disability community houses to enable registered managers to protect their residents and staff should a 1090 case of COVID-19 be detected within the home. The support was provided through a series of visits from healthcare professionals over a number of months to provide regular and consistent feedback and support to registered managers to ensure that all required actions to ensure the home was as prepared as possible. A large focus on the CHARRT team was to ensure that all vulnerable residents had an agreed advance care plan in place, should they contract COVID. 1095 Shortly after CHARRT was formed, the hospice provided advanced care planning training to over 40 registered managers from across the older persons’ and learning disability sector. A team of four consultant physicians from Noble’s Hospital worked as part of the CHARRT team to work alongside local GPs and registered managers to develop a COVID care plan for all vulnerable and high-risk patients. The care planning process for each resident ensured that the views of residents 1100 themselves, as well as their loved ones, formed the basis of the Plan, which guided what level of intervention and escalation would be provided to the resident should they contract COVID-19. All older person care homes and learning disability houses received a visit from a consultant physician during May, June and July 2020 to commence the first round of COVID care-planning, and a second round of visits took place in January 2021, led by the associate specialist in geriatrics. 1105 Currently, there are 164 COVID care plans in place and the team will shortly be commencing another round of reviews across the Island to update the existing COVID care plans and review whether any new plans need to be commenced. This latest round of plans will also include vaccination status, as this will have a significant bearing on the intervention and escalation plan should anyone contract COVID-19, given the extremely encouraging evidence that is coming out 1110 from research institutes across the world around the efficacy of the vaccine to reduce onset of acute illness. The development of the Community Frailty service, which is to be piloted in the west of the Island from July onwards, will use the lessons learned from the COVID care planning process to implement wider advanced care planning principles so that residents will have a firm plan in place 1115 agreed by them and their families should they deteriorate whilst in the care of the home. Two recent consultant geriatricians’ appointments made by Manx Care will ensure that the Community Frailty service is able to expand across the whole Island once the pilot in the west is complete. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

1120 The Speaker: Supplementary question, Mr Thomas.

Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and to the Minister for that comprehensive reply. Does the Minister agree with me that it would be a shame if what has been created in response to COVID does not actually become a response framework for all adult care facilities and learning 1125 disability situations in the future? Secondly, Corrin Memorial Home had excellent assistance from the CHARRT team during the last 12-13 months, and there is a crossover in terms of key personnel between the Western Wellbeing Partnership and the CHARRT provision. Does the Minister agree with me that this would be a good basis for beginning the emergency response in the Corrin Memorial Home situation to 1130 actually use the experience of CHARRT and what exists already in the Western Wellbeing Partnership that has grown out of CHARRT in part?

______1995 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

The Speaker: Minister to reply.

The Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and can I thank the Hon. Member for Douglas Central 1135 for raising those very valid points. I certainly agree that we should be tapping into the resource we already have. I think the CHARRT team actually has been one of the positives to come out of the COVID-19 pandemic. It has allowed us to co-ordinate things in the way that we have not done previously, and I think the team has done an absolutely excellent job and I think it would actually be a shame if what has 1140 come out of the CHARRT team is not sustained in the longer term.

The Speaker: Supplementary question, Dr Allinson.

Dr Allinson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 1145 Would the Minister agree with me that, despite the incredibly challenging times of last year, this is actually a very good model for integrated care, both in terms of supporting those people who need to be in care homes or residential facilities, but also supporting primary care and actually upskilling primary care to be part of the overall process? And will he, as he has said already, use or encourage the use of these lessons that have been 1150 learnt to further expand this integrated care into our community, both now and in the future? Thank you.

The Speaker: Minister to reply.

1155 The Minister: Most definitely, Mr Speaker. I could not agree with Hon. Member for Ramsey more. Integrated care is the future. It is how we are going to be able to deliver the services required for the population as the ageing population grows, and primary care is an absolutely vital role in that, it is actually at the heart of it. Without primary care, integrated care is just not going to work. 1160 The Speaker: Supplementary question, Mr Thomas.

Mr Thomas: Thank you Mr Speaker. The local Minister MHKs in the west have talked about failures in the board and failures in 1165 governance and management of Corrin Memorial Home. Does the Minister agree with me it would be appropriate then to immediately, in the context of the wider picture of integrated care and the local pilot in the Western Wellbeing Partnership, to think about using the CHARRT facilities very specifically to get to a better place through the summer and into the end of this year for those who are looked after in the Corrin Memorial Home? 1170 The Speaker: Minister to reply.

The Minister: Thank you. We need to look at things from a strategic resource point of view as well, and the CHARRT team’s remit is obviously much more expansive than one home. The 1175 Department is engaging with the Corrin Home and we are engaging with the directors and the trustees to find a solution in line with the Tynwald motion that was approved at the last sitting of Tynwald unanimously by the Court.

The Speaker: Final supplementary, Mr Thomas. 1180 Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker. But does the Minister agree with me that one way forward, given that the directors are giving the impression they have given up, that we could use this CHARRT process and the Western

______1996 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

Wellbeing process to put in place new directors and actually respond to this as the real emergency 1185 that it is?

The Speaker: Minister to reply.

The Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 1190 I always worry about the idea of putting in new directors, particularly Department-led directors, because that means that we are then in charge of this. I think what we need to do is we need to work with the existing directors, with the trustees, to actually try and find a solution, and that is what the Department will be doing in line with the motion that the Hon. Court or another place actually approved.

3.7. Corrin Memorial Home – Respite provision contract

The Hon. Member for Douglas Central (Mr Thomas) to ask the Minister for Health and Social Care:

Why and how Corrin Memorial Home received a contract for the provision of respite residential care beds for older people in 2019-20 and 2020-21; what the key terms of the contract were; and if he will make a statement?

1195 The Speaker: Question 7, I call the Hon. Member for Douglas Central, Mr Thomas.

Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Again, I beg leave to ask the Minister for Health and Social Care why and how Corrin Memorial Home received a contract for the provision of respite residential care beds for older people in 1200 2019-20 and 2020-21; what the key terms of the contract were; and if he will make a statement?

The Speaker: I call the Minister for Health and Social Care to reply.

The Minister for Health and Social Care (Mr Ashford): Thank you, Mr Speaker. 1205 A long-standing agreement has been in place with the Corrin Memorial Home since 13th March 1998. The key terms of the original agreement were for the Department, now Manx Care as it is, ‘at its own sole costs to build an extension to the Corrin Home, such extension to include a passenger lift to enable the home to provide three respite care rooms for older people or those with a physical disability who live in Peel or the surrounding area. The said rooms will be for single 1210 occupancy and will comply with the requirements of the Nursing and Residential Homes Act 1988, enables individuals to receive short-term care which assists and supports the person and their carer. ‘The Department and the governors and the trustees or their representatives agree to meet annually or as otherwise agreed in writing to monitor the operation of the agreement and parties 1215 may by written agreement effect any changes in the agreement which may be necessary to ensure it is operating effectively. The Department acting by its Social Services Division will identify and nominate suitable clients for respite care. The availability of the rooms is within the control of the Department’s Principal Social Worker (Older People) from time to time who will liaise with the governors or their representatives to ensure efficient occupancy of the rooms at all times. The 1220 home is unable to accept clients who require nursing or hospital care. ‘In the event that a client becomes ill during a period of residence of the home, the home will only provide care within its limitations. The home will undertake to provide a service to clients to

______1997 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

a similar standard to that required under the provisions of the Nursing and Residential Homes Act 1988 and provided for full-time residents as is reasonably possible. 1225 ‘The Department will pay to the home on a four-weekly basis, a grant which will be the equivalent to the full rate paid by Social Security from time to time for residential homes in the private sector for each of the three respite care beds, whether occupied or not. Such grant will be reviewed at least annually and will be the equivalent to that paid by the Department for private residential care. 1230 ‘It is further agreed that the governors or their representatives will have the option to collect directly from clients an Attendance Allowance or Disability Living Allowance in such cases where clients are normally receipt of such allowances, and the agreement shall terminate should their home cease to continue to be registered as a residential home under the provisions of the Nursing and Residential Homes Act 1988 as amended.’ 1235 The duration of the original agreement, Mr Speaker, was for 10 years. Notice was given to the Corrin Memorial Home to extend the agreement on 3rd February 2009. The agreement was reviewed on 22nd March 2011 and the three commissioned respite beds were reduced to two commissioned respite beds from September 2011. Thank you, Mr Speaker. 1240 The Speaker: Supplementary question, Mr Thomas.

Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I appreciate the full and obviously carefully considered answer from the Minister. 1245 Does the Minister agree with me that, given that Corrin Memorial Home is one of only a few homes that have a contract with DHSC to provide service, the existence of that contract means that, in fact, we have the basis for what the Minister said could not happen on 12th May, which is that the Department cannot step in or cannot provide any sort of assistance or subvention? Does the Minister agree with me that we, in actual fact, have the legal mechanism so that finance can 1250 actually be provided to this public-interest charitable home?

The Speaker: Minister to reply.

The Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 1255 I am afraid … I know the Hon. Member for Douglas Central is very supportive of the Corrin Home, as many people are, including myself as Minister, but we need to be a bit careful, Mr Speaker, The finances that is being provided is for two specific respite beds, which forms a small offering of what is in place at the home. I do not think we should be extrapolating that to say that it gives the Department the right to be able to fund the home in the way that the Hon. 1260 Member is suggesting.

The Speaker: Supplementary question, Mr Harmer.

Mr Harmer: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Minister for his Answers and for all of the 1265 commitment for integrated care and for residential care in the west. Can the Minister just confirm that the respite care is only available while the home is in operation, and whether he considers respite care something that is needed in all parts of the Island and including the west for the future? Thank you. 1270 The Speaker: Minister to reply.

The Minister: Yes, thank you, Mr Speaker.

______1998 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

Can I thank the Hon. Member for Peel and Glenfaba, Mr Harmer and also his colleague 1275 Mr Boot, for their engagement with the Department over the future of the Corrin Home. We have had extensive engagement to see what we can do to find a solution. I can confirm that the respite contract is obviously only in place while the home operates. It would terminate once the Home ceases to function. It is important we look at this in the wider scheme of things, Mr Speaker. We are all determined to try and find the best solution that we can. That came very clearly out in the 1280 very positive debate, I thought, in another place where this House unanimously approved the way forward.

The Speaker: Supplementary question, Mr Thomas.

1285 Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The important thing here is the principle that a contract can be given or funds can be given to this home, because it seemed to be clear from the Minister’s Answer on 12th May that he was arguing that no private or public sector charitable organisation could receive such funds, so the principle that has been established is that it can. We are not talking about the magnitude or the 1290 mechanism or the details of the mechanism; we are just talking about the principle of the mechanism. Does the Minister agree with me? And secondly, does the Minister accept that there is at least the possibility that the huge investment in Summerhill and before that in Salisbury Street is beginning to crowd out the private sector and, in particular, the charitable trusts, like the Corrin Memorial Home, like Ellan Vannin, 1295 and like Grest Home up in the north, and we need to take great care about that?

The Speaker: Minister to reply.

The Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 1300 I do not agree with the final point, I have to say. I do not believe it is crowding out at all. In fact, the Hon. Member for Douglas Central, when he was Minister for Policy and Reform, actually chaired the committee looking into the future of social care and knows the figures going forward and why the Department have gone down the route that we have, particularly in relation to Summerhill View. 1305 In relation to the mechanism, principles are fine but the practicalities of the mechanism are important, Mr Speaker, and we have to remember the funding is for a very specific purpose. It is to fund two respite beds in the west. It is very different talking about them for giving grants and funding from actually supporting a private operation as a whole. That is very different, Mr Speaker.

1310 The Speaker: Final supplementary, Mr Thomas.

Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and although Standing Orders only cover how we ask questions, they do not cover how Ministers answer questions, apparently – that is left to other places, politics and government codes and things – but can the Minister circulate to Members for 1315 the public record any specific submission made to the Council of Ministers’ Working Group on the future funding of Summerhill Glen during my time as Chair of that group? I would be pleased to know if … I do not recall any specific submission about Summerhill Glen.

The Speaker: We are moving way beyond the scope of the Question, talking about Summerhill 1320 Glen. The Question is about Corrin Memorial Home, so Minister –

The Minister: I will keep it very brief, Mr Speaker, because we have moved very wide. I never said there was a specific submission about Summerhill View, Mr Speaker. What I actually said was that the Hon. Member, when he was in the Cabinet Office, looked at social care.

______1999 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

1325 He knows the provision figures going forward, and that is part of the mix that the Department is providing for to ensure that we have long-term provision across the Island.

JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS

3.8. Isle of Man Border Force – Progress in creation

The Hon. Member for Douglas Central (Mrs Corlett) to ask the Minister for Justice and Home Affairs:

What progress has been made with the creation of the Isle of Man Border Force; and if he will make a statement?

The Speaker: Question 8, I call on the Hon. Member for Douglas Central, Mrs Corlett.

Mrs Corlett: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 1330 I would like to ask the Minister for Justice and Home Affairs what progress has been made with the creation of an Isle of Man Border Force; and if he will make a statement?

The Speaker: Minister for Justice and Home Affairs to reply.

1335 The Minister for Justice and Home Affairs (Mr Cregeen): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Council of Ministers agreed in September 2020 that a Shared Border Agency be created. It was to be formed over a phased period with relevant cross-Government partners, developing a short-term approach to formal co-operation, including mechanisms for intelligence and information sharing. The Cabinet Office, in readiness for the Island’s border restrictions being 1340 lifted and unrestricted travel resuming from 28th June 2021, has brought together in phase 1 of the development of a border force existing services functions and officers it has responsibility for together under the Isle of Man Borders Division. Isle of Man Borders will be initially responsible for the administration of, but not restricted to, Travel Notification, Passport, Immigration and Nationality Services and functions. At this stage, 1345 the Head of Isle of Man Borders Division reports directly to the Chief Secretary. The Cabinet Office Head of Isle of Man Borders will lead the development and co-ordination of the strategic phased approach to borders.

The Speaker: Supplementary question, Mrs Corlett. 1350 Mrs Corlett: Thank you Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his Answer. He says that existing services, functions and officers have been brought together to form the Division, which can operate under existing legislation. Is further legislation required, and, if so, how long will that take to develop? When would he expect 1355 that to be coming into force?

The Speaker: Minister to reply.

The Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 1360 In the short-term, everyone arriving in the Isle of Man will need to fill in a landing card. This information is not provided for the purpose of preventing and detecting crime, so it is not possible to share the information under the current legislative framework. However, the Immigration

______2000 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

Service has progressed with the Isle of Man Constabulary on a lawful basis for the Isle of Man Constabulary to collect passenger data and information from carriers that will allow them to know 1365 who is coming to and departing from the Island. The power for the Isle of Man Constabulary to collect this information is found in section 32 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006. Collecting this information will allow for a higher frequency and quality of intelligence-led enforcement actions, enabling the Isle of Man Constabulary to better discharge its respective function. As such, the lawful basis for this 1370 processing falls within article 6(1)(e) of the Data Protection Act (Application of GDPR) Order 2018, in that the processing is necessary for the performance of the task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller.

The Speaker: Supplementary question, Mr Thomas. 1375 Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Is the Minister for Justice and Home Affairs happy taking political responsibility for this topic, given the suggestion in the Answer seemed to be that it was a function of the Chief Secretary? Would it not be better for the Cabinet Office Minister or the Chief Minister to lead in this area? 1380 Secondly, how does this project differ from the one that was considered in Council of Ministers in 2017 and was rejected and was not taken forward? Thirdly, does the Minister have any ballpark figure for the number of staff involved, extra staff that will be transferred into this envisaged agency, and what the total cost of this project might be? 1385 The Speaker: Minister.

The Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, currently, the roles that are being brought forward in the initial phase are under 1390 the Cabinet Office. Later on with the Constabulary and Customs and Immigration will be involved. As we see an easing of the borders, I cannot see the need for the people from the Travel Notification services being at the borders. It would be more, as people have probably seen previously, where you may have had somebody from Special Branch down at the ports. As for costs, there is no cost at the moment, because it is still in the initial phase and the TNS 1395 team is currently with the Cabinet Office.

The Speaker: Supplementary question, Mrs Caine.

Mrs Caine: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 1400 Similar to the Hon. Member Mr Thomas, I am concerned to hear that this is vested, or the authority for running the Border Force seems to be in the Cabinet Office. Can the Minister say, when he talks about it being a transition, is it envisaged that the Constabulary will be ultimately responsible for the Border Force? Does the Minister feel that that would be a better situation? And in terms of what people will see when they arrive, is there a uniform? Can the Minister give 1405 us information on who is ultimately responsible for the operation of the Border Force, and is he able to share with us the responsibilities for that role? Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Minister to reply. 1410 The Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I said previously, currently it sits within the Cabinet Office. My personal opinion into the future would be that, as you will no longer possibly need the Travel Notification Service there, it may sit better with the Constabulary, but that would be a decision for Council of Ministers to take.

______2001 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

1415 The Speaker: Mr Callister.

The Minister: There was a further question from the Hon. Member.

1420 Mrs Caine: Who is ultimately responsible for the Border Force and what is the range of the responsibilities (Mrs Christian: Uniform.) currently or perhaps as it is envisaged in the future?

The Minister: So currently it is with the Cabinet Office and, as I said in my Answer, it is regarding notification and landing forms for people coming through the Island. 1425 The Speaker: Mr Callister.

Mr Callister: Thank you Mr Speaker, and I thank the Minister for his response this morning. Apologies if I have missed some of the information, I just want clarity if possible. Will the Border 1430 Force be open by 28th June? Can I ask the Minister if those landing forms will be available online? And is there any ongoing discussions with the tourism team to make sure we are lined up, if people are travelling from the UK, that they can obtain this information and documents ahead of travelling to the Isle of Man? Thank you. 1435 The Speaker: Minister.

The Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well currently, the landing forms are available online, so they would be able to progress that. 1440 The Travel Notification Service will be at the borders as they are now on 28th June. It is that first phase that we are in, and we are hoping that later on we will progress through the other phases.

The Speaker: Hon. Members, I am conscious that the hour for Questions has concluded. I still have two more supplementary questions to go. I am in your hands, Hon. Members. Are 1445 we content to take the two supplementary questions? Is that agreed? (Members: Agreed.) Thank you.

Mr Moorhouse: Could we vote on Standing Orders to continue Oral Questions?

1450 The Speaker: If we can just finish this one, then I will put it to the House at that point if that is okay, Mr Moorhouse. Thank you. Mrs Corlett.

Mrs Corlett: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 1455 I am gathering from the Minister’s Answers that actually, further legislation is required. So what I would like to ask is while that is being developed and implemented, what will the Border Force look like in the meantime when the borders are fully open? Is legislation in place for the Constabulary to act effectively as part of the Borders Division as soon as the borders open? 1460 The Chief Constable in his Annual Report asks us to ‘wake up to the issue of drug trafficking and the violence associated with drug debt.’ Drugs have to come over the border in one way or another. Intelligence and information sharing is essential. Is the Constabulary fully ready to deal with this issue when the border fully re-opens?

1465 A Member: Hear, hear.

______2002 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

The Speaker: Minister to reply.

The Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 1470 I think the Chief Constable made it quite clear that he is deeply concerned regarding the criminalisation that may be coming into the Isle of Man when the borders re-open, and they are working with the Cabinet Office to work towards that. I think the initial situation that we are going to be in is that he is going to be moving along at a slower pace, just to ensure that you have got the right people in place. There will be a possible bid needed from the Constabulary in the future 1475 for additional, I would hope small numbers of people to protect our borders. I think all Hon. Members in this House are deeply concerned about the risks to our young people, especially when you see the increase of drug interceptions from the Constabulary, and when you see the county lines through the UK. There is a risk and I think the Chief Constable is fully aware of that, and I hope that we will be able to address that in the future. 1480 The Speaker: Final supplementary on this Question, Ms Edge.

Ms Edge: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Straightforward one from me, really, for the Minister: can he circulate the business case for 1485 the Border Force to Hon. Members? Obviously, you said that there is no funding but you surely have a business case that you can circulate to Members showing what the set-up and what the funding will be.

The Speaker: Minister to reply. 1490 The Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will pass that on to the Cabinet Office.

The Speaker: Now, that does bring us to the end, so far.

Standing Orders suspended to take remaining Oral Questions after Item 7

1495 The Speaker: Mr Hooper.

Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I would like to suggest that we do finish Questions today, but we do so after we finish the legislative business that is in front of this House. 1500 The Speaker: Any seconder for that?

A Member: I second that.

1505 The Speaker: No other motion? Then I will put the question that the Questions be completed after the completion of legislative business, which would take us to after Item 7 on the Order Paper. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. We will therefore return commencing Question 9 after the completion of legislative business. Item 4 on the Order Paper is Questions for Written Answer and those will be circulated.

______2003 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

4. Questions for Written Answer

INFRASTRUCTURE

4.1. Arbory Street and Malew Street, Castletown – Consultation over utilities networks

The Hon. Member for Arbory, Castletown and Malew (Mr Moorhouse) to ask the Minister for Infrastructure:

Prior to the submission of Planning Application 21/00471/B, when the last date was on which the Department had consulted with each utility provider about their existing networks under Arbory Street and Malew Street; and when each of these networks will require replacement?

1510 The Minister for Infrastructure (Mr Baker): The Department has been in consultation with the Statutory Authorities throughout the design development phase of the project to establish what services are to be replaced or upgraded at the same time as the regeneration works on site. Preliminary arrangements have been in place since July 2020 to install additional telecoms ducting, renew domestic gas service connections, replace lead water pipes and upgrade street 1515 lighting within Malew and Arbory Streets. No consultation has taken place since the extent of mains renewal work was agreed in July 2020. However, should the Department be successful in securing planning approval, further consultation will be undertaken to develop a programme for the delivery of these works. The utility providers are responsible for managing their networks. Therefore the Department 1520 is not in a position to comment on the suitability of their infrastructure or determine when it is to be replaced or upgraded.

POLICY AND REFORM

4.2. Arbory Street and Malew Street, Castletown – Gas pipes

The Hon. Member for Arbory, Castletown and Malew (Mr Moorhouse) to ask the Minister for Policy and Reform:

Whether there are any gas pipes in Arbory Street or Malew Street in Castletown; and if so, when they were last inspected and when they will need to be replaced?

The Minister for Policy and Reform (Mr Harmer): The Cabinet Office does not hold any information on the location of gas pipes. I have taken the opportunity to consult with the Communications and Utilities Regulatory Authority; neither body holds the information 1525 requested. The Department of Infrastructure advises that it has been in consultation with the Statutory Authorities throughout the design development phase of the project to establish what services are to be replaced or upgraded at the same time as the regeneration works on site. Preliminary arrangements have been in place since July 2020 to install additional telecoms ducting, renew 1530 domestic gas service connections, replace lead water pipes and upgrade street lighting within Malew and Arbory Streets.

______2004 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

Public gas suppliers are responsible for managing their networks. I would therefore suggest that the Hon. Member may wish to ask the public gas supplier (Manx Gas Limited) directly.

HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE

4.3. Adult care home inspections– Homes requiring improvements; concerns about implementation

The Hon. Member for Douglas Central (Mr Thomas) to ask the Minister for Health and Social Care:

Pursuant to his Answer to Question 3.9 on 4th May 2021, to which adult care homes the recommendations, requirements and improvement notices referred to related, broken down by reason for the recommendations, requirements and improvement notices; and what concerns he has regarding the adequacy and timeliness of post-inspection implementation?

The Minister for Health and Social Care (Mr Ashford): 1535 The tables below identify which adult care homes received requirements in the last two inspection years and to which minimum standard they are in reference to. Recommendations are made when a service meets a minimum standard but the inspector is aware of either best practice or additional guidance to support further improvement. The details in respect of the reasons for recommendations, requirements are included within 1540 the individual inspection reports. These are available for all but small Learning Disability and Children’s Homes on the Registration and Inspection website. Access to those reports not published can be gained on request to the Registration and Inspection Team via [email protected]. All providers who are subject to requirements from the inspection or are served with an improvement notice must submit and have agreed an Action plan in respect of addressing the 1545 issues identified. The Action plan also includes timescales. DHSC assurance that actions have been implemented is gained via a programme of monitoring visits, which are part of the Registration and Inspection Team programme of inspections.

Adult Care Homes April 2020- March 2021

Total number of Standard 1 Standard 2 Standard 3 Standard 4 Standard 5 Standard 6 Standard 7 Name of Home requirements

Beaconsfield * 15 2 1 7 2 3 Brinnington 9 1 3 4 1 Brookfield Nursing & 8 2 4 2 Residential Home Castle View Nursing Home 11 2 2 3 3 1 Corrin Memorial Home 20 1 3 5 8 3 Cushag House 18 4 4 7 2 2 Griffindale 19 4 5 5 2 3 Reayrt Skyal 4 1 2 1 Southlands (Gansey Unit) 20 4 7 4 4 1 Southlands Resource Centre 13 2 2 7 2 Sweetbriar 18 1 6 5 5 1 Elder Grange 17 1 5 7 3 1 Grest 14 4 3 1 5 1 Grove Mount 17 3 2 6 5 1 Marathon Court 14 3 1 2 6 1 1 Salisbury Street 27 4 2 9 9 2 1 Viva Heights 22 1 2 5 5 5 4 Thie Meanagh Unit 1 14 2 1 8 2 1 Springfield Grange 8 1 7 Ellan Vannin 12 2 1 7 2 LV Crovan Care * 53 6 1 15 6 3 11 11 Sunnydale 8 1 1 5 1 Tudor Lodge 6 1 1 2 1 1 Shenn Valley 6 2 1 2 1

______2005 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

Adult Care Homes April 2019-March 2020

Total number of Standard 1 Standard 2 Standard 3 Standard 4 Standard 5 Standard 6 Standard 7 Name of Home requirements

Beaconsfield * 12 2 1 4 2 3 26 (24 met) Brinnington 3 4 10 3 6 2 not met Brookfield Nursing & 16 2 1 8 4 1 Residential Home Castle View Nursing Home 9 2 1 3 3 Corrin Memorial Home * 56 4 3 9 12 3 13 12 Cushag House 13 1 2 6 3 1 Griffindale * 15 2 2 4 3 1 3 Reayrt Skyal 7 1 1 3 1 1 Southlands (Gansey Unit) 10 1 1 5 1 2 Sweetbriar 11 1 2 2 5 1 Grest 12 3 2 3 3 1 Grove Mount * 9 1 1 2 3 2 Marathon Court 14 4 2 5 1 2 Salisbury Street 26 5 2 9 7 2 1 AI Ballajora 4 2 1 AI Glen Darragh 12 1 1 1 6 3 AI Mount Rule 3 2 1 AI Rosegarth 5 3 2 AI Shenvalley 7 2 4 1 3 Rosebank * 11 2 1 5 1 2 4 Rosebank * 5 2 1 1 1 11 Hutchinson Square 15 3 1 4 4 1 2 24 Farmhill 13 1 4 2 1 1 4 Bungalow 1 10 1 2 1 4 1 1 Bungalow 2 * 13 2 3 4 4 Bungalow 3 8 1 2 4 1 Bungalow 4 8 1 1 3 2 1 Glendale * 10 1 4 3 2 Greenacres * 9 1 1 3 3 1 Hollydene * 8 1 1 1 1 3 1 Reayrt Ny Baie 13 1 2 6 1 3 Southlands 10 2 1 4 1 2 Spring Meadows * 18 2 1 6 5 2 2 Thie Meanagh Unit 1 9 1 2 1 2 2 1 Thie Milan * 8 1 1 4 2 Thie My Chree 10 1 1 5 1 2 Thie Ushtey 11 3 1 2 2 3 Springfield Grange 7 1 1 4 1 Ellan Vannin 12 1 1 6 1 3 Sunnydale 1 1 Tudor Lodge 11 3 6 1 1 Glenroyd 4 1 2 1 Ingledene 7 1 1 5 Shenn Valley 4 1 2 1 Silverdale 14 3 1 6 2 2

*Adult Care Homes that have been served with an improvement notice.

Standard 1 Introduction Admission and Assessment Standard 2 Daily Living Standard 3 Daily Support Standard 4 Environmental and Personal Safety and Comfort Standard 5 Moving On Standard 6 Staffing Standard 7 Management Quality and Improvement

______2006 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

RECOMMENDATIONS Adult Care Homes 2020-2021 Total number of Name of Home recommendation s Castle View Nursing 1 Home Southlands Resource 1 Centre Elder Grange 2 Grove Mount 1 LV Crovan Court 5 Viva Heights 3 Ellan Vannin 1 Springfield Grange 1

RECOMMENDATION Adult Care Homes 2019-2020

Brinnington 5 Brookfield Nursing & 1 Residential Home Castle View Nursing 1 Home Corrin Memorial 2 Home Cushag House 4 Southlands (Gansey 2 Unit) Grest 1 Marathon Court 2 Salisbury Street 1 AI Glen Darragh 3 Bungalow 1 2 Reayrt Ny Baie 4 Thie My Chree 2 Thie Ushtey 1 Springfield Grange 1 Ellan Vannin 1 Glenroyd 1 Silverdale 5

PUBLIC SECTOR PENSIONS AUTHORITY

4.4. Public sector pension schemes – Value of contributions

The Hon. Member for Douglas Central (Mr Thomas) to ask Vice-Chair of the Public Sector Pensions Authority:

What the value was, in both absolute and proportional terms, of the contribution made to each public sector pension scheme and sub-scheme by (a) sponsoring employers, (b) scheme members, (c) transfer from other schemes, (d) the Public Sector Employee Pension Reserve and (e) other Treasury or central government sources in (i) 2012-13, (ii) 2015-16 and (iii) the most recent year for which figures are available?

The Vice-Chair of the Public Sector Pensions Authority (Mr Harmer): We are unable to collate 1550 the information requested at this time but will endeavour to have the information available to Members by 8th June 2021.

The following Answer was later received on 8th June 2021:

______2007 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

The table in Appendix 1 shows firstly, the split of contributions across each Public Sector Pension Scheme for the financial years 2012-13, 2015-16 and 2019-20 (as yet unaudited) and secondly, the impact upon overall pensions expenditure in terms of both contributions and 1555 monies taken from the Public Sector Employees Pensions Reserve and from Government revenues. The pie charts below show for each of the three requested years, contributions for each of the groupings in Appendix 1 as a proportion (percentage) of the total pensions expenditure:

Appendix 1 is found here: https://www.tynwald.org.im/business/hansard/20002020/k210525_Q4.4_Link.pdf

______2008 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

MANX UTILITIES AUTHORITY

4.5. Arbory Street and Malew Street, Castletown – Utilities networks

The Hon. Member for Arbory, Castletown and Malew (Mr Moorhouse) to ask the Chairman of the Manx Utilities Authority:

When the utilities networks in Arbory Street and Malew Street in Castletown were installed; when they were last inspected; and when they will need to be replaced?

1560 The Chairman of the Manx Utilities Authority (Mr Baker): Manx Utilities can confirm that it owns, operates and maintains underground assets for electrical, sewerage and water infrastructure in both Arbory Street and Malew Street in Castletown. Due to the underground nature of these assets, with the exception of the sewerage infrastructure, it is not possible to inspect them as they are buried in either the road or pavement. 1565 Focusing on infrastructure within the proposed refurbishment area for each of these streets, Manx Utilities can advise as follows:

Electricity Cables in these areas were installed in the early to mid-1990s having previously been wall mains attached to properties. A number of Low Voltage (LV) pillars were installed at the same time; these pillars allow for the distribution and fusing of circuits which supply discrete properties. 1570 The cables associated with Callow’s Yard substation were installed in 2009. If works in the refurbishment zone takes place, Manx Utilities doesn’t propose any new works to replace the LV mains or service cables. A proposal to replace street lighting which will involve installing new street lighting cables has been submitted to the local authority. Modern power cables have a lengthy anticipated asset lifespan and Manx Utilities would not anticipate replacing 1575 these cables for at least another thirty years.

Water In Arbory Street, there is a 6” asbestos cement main which was laid in 1956. This asset does not have any major burst history but is at end of its expected asset life. There are numerous service connections made from this main which are made from lead. In Malew Street there is a 6” cast iron pipe which was laid in 1957. Again there is no 1580 problematic burst history with this main and given the material it is made from, it could be expected to be serviceable for another 30 years. Again the main has numerous service connections made to it, many of which are lead and some have burst over the years. As the water assets in both streets are buried to 700mm, Manx Utilities’ intention would be to replace them if deep road reconstruction is being carried out.

Sewerage 1585 There are combined and surface water sewers within Arbory Street and Malew Street of unknown age. These sewers were CCTV surveyed in 2016, along with the sewers through Castletown Square before the recent re-generation works were undertaken. These surveys did not raise any concerns with either the structural or serviceable condition and no rehabilitation works are deemed necessary at this time and there are no plans to replace these assets.

______2009 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

Statement of Urgent Public Importance

February 2021 COVID-19 Outbreak and IoM Steam Packet Company – Review by Mr Stephen Hind FCCA – Statement by the Chief Minister

1590 The Speaker: We now turn to a Statement by the Chief Minister regarding the Inquiry into the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company. I call on the Chief Minister.

The Chief Minister (Mr Quayle): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The independent report into the circumstances of the outbreak of COVID-19 in February this 1595 year in relation to the Steam Packet Company was published on Friday. This was commissioned in March from Stephen Hind, then Director of Treasury’s Audit Advisory Division. The Council of Ministers has considered and accepted the report’s findings and recommendations in full. As I said at the point of publication of the report last week, the difference of opinion that emerged in February as to the Steam Packet’s COVID-19 mitigations was concerning, and I 1600 therefore asked for a report to establish the facts. It was important we understood what additional measures were needed to reduce the risk of the virus entering our Island and to ensure any lessons to prevent a recurrence were learnt. It is clear that we did not get everything right, and the report confirms that. We were not always as joined up as we should have been and mistakes were made. 1605 It was clear following the initial case and the subsequent issue around isolation of Isle of Man Steam Packet crew members that there had been confusion and misunderstandings, and the findings of the review confirm this. The review has found that on this issue, from December 2020, the documentation issued was clearer on the isolation requirements. However, due to the way they were worded, the certificates 1610 could not be relied upon for Isle of Man crew. There were missed opportunities to clarify the situation, but this must be seen in the context of a fast-moving complex situation. Nonetheless, I am sorry that the confusion around this situation was not picked up and resolved sooner. The review recognises that a number of the recommendations for improvement made in the 1615 report are already in place and provides positive confirmation of their effectiveness. I will of course ensure that we see through any actions required by Government. Hon. Members, this is an extensive, thorough report, but I accept that there remain unanswered questions, and issues which are for others to answers. It is not for me to pre-empt any other agency looking to areas for which they have responsibility to regulate. I have therefore 1620 referred the report to the Isle of Man Ship Registry to consider whether any further investigation is required by them or others. The review has, however, brought clarity through being focused solely on this issue, carefully examining events as they unfolded throughout the pandemic. This, of course, has been with the benefit of hindsight or a helicopter view of the situation from all angles, something that is not 1625 easily done in real time at the coalface by people who are doing their best to serve the public, both in Government and the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company. It is notable that the review recognises the complexity of the situation being faced by all involved. We will learn from this episode and continue to do our utmost to protect our community. The report recognises that the Steam Packet Company is a key element of the Island’s critical infrastructure and that the safe 1630 continuity of passenger and freight services is a priority. It notes that in this pivotal role, the company represents a critical COVID risk point and acknowledges that prior to the February 2021 outbreak there had not been an outbreak involving the Steam Packet’s Manx crew.

______2010 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

Issues have been identified by the review that relate to each party, and I am confident that the recommendations will support further improvements going forward. The report’s 1635 recommendations focus largely on the importance of having structures in place to effectively manage risk through systematic assessments, logs, analysis, audits, data sharing, and record keeping. The recommendations include a call for the introduction of regular multi-agency meetings to review the Steam Packet’s COVID management arrangements and for the company to implement an internal audit of its coronavirus risk-management mitigations. 1640 I have said before that there has been no instruction manual for dealing with the pandemic. We do not get everything right, but we do continue to implement changes so that the response continues to adapt and improve. The Public Accounts Committee has its own investigation under way, and it is not for me to pre-empt their work. It is for the PAC to determine its conclusions and how they reflect the findings into their own review. 1645 In closing, Mr Speaker, the report concludes that in many areas the management of risk has already been significantly improved compared with the position at the time of the February outbreak. We accept the recommendations made in the review and will continue on this journey of seeking to enhance the response by Government. Thank you, Mr Speaker. 1650 The Speaker: Now, Questions on the Statement. I call first on Mr Robertshaw.

Mr Robertshaw: Thank you, Mr Speaker. If there was ever an occasion when a sincere and statesmanlike apology was most appropriate 1655 to the Steam Packet, Chief Minister, it must be now. (Mr Thomas: Hear, hear.) Would he please apologise to the Steam Packet?

The Speaker: Chief Minister’s reply.

1660 The Chief Minister: Could the Hon. Member clarify what he expects me to apologise over? Thank you.

Mr Robertshaw: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. In the light of the Steam Packet’s comments and anxieties and the way the Steam Packet crew 1665 were treated as a consequence of the indicative attitude of the Chief Minister following the outbreak, does he not agree that it would be extremely helpful for him to apologise if there were any misunderstandings when the outbreak first occurred, where he seemed to indicate that the blame lay with the Steam Packet Company? Thank you, Mr Speaker. 1670 Mr Thomas: And its staff. Hear, hear.

The Speaker: Minister to reply.

1675 The Chief Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This report covers the notification and the paperwork given to the Steam Packet from Government and therefore, for misunderstandings, I am more than happy to apologise on behalf of Government. We cannot get away from the fact that an infection happened in a Steam Packet member of staff, and that has been reported on by the Shipping Registry to look into that element 1680 of the side of things. This report was unable to look into that part of the report. So I am happy to apologise for any misunderstanding which ... At the time I was firmly led to believe by evidence given to myself, and so were the Council of Ministers, that a situation was x. The Steam Packet quickly came back and said, ‘Actually, no, it is y.’ That is why I called for the review to get a clear picture.

______2011 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

1685 So based on any comments I made, they were made with the evidence that I had received, which the Hon. Members can see in the report. So for any misunderstanding on the isolation of Steam Packet crew on the Island, then I am happy to apologise for that.

1690 The Speaker: Supplementary question, Mr Hooper.

Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank the Chief Minister for his Statement about the report. I am sure the Chief Minister is aware, the review had a set terms of reference which required as a minimum to report 1695 on eight different areas. Everything from the processes the documentation was issued under, right the way through to any potential shortcomings in the process or the advice that was given by the Isle of Man Government to the Steam Packet. Is the Chief Minister satisfied that the report actually covers all eight of these minimum requirements, given that there are only four of the requirements actually covered in the report’s 1700 conclusions, and the last four requirements set out by the minimum terms in the terms of reference actually are not referenced in the conclusions and recommendations that the report’s author has made?

The Speaker: Chief Minister. 1705 The Chief Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Hon. Member for his question. I feel that the report is very detailed, at over 90 pages, and has of course been made available to the public and any organisation that may wish to consult on it. So I do feel that it has covered the areas that it could investigate. Obviously, there 1710 was a key area that legally it could not investigate, that is for the Shipping Registry to look into, but for the areas that we asked it to look into, that the author could look into, I think it is a very thorough report of some 90-odd pages.

The Speaker: Question, Mr Shimmins. 1715 Mr Shimmins: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Steam Packet Company have largely been exonerated by this report. Will the Chief Minister apologise to the staff of the Steam Packet Company (Mr Thomas: Hear hear) for the smear campaign which has been conducted by the Cabinet Office to try to transfer responsibility 1720 from the failings in the Cabinet Office? Let’s not forget that the Cabinet Office refused to vaccinate Steam Packet crew when they were asked to do so in December. I look forward to the Chief Minister’s apology. Thank you.

The Speaker: Chief Minister. 1725 The Chief Minister: Thank you, Mr President. Regarding vaccinations, initially the advice to Government was that we have to remember that the period at the time the end of 2020, the position regarding vaccinations was still evolving and the picture on the impact of transmission was unclear. At this stage, with limited evidence to 1730 support moving away from JCVI priority group roll-out, any diversion of vaccines would have been away from our most vulnerable. So as the evidence became clearer from our medical directors, our directors, etc. Government did change its policy and agreed to offer vaccination to Steam Packet crew and I am aware that the PAC is looking into this as part of its wider review of the Government’s response, and I would 1735 not wish to pre-empt this report.

______2012 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

The Hon. Member clearly has not read the report in detail if he is feeling that the Steam Packet has been exonerated from the report. There were findings of mistakes on both sides. Yes, the Cabinet Office did a significant number of delays, etc., but the report shows that there was no review. I will draw the Hon. Members to page 16 of the report where it shows that there had not 1740 been a review of the situation. Now, I think we have had to hand the report over to the Isle of Man Shipping Registry to decide if they need to take this further. Yes, the Cabinet Office and Government representatives have made a number of mistakes in this area and I am more than happy to … I deeply regret these mistakes happening. But I think if we take into account in the report, at 3.16:

With regards to key mitigations in relation to why mistakes were made, it is important to acknowledge the unique context and circumstances of the specific operating area, and of that time:

1745 and then it goes on to list five key points. At the end of the day, our team are not perfect, but if you compare them with other jurisdictions, they have done a damn good job and have enabled the Island to come through COVID-19 as best as it can. Now, at the time of the briefings … I went into a briefing on 19th February fully of the view, 1750 because that is what myself and the Council of Ministers had been told, that the Steam Packet Company had clearly been advised that it had to wear full PPE whilst the staff were mixing with the UK crew, to mitigate the risk, and that they should have isolated at home when they got home. It became clear that that was not the case from the Steam Packet’s view. That is why I asked for the review to find out what the situation was, so that we could understand it. The situation 1755 clearly shows that it was not clear that the Cabinet Office did not properly explain and clearly meet with the Steam Packet to go through that situation. So for that mistake, yes, I can only apologise to the Steam Packet and its crew on when it came to the isolation of the staff. The report clearly highlights changes that have to be made by Government and changes made 1760 by the Steam Packet and it ends with 3.19 on page 16 of 94.

However it is my view that the current position of the management of these risks has already been significantly improved, when compared to the position at the time of the February outbreak.

One of the reasons of doing this report, Hon. Members, is to learn from it. We will do things right; we will get things wrong; and when we get things wrong, I think we need to be big enough to say, ‘Well, what did we get wrong?’ In this instance, the lack of regular meetings between officers of the Cabinet Office and officers in the Steam Packet crew was most regrettable. That is 1765 in the report that it needs to happen on a regular basis. I would sincerely hope it has already been implemented, and the report does say that a large number of the recommendations have been made, but I do believe that there were failures on both sides, as both sides did their best. We have to remember there were no cases for nearly a year up to February from the Steam Packet as a result of their measures, so the Steam Packet did a good job. Something has gone wrong. Maybe 1770 the Shipping Registry will be able to advise us from that element. But I think it is important to state, to reassure Hon. Members – I already answered this question to the Hon. Member for Douglas East, Mr Robertshaw, that yes, for the isolation period, I can apologise for statements made, but those statements made were as a result of evidence given to the Council of Ministers. So we genuinely believed that was the case. When I was challenged on 1775 this, I instantly called for a review, and that is why we are here today. Thank you.

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

______2013 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

1780 Mr Callister: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Chief Minister for his Statement this morning and for the report. When I read the report, I thought one particular paragraph stood out for me, as a constituency MHK, and that was on page 12, when it said the primary focus was on the infection risks between the crew and the public, and not the inter-crew risk. Back on 9th and 10th January, Steam Packet 1785 staff contacted me personally – and I have gone through my notes – to say they were very concerned going back to work with the Kent variant as it was in the UK at the time. I then raised my question to the Chief Minister in an informal setting at the Tynwald Members’ briefing on 11th January. Can I ask the Chief Minister if he feels that the questions I raised at that informal meeting 1790 should have been taken more seriously at the time? Thank you.

The Speaker: Chief Minister.

1795 The Chief Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do not remember the Hon. Member asking me those questions, it was a while back, but I accept that he did ask me those questions just for the record. I think what we have to remember, Mr Speaker, is that we always knew there was a risk. Unless you closed your borders and allowed no one in and no one out, there was always a risk that you 1800 were going to have a case of COVID coming to the Island, so you come up with measures to mitigate those risks and the measures were on board; the off-Island crew did not mix with the on- Island crew and there was a wearing of PPE on the staff, and that is in the report where it is evidenced that:

As a consequence, in August 2020 the Director of Public Health clearly advised the Steam Packet that face coverings should be [issued to] management of these intra-crew risks.

Then when they got off board, the Cabinet Office believed that the crew were isolating. That 1805 was clearly not the case from the isolation point of view, but the main risk area you could say was the mixing of the two crews and the wearing of PPE was mandated not only by our Director of Public Health, but it is also the responsibility of the Steam Packet under the Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) Regulations 2013 regarding – I want to quote from it, just so I get it right:

all Steam Packet crew members are also required to adhere to on board Health & Safety protocols, including the wearing of any prescribed PPE.

1810 So with those rules in place, you would feel confident as a Council of Ministers that the best mitigation possible was in place to do that. The Steam Packet were in a position where they could not solely run their ship with just a Manx crew, it was not feasible, so that is no fault of theirs whatsoever. It was a risk situation that had been addressed to mitigate it, but as with COVID, even wearing a mask does not necessarily stop you from getting COVID. It was a risk that was there, 1815 something has happened. It worked perfectly for nearly 12 months, Mr Speaker, but I take on board the Hon. Member’s comments about the concerns of the staff and the mixing of the crews, but it had to happen and mitigations had been put in place to reduce the risk.

The Speaker: Hon. Member for Douglas Central, Mr Thomas. 1820 Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Regulators have often fallen down in recent years in the Isle of Man. Does the Chief Minister accept that the Isle of Man Ship Registry should perhaps have done more in the last year if there really was this clear law and clear regulatory obligation? So does the Chief Minister accept – the

______2014 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

1825 Minister for Cabinet Office, moreover – that there could be a bias in the investigation that is going to come, because the Ship Registry is hardly likely to conclude it did not do its job properly in respect to the Steam Packet? Again, is that perhaps the intention? Secondly, was the Chief Minister ever advised, or did he ever believe, that he had a conflict of interest in respect of the role of the people in Cabinet Office handling directions, notifications and 1830 public health; and would it have been better for the Chief Minister to step away, perhaps leaving it to the Council of Ministers or the Lieutenant Governor to appoint this independent inquiry because the public does not seem to perceive this as genuinely an independent investigation?

The Speaker: Minister. 1835 The Chief Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. A number of points there. First and foremost, I think it is an independent investigation into the area that we asked them to look at. Clearly, there was confusion over the isolation of Steam Packet crew. It now transpires that, because that was so unclear at the time, the direction notices etc., 1840 the Steam Packet were not in the wrong from their understanding. There was genuine misunderstanding there, so we can park that. I do believe that the Report was independent. The Shipping Registry I am sure will do a thorough job, they are independent. I think that is a little bit of a slight to them saying that, because you are saying they did not do anything during the outbreak, they are now not going to do a fair report. I think that is most regrettable, to say 1845 that. This whole incidence of COVID, I put it to you as Hon. Members, the Steam Packet were dealing with unprecedented circumstances of an outbreak of a highly infectious illness/disease, known as COVID-19, and had to bring freight over, had to bring over certain passengers. We needed that for our country to survive, with food etc. going forward. They did their best, mistakes will have 1850 been made no matter how good they were. The same on the Cabinet Office side. Was the paperwork given to the Steam Packet clear? The report clearly says not. Were there delays? The report clearly says not. Could things have been done better? Of course they could be done better, but when you are dealing with an outbreak of a disease where there is no manual on what to do, no manual really for the Steam Packet, no 1855 manual for Government, you do your best. You adapt and when you make mistakes, you fix it. Clearly mistakes were made here in the paperwork and in other areas of how the risks were mitigated for the movement of goods and people onto the Island. But the report has made clear recommendations where we can improve the situation. I have myself and the Council of Ministers have wholeheartedly accepted those recommendations, and we will ask the Shipping Registry, 1860 who I do trust to give an impartial balanced report, if they feel there is any need to carry out any further investigations.

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

1865 Mr Robertshaw: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Chief Minister talks of everyone doing their best. Two points, approached quite simply from a common sense perspective: in all the talk and misapprehension around the issue of isolation, does common sense itself not tell you that any isolation process would have fallen down immediately because nobody ever suggested that the children and families of the crew should 1870 isolate, and thus any isolation programme would have failed? Is that not just common sense? And then on the other issue of common sense for vaccination, it is very interesting that in the report, I struggled to find the word ‘vaccination’ used at all in the whole of the report. I could not find it, and yet it is the key single thing that we have all faced over this issue and the importance of protecting us all was vaccination. It is not in this report, Mr Speaker. So given the issue that 1875 common sense told the leadership in the Steam Packet as early as late November and in writing

______2015 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

on 5th December, that vaccination was essential and common sense, why on earth, weeks and months later, was Public Health still arguing that we follow these clunky JVC rules? What is the answer to that in common-sense terms?

1880 The Speaker: Chief Minister.

The Chief Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think I have already addressed this. You need to put yourself in … at the time, hindsight is a wonderful thing, and we now know that whilst vaccination will not stop the spread of COVID, it 1885 reduces the risk of the spread of COVID, so we need to bank that one. If we had vaccinated everyone on the ship the minute we got the first vaccines, would it have spread? The answer is it still could have spread. It would have reduced the risk. Now, I have clearly said at the end of 2020 in my Answer earlier to another hon. colleague, that the position regarding vaccination was still evolving. What we know now and what we knew then 1890 were two different things, and we have to trust … No one, with the exception maybe of the Hon. Member for Ramsey, Dr Allinson, is a medical expert. If your Director of Public Health and medics are recommending that at this moment in time you do not vaccinate, for all the reasons I have already given, then that was something Council of Ministers went along with. However, as the evidence grew in favour of vaccination, it was felt that we must at least reduce the risk given that 1895 we have seen now that the vaccine does reduce the spread. So I think the Hon. Member, whilst I understand his concerns, has to accept that 2020 and where we are now, there is an awful lot of additional information that is available to people.

The Speaker: Hon. Member for Onchan, Ms Edge. 1900 Ms Edge: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just wonder if the Chief Minister … on 3rd November in the House of Keys, I asked him questions about the Steam Packet regarding wearing masks. The response I was given, I pushed. I said:

I am just really going to push the Chief Minister for an answer on my previous question with regard to masks and the Steam Packet. The response I got was that you would hope the Steam Packet are following the processes. Is it not a responsibility of this Government to ensure that the Steam Packet and anybody who is operating services to the Island to protect our people, that we are checking what they are doing? Could the Chief Minister commit to making sure he checks what the process is on the UK side before anybody travels to the Isle of Man?

1905 So the Chief Minister’s response was:

I am more than happy to look into the rules and regulations on travel […] and ask for them to be circulated […] But it is not for Government, it is not for me to go around every individual business on the Isle of Man, or operating on the Isle of Man, to say you must wear masks if you are on the planes, etc.

That is just an insight into a 3rd November Question, that the Chief Minister did not feel that his Government should be looking into a company. But more concerning with regard to the report, the Chief Minister has actually stated that he feels it is a good report – 1910 The Speaker: Ms Edge? I hope you are building to a question.

Ms Edge: Yes, yes, I am. So with regard to the report, an industry professional who has run audit teams feels it is a very 1915 poor report and would have given it a mark of 4 out of 10. So with that in mind, would the Chief Minister therefore consider saying today that he would go for a completely independent report

______2016 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

that is concerning the public; that the Head of Audit who has carried this out and that was his role at the time, but he got promotion after the announcement that he was doing this report, or changed his role. Apologies, I cannot confirm it is a promotion. So would the Chief Minister 1920 confirm that he still feels this Report was fully independent?

The Speaker: Chief Minister.

The Chief Minister: Thank you, Mr President. 1925 Yes, I do feel it was fully independent and had no interference with myself or anyone else to the best of my knowledge, and the Hon. Members, I am sure, from the PAC – who are doing their own independent review into this – will no doubt ask that question of the author. The Hon. Member has to remember that there are four stages of when the Steam Packet operates under whose jurisdiction it comes under, and it is in international waters. It is in Manx 1930 waters: when it is tied up it is in our area. It then goes into the UK area, and that is why, as I see it anyway, the Maritime Labour Convention Regulations for merchant shipping cover that area, which the Shipping Register do if they feel that there is a … We have passed the report on to them and if they feel there is anything they want to take, having responsibility for ensuring the area that I have just described, then that is for them. The PAC are doing their report. If they find out anything 1935 different, I will welcome that. But, yes, I do think it was independent. I do think for what it was asked to do and what the author could do – because he could not investigate regarding the wearing of PPE on board the ship, he did not have the authority; that is for the Shipping Registry to accept – that the report is a good report. 1940 The Speaker: The Hon. Member for Middle, Mr Shimmins.

Mr Shimmins: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is unfortunately clear that the Chief Minister is continuing to deflect responsibility from the 1945 Cabinet Office failings to the Steam Packet Company. It is also abundantly clear from the report that the Cabinet Office failed to manage or mitigate these obvious key border risks. You do not need hindsight or a manual to recognise these key risks (Two Members: Hear hear.) that the Steam Packet service provides. Who in the Cabinet Office is going to take responsibility for the serious failings that are highlighted in this report? 1950 Ms Edge and Mr Robertshaw: Hear, hear.

The Speaker: Chief Minister.

1955 The Chief Minister: Thank you Mr Speaker. I would reiterate that the report clearly shows failings on both sides, Cabinet Office and the Steam Packet. I do not want to dwell on them, they are there for you … I am sure you have all read them, what it says in the report. I would draw the Hon. Member for Middle to page 12 of the 94- page report and 2.27 regarding the wearing of facemasks. The Hon. Member obviously has not 1960 read that part of the report –

Mr Shimmins: I have read it.

The Chief Minister: – or he would not have said that the Isle of Man Government was totally 1965 responsible for the position it is in –

Mr Shimmins: It is the Cabinet Office failings we want to –

______2017 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

The Chief Minister: There are Cabinet Office failings, which I just stood up and admitted. I am 1970 not denying that there were failings, but the Hon. Member is criticising and clearly wanting the head of someone in the Cabinet Office, the same Cabinet Office –

Mr Shimmins: To take responsibility.

1975 The Chief Minister Well, we have apologised. I have given an apology. I said I am sorry, in my Statement. That is taking responsibility as Chief Minister. If anything goes wrong, it is always my fault, so I have apologised for that. But the same team that some Members in this Hon. Court are complaining about have delivered one of the best vaccination programmes in the world, have delivered one of the best test-and-tracing – we were eighth in the world at one stage – has 1980 delivered the Isle of Man being the first place in the British Isles to come out of lockdown and enjoyed nearly seven months continuous without any impact whatsoever on the public bar the borders. So yes, they have made mistakes, and this is clearly highlighted in this report, but we wanted that report so that we could learn from it so that a future Chief Minister, whoever they may be, 1985 should there, sadly, be another outbreak of a different variant that the vaccination does not work on, can sit down, read the log book of what we got right, what we got wrong and what we did to fix it and what the various reports advised us to do. That is why I asked for the report. I promised it would be shared; it was shared. It is here for everyone to see. We need to learn from this and yes, there were significant failings in the way the Cabinet Office handled the information-sharing 1990 and discussions with the Steam Packet. I have already said I am sorry for that. But there were equally mistakes on both sides. But I am not criticising the other side either. They did a fantastic job during this period of COVID. They were learning; we were learning. They did really well; I think our team did really well, but mistakes were made. This is what the Report has looked into, to see where those mistakes 1995 and the missing information that sadly arose and the lack of meetings between the two organisations, I am disappointed with that, but it has happened and we have the eight recommendations which we have taken on board.

The Speaker: Hon. Member for Ramsey, Mr Hooper. 2000 Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The Chief Minister has talked a bit about mitigations and hindsight, but actually this comes back to the Question I asked him earlier. On page 50 of the Report, it talks about issues with some of the advice that was provided. It clearly identifies on that page that where the Director of Public 2005 Health provided advice to the Steam Packet around self-isolation, it was very specific and only referred to those crew working in close confines, rather than to the crew more generally. There appears at no point to have ever been advice issued to the Steam Packet that their crew should have been isolating carte blanche whilst not on the boat. But the question I have for the Chief Minister is: the terms of reference very clearly identified 2010 that the report should also cover any shortcomings in advice that was provided. That is point 6 in the terms of reference for interest. But the report very clearly does not talk about whether the mitigations were adequate or whether the advice provided was adequate in any of its conclusions or recommendations, and yet spattered throughout the report are references a number of times to where the advice that was provided was inadequate, was not properly circulated, was not 2015 followed up. In terms of facemasks, for example, the advice was that where crew are working alongside UK crew, they should wear all appropriate PPE, including social distancing and face coverings, but at no point was that placed into law as a requirement for the Steam Packet. That did not happen until February according to this report, some five months after the advice was given.

______2018 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

2020 So, going back to my original question, given that the report clearly does not address some of these things which were stated as being minimum requirements when the Chief Minister set out the terms of reference for the report, is he honestly going to stand here and tell us that he is satisfied that this report adequately covers all of those items in the terms of reference, when it very clearly does not even talk about half of them in the conclusions and recommendations? 2025 The Speaker: Chief Minister.

The Chief Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am a little bit lost, because I think the Hon. Member contradicted himself throughout his 2030 statement. It could be my misunderstanding, I apologise if that is the case, but he said that there were shortcomings, he feels, in the report because it did not cover whether the advice to the Steam Packet was clear enough, and therefore that is not in the report. Well, throughout reading the report, what I can see is that there is criticism of the Cabinet Office in how it gave its advice to the Isle of Man Steam Packet. 2035 Equally, however, regarding the wearing of facemasks and putting it into law, I think the Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) Regulations – ‘all Steam Packet crew members are also required to adhere to on-board health and safety protocols, including the wearing of any prescribed PPE’ – that already is the law, and that is why I have referred the report to the Isle of Man Shipping Registry, because we cannot investigate that area. We do not have the authority to, 2040 that is their area and I do not want to prejudge that. So I think the report does show that there were shortcomings. It could be argued that it is highly critical of how the Cabinet Office spoke to, and the trail and the meetings etc. between, officers and the Steam Packet; but it does also point out the world we were living in and the problems that officers were facing, having to deal with a multitude of problems. 2045 This team, in my opinion, are heroes. They have done seven days a week, on the whole, for a 12-month period, trying to protect the Island from COVID-19. They have done a fantastic job in most areas, but, sadly, this is an area that did not work. We have a report into how to fix it. I have apologised for the inference that the Steam Packet should have been isolating when they came off the ship, because that is what the Council of 2050 Ministers had been led to believe, and I believe that is what the officers thought they had said, but it did not happen, and I have apologised over that. I think the report is critical. I do not think it was a good read as the Minister with responsibility for the Cabinet Office and the Chief Minister with overall. If the Hon. Member would like to contact me with any further questions for clarification, I am more than happy to look into that for him. 2055 Thank you.

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

Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 2060 Can the Chief Minister confirm for the avoidance of doubt that the Shipping Registry should investigate its role and how it carried out applicable laws during the period under investigation? Otherwise the perception could build up that we are assuming the Steam Packet is wrong and the Ship Registry was perfect in all of this. Secondly, the Chief Minister is definitely giving the impression throughout that personally, he 2065 believes that facemask issues at the Steam Packet were the problem. Can the Chief Minister advise whether personally he believes that independent inspectors should have been sent in straight away to the Steam Packet to preserve the evidence, because they were obviously guilty – like happened in Abbotswood, for instance? Thirdly, how will the Chief Minister take forward the recommendations directed to Public 2070 Health? Would something like the Emergency Advisory Group be helpful, or something like the

______2019 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

public health board that I proposed as the amendment to the Public Health Act, when I was taking it through, be helpful? Thank you, Mr Speaker.

2075 The Speaker: Chief Minister.

The Chief Minister: Thank you, Mr President A number of areas there with the Hon. Member’s usual twisting or confusion. I have not said the Shipping Registry was wrong. I have asked the Shipping Registry, who are the area responsible 2080 for monitoring if there is a complaint etc. of a shipping company, to look at the report to see if they feel there is anything that has been done that they need to take action on, and I do not want to prejudge that outcome. So that is not for me and we do not have the powers to do that. That is for the Shipping … So to imply that the Ship Register have done something wrong already, I do not know where 2085 the Hon. Member is coming from on that. I am sure they will look at the Report and decide if they need to do anything further. The master is in charge of the ship. We cannot go on to the ship, our Public Health, and do tests without the permission of the crew. And that is why the Isle of Man Shipping Registry will look into this. I am just trying to think of the other elements that the Hon. Member was … Could he just 2090 remind me, there was a couple of other points that I did not jot down?

Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Personally, does the Chief Minister believe that the inspectors or the Police should have been sent in immediately to preserve the evidence , as happened in Abbotswood? And thirdly, what 2095 will he now do to make Public Health fulfil the requirements of recommendation 8? Would the Emergency Advisory Group have that role, or perhaps it would have been better to amend the Public Health Act as I had proposed when that Bill was going through?

The Speaker: Chief Minister. 2100 The Chief Minister: Thank you. Well, obviously, the Report … we have accepted the eight recommendations and the Chief Secretary and his team will have a full review of the resources of Public Health, but we have to remember Hon. Members that if we staff up for every worst-case possible scenario, we will have 2105 hundreds and hundreds of extra officers. Yes, the Public Health team have worked flat out and are limited in their resources, and that is what the Report has said. I have numerous Members and members of the public saying to me, ‘We have far too many civil servants and people working in Government’ so trying to get that balance right is a tough one, but the report clearly says we need to review that, and the Chief Secretary and the Chief Officers 2110 will look at the report to see if there are ways of giving the extra resources to Public Health. Trying to get a Public Health expert at short notice in the middle of a pandemic clearly is not going to happen, so what can they do as officers to put a strategy in place, and does that mean getting an extra member of staff? Well, that is for them to investigate and report to the Council of Ministers, and the officers have already agreed to do that. 2115 I think the Hon. Member asked for my views on this. It is for the Shipping Registry to decide if there was a problem. There was an infection on the Isle of Man which sadly a member of the Steam Packet caught. Now obviously, there are probably four ways that had happened: immaculate contraction, a passenger on board giving it to a crew member. I personally rule those two out. (Mr Shimmins: Why? Why?) Someone on the Island giving it to a member of – 2120 Mr Shimmins: Are you an expert?

______2020 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

The Chief Minister: No, I am just saying that on the balance of probability. Or, someone on the Island had it and gave it to a Steam Packet member. That could be a feasible option, or it was given 2125 by an off-Island crew member to a Manx one. Those are the four areas that could have happened and, really, the Shipping Registry can look into that. That is an area I cannot look into and neither could the author of this report.

The Speaker: Hon. Member for Douglas South, Mrs Christian. 2130 Mrs Christian: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Learning from our mistakes. This is a highly infectious disease. These are key points raised by the Chief Minister, and following on from Mr Robertshaw’s comments, I would like to know from the Council of Ministers what they are doing in terms of protecting our hospital, and protecting 2135 our local people and our children who are unable to have the vaccine due to medical reasons, when the borders do open with the possibility of large numbers of global passengers arriving on- Island who might not have had the vaccination? I raise this now because this is lessons learnt and I want it here said today. Thank you, Mr Speaker. 2140 The Speaker: I am really sorry Mrs Christian, questions can only relate to matters that are in the Statement and the performance before, so I think that falls outside of that scope. Ms Edge.

2145 Ms Edge: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Whilst Chief Minister likes to stand up and talk about league tables and heroes, a lot of the Manx public do not want to hear that. People have lost their lives and livelihoods. So therefore to follow on from the Hon. Member for Middle with regard to his question, has the Chief Minister implemented any of the capability proceedings that are in place for public sector workers 2150 following on from the report? And also, would the Chief Minister respond on whether … I personally do not feel that the author went deep enough in his research. He has clearly accepted documentation. Can the Chief Minister confirm whether he did actually request metadata from GTS to actually do the investigation thoroughly? Thank you, Mr Speaker. 2155 The Speaker: Chief Minister.

The Chief Minister: Thank you. Latterly the last question was, did I ask GTS to do the independent review? I asked the Chief 2160 Secretary –

Ms Edge: No. Do you want me to clarify?

The Chief Minister: Yes please. 2165 Ms Edge: No, I said that I do not feel that the author has gone deep enough with gathering his information. Can you confirm that he did request metadata from GTS? It seems in the report, it is very clear he has just accepted what paperwork has been provided to him. Thank you, Mr Speaker. 2170 The Speaker: Chief Minister.

The Chief Minister: Well really, that is not my … to ask.

______2021 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

2175 Ms Edge: It is your report.

The Chief Minister: This was an independent review, Mr Speaker. I do not tell him that you must use metadata or GTS etc. He goes off and does a review. He has been writing reports, internal audit on Departments, for his career, and therefore I would hope that he has the independence 2180 to use whatever resources he needed to give us that report. Have I gone for disciplinary on the officers involved? Well, they have –

Ms Edge: I did not say disciplinary; capability.

2185 The Chief Minister: Sorry?

Ms Edge: Capability.

The Chief Minster: Capability. Well, the report clearly shows that mistakes were made. But as 2190 I have tried to point out, in the world we have just been living in, those same people have delivered a phenomenal outcome for the people of the Isle of Man. Yes, there have been tragic deaths on the Isle of Man. Yes, businesses have suffered as a result of it, and mental health and cancelled operations. We have not come out of this perfect. But I would say to the Hon. Members, if you cast your eyes around jurisdictions all the way around us, you will see that our team have delivered 2195 exceptionally well when you consider the teams around them. I do not want to criticise other teams, but just look at the data. So yes, they have made mistakes, but they were in a really tough pandemic situation where there was no manual on how to deal with this. If we end up with a situation where, whenever an officer puts a foot wrong, despite no matter how good they are, that Hon. Members want them 2200 sacked, we will have no good work in this sacking.

Ms Edge: Capability is not sacking.

The Speaker: Hon. Member for Ramsey, Mr Hooper. 2205 Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I think the Chief Minister is trying to take us down a path here towards blaming officers for some of those errors. (The Chief Minister: No.) I mean, he just very clearly explained that when ‘they’ have made a mistake, when officers have made a mistake. 2210 I would like to draw the Chief Minister’s memory back to May 2020, and this is tied in with the questions I have asked twice now about the completeness of this report. In May 2020, the Chief Minister, in response to a question I asked him about testing, stated that ‘Due to the low number of calls now to our 111 helpline and advice and requests, we are able to review our testing process and look at more detailed approaches for, for example, key workers.’ So back in May 2020, the 2215 Council of Ministers was talking about testing key workers. But at no point did they think about testing the key workers on the Steam Packet – not until the outbreak in February 2021, nearly a full year later. So the error there is clearly a policy error made at the highest level. They did consider testing key workers in May 2020, but did not implement testing for the Steam Packet at that point. 2220 So my question to the Chief Minister is not only why was that decision made, but in respect of this report, why the report does not make any reference to this, to the mitigation measures, to the adequacy of the advice, which was specifically requested by him when he set the terms of reference out?

2225 The Speaker: Chief Minister.

______2022 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

The Chief Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Hon. Member has said I am trying to pass the blame onto the officers. I clearly said that, as the Chief Minister, in my Statement, I took responsibility for the failings of what had happened 2230 in the report. So I think that is most unfair of the Hon. Member. I hope – he has been sent a copy of my statement – maybe he will read it and see that I did accept as Chief Minister full responsibility. Why the author of the report did not look into your statement in May 2020 and the fact that I said we were having a review of key workers, I do not know. He was asked to do an independent 2235 report, and therefore I am sure members of the PAC can ask him that question. I am sure he will have an answer. But the report, Hon. Members, was independent. I do not tell him how he goes about his business. We ask him to do a review for ourselves and it is presented to us. We have accepted the recommendations and we have shared it with you all.

2240 The Speaker: Hon. Member for Ramsey, Dr Allinson.

Dr Allinson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank the Chief Minister for his statement. This comprehensive report, which is independent to the Cabinet Office, looks back over a 12-month period where things were rapidly 2245 changing both in terms of our knowledge, but also the threats. When we started off, we were looking at protecting passengers from staff, protecting staff from passengers, and then protecting staff from each other. Would he agree with me that this comprehensive report analyses a series of episodes of misinterpretation, sometimes poor communication and some practical errors, but it was really 2250 the advent of the Kent variant at the end of last year that tipped all these over the balance and caused the community outbreak that we then had to deal with? And will he also agree with me that these lessons and the mitigations that have been learnt will hopefully make our borders stronger in the future? Thank you, Mr Speaker. 2255 The Speaker: Chief Minister.

The Chief Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yes, there has been a series of misinterpretations. That is why I was more than happy, after 2260 the request of the Hon. Member for Douglas East, Mr Robertshaw, to apologise to the Steam Packet for the information being mixed as to whether they should have self-isolated when they were at home. That was clearly … despite what we had been told, it was understood by the officers that they should. The Steam Packet did not feel that they had been told correctly, and the report clearly mentions that. 2265 The Kent variant did tip the balance, it is highly transmissible and it did make significant changes. Now, regarding borders, at the end of the day – and it does touch a little bit on what the Hon. Member for Douglas South, Mrs Christian asked, which I am happy to go into slightly – you cannot guarantee the safety of everyone on the Isle of Man with COVID-19, or COVID-24, 25. You can do 2270 your best to mitigate the risks. Now, in a short period of time, the vast majority of our population, those most vulnerable, will have had at least one vaccine to protect, to reduce the risk of death and having to be hospitalised. Our young people, the evidence clearly shows, are not as badly impacted with COVID-19 as the older population. So you do your best with the vaccination processes to reduce that risk, but at the end of the day we cannot wrap up people in cotton wool 2275 forever. We cannot guarantee that our borders will stop COVID. I have said, COVID will come back to the Isle of Man. We did phenomenally well for nearly seven months where we did not have it, but it came back and then it came back again. It will come back, I am sure, with people coming to the Island. But by

______2023 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

then we have bought time, our population has been vaccinated and we have been able to give 2280 them that defence. It is not 100% perfect defence, but if we shut the Island down and do not allow visitors to come to the Island, then businesses will crash. People will leave the Island because they want to be able to travel and see family and loved ones. Operations will not be able to happen. We have already seen, I am sure, we all have constituents who are in agony with a hip that has not been operated replaced or a knee that has not been replaced, cancer services, trying to get 2285 staff over to help. All these things mean that we have to mitigate risk, Mr Speaker. We cannot totally do away with it. We thought as a Council of Ministers that we had done our best to mitigate the risk with our borders, with the known problem of off-Island crews mixing with Manx crews. Clearly, mistakes have been made. Could we have done it better? Absolutely. The report clearly shows that, but we 2290 learn from this and we make sure that the next group of politicians, if this happens again, have the record on what was done well and what could have been done better. And clearly, this is an area that could have done better and I think we will all learn from this. Thank you.

2295 The Speaker: Hon. Member for Garff, Mrs Caine.

Mrs Caine: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Notwithstanding the overall brilliant job his administration has done (The Chief Minster: No, the team.) in steering the Island through the pandemic, the Chief Minister has acknowledged and 2300 accepted the report’s findings that there were mistakes on both sides – mistakes and misunderstandings in the Steam Packet and in the Cabinet Office. But hundreds of people caught COVID. We saw many companies lose productivity and income as a result of the Steam Packet- started outbreak. Does the Chief Minister anticipate there could be claims for compensation, and who would be responsible for moneys lost by private companies and individuals during the last 2305 outbreak and subsequent lockdown?

The Speaker: Chief Minister.

The Chief Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 2310 I think the Hon. Member has … There have been millions of deaths around the world and businesses going bankrupt around the world because of COVID-19. Is the Hon. Member saying that every one of those businesses and families are going to be able to sue their countries because of an outbreak of COVID-19? We have a record of … yes, we have had COVID, but it could have been an awful lot worse on the Isle of Man, when you consider our neighbours. Mistakes will 2315 always be made when you are fighting an invisible enemy, but if the Hon. Member thinks that compensation should be given by the Government because people caught COVID, sadly died from COVID, and businesses were impacted by COVID, then I think that is totally unreasonable.

The Speaker: Final question, Mr Robertshaw. 2320 Mr Robertshaw: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just want to, Mr Speaker, for my final question, explore the issue of where political judgement and leadership sits in this matter. Already in a previous question, Mr Speaker, I have reiterated the emphatic view of the Steam Packet as early as December, that vaccination should have taken 2325 place with regard to the crew. I, since then, have been reminded that the Steam Packet also in December actively pursued the issue of testing of the crew. Now, in both cases, the medical advice received on the part of the Council of Ministers was that neither of these two issues should take place. So on the one hand, you had non-clinicians and non-medical people in terms of the leadership of the Steam Packet giving Government excellent 2330 advice twice, which was then ignored by the medics and the clinicians in the system. We have

______2024 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

heard a number of times in a variety of press conferences that the Chief Minister defers to medical advice. So I put it to him, if non-clinicians and medics can arrive at the right judgement twice on these issues in December, that the medics got it wrong, what is the point of senior political leadership? 2335 Is it not listening properly and carefully, and had it done so, would you not have made the right decisions earlier on? Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Chief Minister. 2340 The Chief Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have covered this. I see where the Hon. Member is coming, but first and foremost the vaccine, whilst very useful, now we know, in reducing spread. It does not just protect people from having serious risk in hospital – 2345 Mr Robertshaw: We knew then!

The Chief Minister: No, we did not know then.

2350 Mr Robertshaw: We did.

The Speaker: Order.

The Chief Minister: The advice from our Director of Public Health was as a result of ECDC; that 2355 is a world organisation giving advice on how you should give the vaccine to the people, and the various categories of people who got it and the order, I think it was categories 1 to 9, the most at risk. So that was the advice that our Director of Public Health and the team were going on at the time. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but can I – 2360 Mr Robertshaw: Can the Chief Minister give way?

The Speaker: This is Question Time, there is no ability to give way.

2365 Mr Robertshaw: Okay, sorry.

The Chief Minister: Can I, as Chief Minister, criticise a senior officer, a medical expert, a doctor because they followed a world organisation’s health advice? (Mr Robertshaw: Yes.) As a layperson looking back on it, obviously we should have vaccinated earlier, but the advice was that we did 2370 not. I have tried to explain, we were living with less information in 2020 as we are now. Now, we did change that policy when the evidence changed and showed that it would potentially reduce the risk of spread. It would not stop the risk, but it could potentially reduce, and we took that as a decision. So, it is up to this Hon. House to decide if the Council of Ministers should have insisted back in December, but we looked at the data and evidence from our medics, 2375 and we accepted that. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, Mr Speaker, crystal balls, but the evidence did not support what the Hon. Member is alluding to at the time. It does now, but it did not at the time. I would just like to say, as this is the last supplementary, I have accepted that things were not done right by the Cabinet Office. I am the Chief Minister and legally, I am the Cabinet Office and 2380 therefore, I accept the responsibility that the team … this area was not a good day in the office, shall we say. But they have plenty of other areas where they excelled in and I have tried to be fair, and they know that mistakes have been made. Should the Council of Ministers have asked more

______2025 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

probing questions, I think, is the sort of inference from other Members into this perfect world that other Members seem to want to live in. We all want to live in a utopian world, but we are not 2385 perfect. We were dealing with a global pandemic which there was no manual for, and we did our best. Obviously with some Members our best was not good enough, and I can only apologise for that. I have never tried to make out I am perfect, but what the team did, overall, I think is something that the people of the Isle of Man should be and can be proud of. Thank you. 2390 The Speaker: Thank you.

Order of the Day

5. MOTION

Questions procedure – Amendments to Standing Orders 2.2, 3.6(1) and 3.6(3) – Motion carried

Mr Cregeen to move:

That the following amendments be made to the Standing Orders of the House of Keys, and that the amendments shall come into operation at the same time as the new Standing Order 10.12A(8) of Tynwald Court which was approved on 20th April 2021: (1.) In Standing Order 2.2, to leave out the word ‘Questions’ and to add at the end the words ‘; Questions must be submitted to the Secretary by noon six working days before the sitting at which the Questions are to be taken.’ (2) In Standing Order 3.6(1), to leave out the words ‘unless the Member, when tabling the Question, has indicated that a written answer is required’. (3) To leave out Standing Order 3.6(3).

The Speaker: We turn now to Item 5, Motion. I call on the Hon. Member for Arbory, Castletown and Malew, Mr Cregeen.

2395 Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr Speaker. At its April sitting, Tynwald agreed a number of changes to Standing Orders in relation to the management of business. These changes will be brought into effect when the President announces them in Tynwald. These changes are based on the introduction of a register of business. There are some consequential amendments to be made to the Standing Orders of the 2400 House of Keys. For obvious reasons, these are expressed as coming into effect when the new rules are commenced in Tynwald. Mr Speaker, the new Standing Orders changes in the House of Keys reflect two basic changes that Tynwald has agreed. (1) The first is that the tabling deadline for Questions will advance from 5 p.m. to noon on the relevant tabling day. (2) The second is that Tynwald has agreed to separate 2405 Written Questions from sittings entirely. Written Questions will be placed on a new register of business, rather than be related to an Order Paper for a particular sitting. This will allow Members to ask Questions in writing as before, but without any limit imposed by relating them to whether the House of Keys is sitting. With that, Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

______2026 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

2410 The Speaker: Mr Hooper.

Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

2415 The Speaker: Mrs Caine.

Mrs Caine: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a small point, in item (1). My understanding was that the Question deadline was moving forward from 5 p.m. on Monday to midday on Monday, but six working days before the sitting. I 2420 think that will actually be the Wednesday. So my query is, is it Monday or later in the week? Thank you.

The Speaker: Mover to reply.

2425 Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Monday.

Mrs Caine: That is not six days before the sitting. It is eight days.

Several Members: Working days. 2430 The Speaker: Hon. Members, the Item before you, with that clarification, is at Item 5 on the Order Paper. I do not intend to read it out, but those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

6. BILL FOR SECOND READING

6.1. Local Government (Amendment) Bill 2021 – Second Reading approved

Mr Baker to move:

That the Local Government (Amendment) Bill 2021 be read a second time.

2435 The Speaker: Item 6, Bill for Second Reading, Local Government (Amendment) Bill 2021 and I call Mr Baker to move.

Mr Baker: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am pleased to promote this Bill on behalf of the Department of Infrastructure, as the main 2440 driver of this Bill is to facilitate the implementation of a number of recommendations of a Select Committee of Tynwald. That was the Select Committee of Tynwald on Local Authorities: Members’ Interests (Petition for Redress), which had been agreed to by Tynwald previously. Implementation of the Select Committee recommendations, along with other amendments relating to access to meetings and documents, will greatly improve the governance of the Island’s 2445 local authorities by making them more open and transparent to their ratepayers. Furthermore, the Bill is proposing to update enabling provisions relating to the Local Government Superannuation Scheme within the Superannuation Act 1984. The current scheme applies legislation made under the Superannuation Act 1972 of Parliament to the Island. This Act has subsequently been repealed by the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 of Parliament.

______2027 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

2450 The Department is not able to apply any new legislation under the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 of Parliament, as the Superannuation Act 1984 refers to the Superannuation Act 1972 of Parliament. If the Superannuation Act 1984 is not updated, the Local Government Superannuation Scheme will not be amended to include any new provisions the UK government may implement, which may be beneficial to the Island’s scheme. 2455 The Bill also updates the provisions of the Local Government Act 1985 relating to joint boards and some minor amendments to other local government legislation, such as the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1984. Mr Speaker, I now turn to the Tynwald procedure for local authority byelaws. My predecessor gave a commitment in the other place that my Department would review the requirement for 2460 Tynwald to approve local authority byelaws. As a result of that review, this Bill will remove this requirement. Instead, byelaws will only require departmental approval. It should be noted that currently byelaws made under the Dogs Act 1990 do not require Tynwald approval; they only require departmental approval. The change in procedure will help to streamline the approval process for local authority byelaws. 2465 The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1984 specifies that a local authority shall hold and manage open space for the purpose of allowing the enjoyment by the public. The proposed amendment contained within this Bill will allow local authorities to lease or license open space to other parties, so as to manage and to use those spaces for the benefit of the community. Mr Speaker, in respect of local authority boundaries, these are well established in that people 2470 generally know where their boundaries are, or if there is some uncertainty as to whether local authority boundaries are currently established in statute. This is a consequence of updating the polling districts for House of Keys elections, which was introduced through the Polling Districts (Keys Elections) Order 2015. This Bill will clarify the status of the local authority boundaries and how those boundaries can change, either through merges or extensions. 2475 This Bill will also devolve the power to set members’ expenses and allowances to the local authorities. However, the parameters on how they set those expenses and allowances would be governed by regulations made by the Department. Finally, in light of the sale of the old Market Hall on North Quay, the Douglas Market Act 1956 is no longer required. This Bill will repeal that Act. 2480 Having outlined the broad principles of the Bill, I hope that Hon. Members will be able to give it their full support. I beg to move that the Local Government (Amendment) Bill 2021 be read for a second time.

The Speaker: Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Callister. 2485 Mr Callister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

The Speaker: Mr Harmer.

2490 Mr Harmer: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I really welcome this Bill, particularly as there are many conflicts of interest and it deals with lots of good, solid issues that have been grumbling around the time, and I am really grateful that the issue of having to go to Tynwald on every piece of every byelaw, I think would be a great relief to the Hon. Court. 2495 Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Mr Thomas.

Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 2500 The first point is that, in principle, I fully welcome local authority legislation reform. I have just got few specific questions at this stage at Second Reading. The first one is that the Public Sector

______2028 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

Pensions Authority is being required – it must – give advice when requested by the Department of Infrastructure. I just wonder why the Department of Infrastructure, given it does not have the obvious capacity in respect of public sector pensions, why it is even still involved. Would it not be 2505 better to actually have the Public Sector Pensions Authority actually having the legal responsibility from under the UK legislation, rather than having to give advice to the Department of Infrastructure, which does not have great history and capacity in terms of public sector pensions? The second point is that I just wonder whether the Minister is surprised that yours truly and perhaps other Members received communication from local authority commissioners saying that, 2510 as the Member whose name is on the engagement and consultation principles of Government, local authorities were not as yet convinced that the rush was necessary and they were not as yet convinced that some issues they had raised during the six or seven months, in recent times that have been going on, that concerns have been incorporated. In particular, the suggestion that is made in terms of engagement – just by way of example, because I myself have not had a chance 2515 to look and read every word of this legislation – but the point has been made is that in one of the schedules – in Schedule 3, from memory – we are actually bringing in part of the UK legislation for local authorities. Obviously in the United Kingdom local authorities are much greater than the typical rural parish commissioners. So is it fair lock, stock and barrel to bring in from UK legislation that applies to Greater Manchester, the Greater London Authority and county councils and district 2520 authorities the same legislation that applies to Andreas Parish Commissioners, never mind Santon Parish Commissioners, which last time I looked had a turnover of less than £100,000 a year? Specifically the question is, has there been sufficient engagement and has the principle that we have got the size of local authorities and the obligations right been considered properly? I have to admit that as a person who wants local authority reform and as the architect of the policy of 2525 actually applying GDPR and the FOI and the Tynwald Commissioner for Administration to local authorities to start thinking about how they are formed, in principle I am fully behind making local authorities wake up to proper public representation and so on, but I just want to put it on record that the Minister who represents rural parishes has actually fully thought through whether the full weight of UK transparency and representation principles and responsibility to the ratepayers 2530 and those who elect them has actually been fully thought through with all the local commissioners, because it has certainly been suggested to me that there has not as yet been sufficient engagement. Along those lines, I just wanted to ask, so it is on the record at Second Reading stage, why it has taken so long for Mr Hamilton’s Petition that was made in July 2011 and for the Tynwald 2535 Report that was agreed by the end of 2012-13 from memory … why has it taken so long? I remember when I was responsible for local government inside the Department of Infrastructure, we did have plans to make it a priority immediately five years ago at the beginning of this administration, and it does feel to me like this has been a bit rushed at the end because it has not really been a priority. So I just wondered why, in simple terms, it has taken 10 years to put in place 2540 Mr Hamilton’s recommendations that were approved in Tynwald. Just very specifically on that point, is it the Minister’s intention that this Bill becomes law before the end of this administration, or does the Minister currently expect this Bill to come back to the House of Keys in the next administration, having been through the Legislative Council? Thank you. 2545 The Speaker: Next on my list, I have the Hon. Member for Ramsey, Mr Hooper.

Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I feel the questions I had were very similar to those raised by my hon. friend Mr Thomas. Why 2550 now? It does feel like this Bill is going to have to come through the House, then come back through LegCo and then come back through the House again after the election, because it is quite substantial and does make quite a lot of changes, so I think if some further meat could be put on those bones, that would be greatly appreciated.

______2029 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

I would like to thank the Minister actually for arranging some drop-in sessions with his team. I 2555 have not been able to attend either of them, but at least he put them on, that is definitely a step in the right direction. (Mr Thomas: Hear hear) A couple of specific phrases in here worry me a bit, so there is language in one of the schedules around confidential information, so where a meeting is public and obviously the minutes are public, there is an ability to withhold confidential information from publication, but it is very 2560 specifically limited to information that has been furnished to the local authority by the Department or by a Department, which specifically forbids it being disclosed and information which is prohibited under any enactment from being disclosed. It does not talk about any other types of confidential information, legally privileged information, commercially sensitive information; it very specifically references those two types. So again, I think some clarity from the 2565 Minister on what they are trying to achieve with that. I would also like to get a better understanding of the clauses around relevant interests. We passed a law very recently which codified ‘relevant interests’ in statute. The election is coming up, we have all been sent these detailed lists of what is a relevant interest per the law that exists, but instead of just pointing to that law, this Bill says the Department can make its own regulations 2570 about what relevant interests are, so we could end up in a situation where local authorities have one set of rules and Members of the House of Keys have another set of rules about relevant interests. So again some clarity on why there might be a difference there. I would also like to have a better understanding of some of the prohibitions that have been placed in here, so a Member of this House has an interest, we are required to declare it, but we 2575 still may participate in conversations, debates and votes, if it is considered appropriate, but this places in statute that if a local authority member has a similar interest, they are prohibited from participating in the vote, prohibited from participating in the discussion, they may be excluded from the meetings. Now I am not saying one approach is better from the other, I do not know if I am perfectly honest, but it is strange that we are applying one set of rules to local authorities and 2580 a different set of rules to ourselves. So again, some explanation from the Minister as to why that is considered appropriate. I would also like to ask around the byelaw provisions. Changing them away from Tynwald approval seems to make sense, but there is a phrase in the law and it says, ‘Where the Department has withheld approval, the local authority can come straight to Tynwald.’ So what does that mean? 2585 Does it mean where the Department has sat on an application for a month, or six months, or a year? Or does it mean where the Department has actively stated to the local authority, ‘We are not giving you permission for this’? I can envisage both situations happening, one where the Department says explicitly, ‘No, we do not like these byelaws’, and another one where the Department simply does not want to pick that particular battle at that particular time and so 2590 places the byelaws in a drawer, as a sort of pocket veto, as it were. So again, not a criticism of his Department specifically, but these things do go on. Again, I would like to get some understanding of if I am a local authority and I am trying to get the byelaws passed, what is the time limit? What is the trigger point at which point I can then come to Tynwald directly and make that petition? 2595 There is lots in here, I think some of it definitely looks good, some of it looks like it is going to really improve things, but I think some of this information around the detail I am not quite sure has been very well explained and certainly is not outlined in the Bill itself. So if the Minister could provide some more detail around some of these questions, I think that would be very beneficial. Thank you, Mr Speaker. 2600 The Speaker: Hon. Member for Onchan, Ms Edge.

Ms Edge: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just really want to ask the Minister with regard to the public sector pensions, clause 33, where 2605 it clearly states that reasonable costs for the scheme to allow for administration and maintenance

______2030 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

expenses etc. are to be paid out of the scheme. Does the Minister know whether there was any consideration to go a little bit further on this to do a review of the pension scheme and the contributions from Members, because clearly they are way off the mark from the reform that has been taking place within the rest of the public sector and certainly with regard to ratepayers of 2610 the Isle of Man? I think it was 28% contribution from the ratepayers. I think it might even be up to 30% now and here we are possibly passing in clause 33 that they can also now start charging for the administration, etc. I just want to know if the Department did take any of that into consideration to do some of that pension reform that is urgently required. Thank you, Mr Speaker. 2615 The Speaker: I call the mover to reply, Mr Baker.

Mr Baker: Thank you. I would like to thank all Hon. Members who have spoken and all Hon. Members who took the 2620 opportunity to come to the drop-in sessions. I appreciate that diaries are extremely busy at this point in time, and it was good to see a number of Members there, but if any other Members do have more detailed questions between now and the clauses stage, I am more than happy to arrange for officers to extend the DoI’s hospitality – which extended to sandwiches yesterday! (Interjections and laughter) So thank you for that. 2625 Hon. Members will also recall having seen the consultation responses, which are a little bit dated, and the Hon. Member for Douglas Central has drawn attention to the fact this has been either a long drawn-out matter. What I would say to him is it may have been 10 years since that Select Committee met, but it has been a little over 10 months since I have been the DoI Minister. My intention is to push on with these things and to try and get things done. 2630 There is a lot of value in this Bill, Mr Speaker. Some really fundamental principles came out of that episode, which many Hon. Members will be familiar with, back over a decade ago, and this Bill responds to that. It responds to it in a very positive way by really applying high standards of transparency and probity to local authorities, and the Hon. Member for Ramsey has picked up actually that it lifts the bar further than actually we have ourselves in this Hon. Court and in the 2635 other place in terms of conflicts of interest and being able to still participate in debates, etc. There is a question as to whether that then should lead to a further review of Standing Orders and provisions for here and for Tynwald but that is a separate question, Mr Speaker. I make no apologies for raising standards. I think it is really important that standards are raised and I would highlight actually that there is a difference between some of the conflicts of interest and a link to 2640 financial issues and benefits that people may obtain from them. So in local authorities, for example, where ratepayers’ money is being directly spent as a result of decisions made by the board of commissioners, it is a more direct connection to the financial interests of perhaps the members. So there is an argument, and this was something that was discussed yesterday at the second of the drop-in sessions, that that higher standard is entirely appropriate. 2645 The question from the Hon. Member, Mr Thomas: are we going too far with these standards and are we in danger of expecting too much from our small authorities? What I would say he is absolutely right that this is based on local authority arrangements in the UK, but they do of course cover quite a broad range of entities in the UK, so we think automatically of the larger authorities, but actually the UK is a tiered structure and at the lower end there are some quite small 2650 authorities, even going down to parish councils, where the same principles are reflected in their rules. So it will be a challenge. Any reform is a challenge as people get used to the principles and the Hon. Member talked about Freedom of Information and GDPR. That has brought challenges to local authorities, but we have to keep modernising and keep raising the bar. We have considered 2655 the proportionality of this and we believe that it is appropriate. The Hon. Member also draws attention to comments from … I think he talked about local authorities, plural, but I think he is really referring to a letter that was sent from Peel Town

______2031 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

Commissioners signed by the Chairman, which interestingly was not sent to either me as Minister or the Members of the Departments or indeed, as far as I am aware, any of the Council of 2660 Ministers, including the two constituency MHKs for Peel. Now, I can only speculate as to the motivations of Peel Town Commissioners. I am not going to comment on that, but it is an unusual approach. It was sent out I think on Friday, and I am very grateful to the Hon. Members who attended the workshop yesterday and made me and the officers aware of Peel Town Commissioners’ letter. All Hon. Members should have had a letter in response from me that was 2665 circulated about quarter to 10 this morning, which hopefully puts that letter into context. I will be writing to Peel Town Commissioners. I am very disappointed and I find their approach unusual, but equally, I am happy to extend opportunity for them to come in and meet myself and the officers in the Department to discuss their concerns further. However – yes.

2670 The Speaker: … Minister.

Mr Thomas: Thank you very much, I really appreciate it. Just for the benefit of the record, I did receive the letter from Peel Town Commissioners and I know other people; but I have talked to several other local authorities who have expressed similar concern. 2675 Mr Baker: Okay, thank you for that clarification. Most local authorities participated in the workshops which were held in February and they made comments. Those comments were collated, they were reviewed by the officers and the officers came forward with some considered recommendations to the Department. It went 2680 through the departmental Members. Some of those recommendations were accepted; some were not. I think, Mr Speaker, we have a situation where views are diverse across local authorities and there is a range of sizes and styles of local authority. We are not going to bring forward a Bill which pleases everybody. My personal view is that for every pro, there is somebody with an opposite 2685 view, and I know that a number of local authorities are extremely welcoming of the high standards that are expected in this Bill. But yes, I am open to talk some further, but we did make changes to the Bill to reflect the comments that were made in the three workshops and they were held post the second lockdown. They had been deferred from January and if they had been held in January, we would have been much further on with the Bill than we currently are. 2690 This is an important Bill. We felt that it was worth continuing to progress but it is not my intention, Mr Speaker, to try and accelerate this rapidly through this administration. I seek to take it through this Hon. House and to pass it up to Legislative Council for their consideration. It will, of course, then have to return of this Hon. House in due course, but I think it is still well worth pushing on because these are important principles and actually, as one Hon. Member said in the 2695 briefing to me yesterday, but I think this is uncontroversial and so we should keep pressing. We should not just put our cue on the rack and play for time, knowing that there is an election coming up. We should use this time well, and if we do not use it well, we are just going to delay when this comes into force. Indeed the future administration may decide it is not that important, if it has not gone through into Legislative Council. So I do think it is worth pressing on, Mr Speaker. 2700 In terms of the other comments that have been made, thank you to Mr Harmer for his welcoming of the Bill and highlighting the benefits in terms of conflict of interest and also slightly shortening some of the future Tynwald Order Papers. The Onchan byelaws and the Ramsey byelaws which have gone through recently may become a thing of the past. In terms of the pension point, I am happy to speak directly to Mr Thomas and to circulate to 2705 Hon. Members further detail on that particular aspect of the Bill. However, we are where we are in terms of responsibilities, Mr Thomas, and we are trying to move forward rather than wait for perhaps some future reorganisation or restructuring. But I am always open to better ways of doing things.

______2032 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

Ms Edge touched on the clause, particularly about this pension reform and the clause that she 2710 is referring to is to actually allow local authority reform to move forward. So with that, Mr Speaker, I sense that it is probably about time for me to sit down, (Laughter) so with that, Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

The Speaker: I put the question that the Local Government (Amendment) Bill 2021 be read for 2715 a second time. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Hon. Members, I am somewhat loth to commence the Administration of Justice and other Amendments Bill (Mr Robertshaw: Hear, hear.) with just two minutes to go, so with that the House is suspended and will reconvene at 2.30 p.m.

The House adjourned at 12.59 p.m. and resumed its sitting at 2.30 p.m.

7. CONSIDERATION OF CLAUSES

7.1. Administration of Justice and other Amendments Bill 2021 – Clauses considered

Mr Shimmins to move.

The Speaker: Fastyr mie, good afternoon, Hon. Members. 2720 Members: Fastyr mie, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Please be seated. We turn now to Item 7 on our Order Paper, Consideration of Clauses, and first we have the 2725 Administration of Justice and other Amendments Bill. We will start on this occasion with Mr Peake to move his amendment to the long title, please.

Mr Peake: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, this House approved the Second Reading of the Bill two weeks ago. During the 2730 debate, Mr Hooper raised an issue as regards the implications for insolvency proceedings if provisions in law relating to landlords’ preference are changed. Having given the matter further consideration, Treasury has concluded that the provisions removing the landlords’ preference should not be removed. Consequently, the reference in the long title of the Bill to repeal the Recovery of Rent Act 1954 will no longer be appropriate or 2735 necessary. Mr Speaker, I beg to move the amendment to the long title of the Bill standing in my name:

Amendment to Long Title 1. Page 7, lines 6 and 7, omit ‘to repeal the Recovery of Rent Act 1954;’.

The Speaker: Mr Hooper.

Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. 2740 I am more than happy to second this amendment, although my understanding is, the Member when he moved the amendment there said that this clause would not be necessary. My understanding is it would not be necessary at this time, but it may come forward as part of a wider ranging review of preferential treatment in a later phase of the insolvency programme.

______2033 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

So as long as that is the case, Mr Speaker, I would encourage all Members to support this 2745 amendment. Thank you.

The Speaker: No other Member wishes to speak. Mr Peake.

2750 Mr Peake: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and … thank you very much. I beg to move.

The Speaker: Thank you. I put to Hon. Members the amendment to the long title in the name of Mr Peake. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. 2755 Now, we turn to Mr Shimmins to move clauses 1 and 2.

Mr Shimmins: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clauses 1 and 2 provide the short title of the Bill and for its commencement by Appointed Day Order at such time and in such manner as the Treasury, after consulting the General Registry, may 2760 determine. I beg to move that clauses 1 and 2 do form part of the Bill.

The Speaker: Mr Cannan.

2765 Mr Cannan: I beg to second.

The Speaker: I put the question that clauses 1 and 2 stand part of the Bill. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 3, Mr Shimmins. 2770 Mr Shimmins: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause 3 introduces amendments to the Administration of Justice Act 1981, which relate to the register of debts, and makes similar changes in respect of the register of fines. I beg to move that clause 3 do stand part of the Bill. 2775 The Speaker: Mr Cannan.

Mr Cannan: I beg to second.

2780 The Speaker: I put the question that clause 3 stand part of the Bill. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Now, clause 4 is not to be moved, so we turn then to clause 5. Mr Shimmins.

2785 Mr Shimmins: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause 5 substitutes section 15, register of judgments, of the 1981 Act and inserts additional sections 15A to 15F. This clause is key to the objective of a clear and more publicly accessible register of debts and debtors. Consequently, I propose to explain its contents in some detail. Substituted section 15 requires the Chief Registrar to maintain a register of judgments relating 2790 to moneys owed on account of a judgment of the High Court or a tribunal, other than under section 1 of the Collection of Fines etc. Act 1985, and warrant debts. Subsection (2) requires the Registrar to be kept in accordance with regulations made by the Deemsters, which are subject to the negative Tynwald procedure. Subsection (3) requires the Deemsters to consult such persons as they consider appropriate in 2795 respect of proposed regulations.

______2034 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

Subsections (4) and (5) set out what provision may be made by such regulations. Subsection (6) defines judgment and warrant debt. Subsection (7) empowers the Treasury to amend subsections (1) and (6) consequentially by order, subject to Tynwald approval. 2800 Subsection (8) requires the Treasury to consult on such an Order with such persons as it considers appropriate. New subsection 15A sets out requirements to provide data to the Chief Registrar. Subsection (1) imposes duties on the Assessor and the Treasury as appropriate in relation to warrant debts. 2805 Subsection (2) imposes similar duties on the Clerk to a relevant tribunal. Subsection (3) ensures there is no question that the duty to provide information in subsections (1) and (2) must be complied with. New subsection 15B makes provision about the keeping and publication of the register by the Chief Registrar. Subsections (1) to (3) empower the Chief Registrar to keep this register in such 2810 manner as the Chief Registrar thinks fit and to publish the information so as to ensure members of the public may inspect it. The provisions empower publication by electronic means. Subsection (4) empowers the Chief Registrar to enter into arrangements with a third party for that party to maintain the register. New subsection 15C makes provision about fees that may be charged in relation to access the 2815 register. Subsection (1) provides that fees must be specified by the Treasury in an order, subject to the negative Tynwald procedure. Subsection (2) provides that such an order may not be made where access to the register or a certified copy of an entry on the register is provided by a third party under arrangements with the Chief Registrar. 2820 Subsection (3) provides that any fees levied must be applied to pay the expenses incurred in keeping the register and publishing the information recorded on it of any surplus being paid into general revenue. New subsection 15D provides that the Data Protection legislation is not affected by new sections 15 to 15C. New subsection 15E makes transitional provision to ensure that no warrant is 2825 entered on the register unless the person has been notified they are liable to pay such a sum of money and a warrant has been issued after the coming into operation of this section. New subsection 15F restricts the entry of warrants on the register until the 14-day period during which a person may apply to set aside the warrant has passed. A warrant may still not be entered on the register until a further three days have elapsed to allow for an application that 2830 may have been posted on the 14th day to be received. A person may, of course, send their application by email. Subsection (2) provides that for a debt payable by virtue of a warrant to be entered on the register, the amount of the debt owed must be at least £1,000. Mr Speaker, it is possible an entry on a debt register may finally encourage a debtor to settle 2835 their debts and any other associated expenses. It is envisaged the regulations to be made by the Deemsters may provide that if a debt is fully satisfied within a month of the date of a default judgment, execution or warrant, it will be removed from the register within a short timeframe to be specified in the regulations. However, if the person fails to settle their debt or debts and associated costs within that period, then their entry will remain on the register. If the debt is 2840 subsequently settled, then the Registrar will record the relevant debt or debts as settled, but the entry concerning the settled debt or debts will remain on the register. It is envisaged regulations will provide that entries will remain on the register for six years, and this would provide equivalence with UK practice. Accordingly, a person will have their debts, whether settled or not, removed from the register after six years. Of course, if the person persists 2845 in running up fresh debts, then these further debts are eligible to be entered on the register on a rolling basis. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 5 do stand part of the Bill.

______2035 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

The Speaker: Mr Cannan.

2850 Mr Cannan: I beg to second.

The Speaker: I put the question that clause 5 stand part of the Bill. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 6, Mr Shimmins. 2855 Mr Shimmins: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause 6 amends section 26, Interpretation of the 1981 Act, to insert new definitions in respect of ‘data protection legislation’, ‘register’, ‘register regulations’, ‘warrant for payment’ and substitutes an extended definition of ‘execution’. 2860 I beg to move that clause 6 do stand part of the Bill.

The Speaker: Mr Cannan.

Mr Cannan: I beg to second. 2865 The Speaker: I put the question that clause 6 stand part of the Bill. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 7 is not to be moved. Clauses 8 and 9, Mr Shimmins. 2870 Mr Shimmins: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause 8 introduces amendments to the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1989. Clause 9 substitutes section 101A, titled ‘Register of sums are judged to be paid on conviction’ in order to standardise the requirements in the fines register with the provisions being introduced 2875 in respect of the judgments register. The substitution introduces new sections 101B and 101C. New section 101B makes provision for fees to be charged in respect of access to the register and new section 101C makes provision to the effect that nothing in sections 101A or 101B affects data protection legislation. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clauses 8 and 9 do stand part of the Bill. 2880 The Speaker: Mr Cannan.

Mr Cannan: I beg to second.

2885 The Speaker: I put the question that clauses 8 and 9 stand part of the Bill. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clauses 10 to 15 are not to be moved. Clause 16, Mr Shimmins.

2890 Mr Shimmins: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause 16 amends the Income Tax Act 1970. Subsection (2) amends section 106 concerning the confidentiality of information by clarifying, in subsection (4)(f), that documents or information may be disclosed to the Judgments Officer or a Coroner or a Lockman for the purpose of enforcing the collection of Income Tax or National Insurance contributions. 2895 After subsection (5B) in the Act, a new subsection (5C) is inserted to provide further assurance that the disclosure of information under clarified subsection (4)(f) does not contravene subsection (5A), which makes the disclosure of information or documents for purposes other than those for which the information was provided an offence.

______2036 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

If the use or disclosure is for the purpose of the performance or discharge of any of the 2900 Judgments Officer’s, Coroner’s or Lockman’s functions under the Administration of Justice Act 1981. Subsection (3) inserts a new section 106G into the Income Tax Act 1970 to empower the disclosure by the Assessor of Income Tax of information to the Chief Registrar for the purposes of the new sections 15 to 15F, as substituted by clause 5, or enabling the Chief Registrar to perform 2905 or discharge any of the functions ascribed to the Chief Registrar under the 1981 Act. Subsections (2), (3) and (4) of inserted new section 106G are incidental to the information gateway, thus provided. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 16 do stand part of the Bill.

2910 The Speaker: Mr Cannan.

Mr Cannan: I beg to second.

The Speaker: Thank you. 2915 I put the question that clause 16 stand part of the Bill. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 17 is not to be moved. Clause 18, Mr Shimmins.

2920 Mr Shimmins: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause 18 amends the Customs and Excise Act 1986. Subsection (2) inserts new sections 174DA and 174DB. Section 174DA(1) enables information to be disclosed to the Chief Registrar by the Treasury, the Collector or an officer authorised in writing by the Treasury to be an officer of Customs and 2925 Excise for any purposes set out in sections 15 to 15F of the Administration of Justice Act 1981 concerning the register, or for the purpose of enabling and assisting the Chief Registrar in performing and discharging his or her functions under the Administration of Justice Act 1981. Section 174DA(2) prohibits the Chief Registrar from using the information obtained under this information disclosure gateway for any purposes other than those specified in section 174DA(1). 2930 This is the same as is provided for in clause 16 in respect of the Income Tax Act 1970. New section 174DB makes like provision in respect of a Judgments Officer, a Coroner or a Lockman. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 18 do stand part of the Bill.

2935 The Speaker: Mr Cannan.

Mr Cannan: I beg to second.

The Speaker: I put the question that clause 18 stand part of the Bill. Those in favour, please 2940 say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clauses 19 and 20 are not to be moved. Clause 21, Mr Shimmins.

Mr Shimmins: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 2945 Clause 21 amends section 130 of the Equality Act 2017 to enable the Employment and Equality Tribunal to grant executions with respect to decisions involving the award of a sum of money under that section. The amendment is to rectify a discrepancy in section 130 with respect to the powers the Tribunal currently holds to grant execution under section 159 of the Employment Act 2006. 2950 I beg to move that clause 21 do stand part of the Bill.

______2037 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

The Speaker: Mr Cannan.

Mr Cannan: I beg to second.

2955 The Speaker: I put the question that clause 21 stand part of the Bill. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 22, Mr Shimmins.

Mr Shimmins: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 2960 Clause 22 amends the Schedule to the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (Application) Order 1994, to insert two new sections, 122DI and 122DJ to the Social Security Administration Act 1992, as it applies in the Island. The new sections inserted do not alter existing information- sharing arrangements. They are intended to enable the Treasury to provide information to the Chief Registrar, a Judgments Officer, a Coroner or a Lockman in specified circumstances and are 2965 similar to the information-sharing provisions in clauses 16 and 18 of the Bill. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 22 do stand part of the Bill.

The Speaker: Mr Cannan.

2970 Mr Cannan: I beg to second.

The Speaker: I put the question that clause 22 stand part of the Bill. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

Administration of Justice and other Amendments Bill 2021 – Standing Orders suspended to take Third Reading

The Speaker: Now, in accordance with the letter that Mr Shimmins sent round, I invite him to 2975 move the suspension of Standing Orders.

Mr Shimmins: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to move that Standing Orders be suspended to the extent necessary to permit the Third Reading of the Administration of Justice and other Amendments Bill 2021 to be taken at this 2980 sitting. The Bill received support at Second Reading and Treasury now propose to resolve landlords’ preference in the next phase of the debt recovery project. Consequently, the clauses stage has been taken in much shorter form than would otherwise have been the case. I invite this House to consider that there is merit in progressing the Bill to the Legislative Council 2985 now, so there is potentially time for Legislative Council to consider this Bill in its shortened form in due time. With that, Mr Speaker, I beg to move that Standing Orders be suspended to permit the Third Reading of the Administration of Justice and other Amendments Bill 2021 at this sitting.

2990 The Speaker: Mr Cannan.

Mr Cannan: I beg to second.

The Speaker: I put the question that Standing Orders be suspended to permit Third Reading at 2995 this session. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

______2038 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

Administration of Justice and other Amendments Bill 2021 – Third Reading approved

The Speaker: I call on Mr Shimmins to move Third Reading.

Mr Shimmins: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am grateful for Hon. Members’ support. This Bill provides in modern terms for the maintenance of a more publicly accessible register 3000 of debts and debtors. This is the first phase of a three-phase project to overhaul the debt recovery process to deliver improvements. Mr Speaker, I am grateful to all Hon. Members for their ongoing support for this Bill, and I beg to move that the Administration of Justice and other Amendments Bill 2021 be read for the third time. 3005 The Speaker: Mr Cannan.

Mr Cannan: I beg to second.

3010 The Speaker: I put the question that the Administration of Justice and other Amendments Bill 2021 be read for a third time. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

7.2. Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Bill 2021 – Clauses considered

Mr Hooper to move.

The Speaker: We turn now then to the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Bill 2021 and I call on Mr Hooper to move. 3015 Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I intend to move all of these clauses individually, rather than as a group. Mr Speaker, clause 1 outlines the short title of the Bill. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 1 stand part of the Bill. 3020 The Speaker: Mr Quine.

Mr Quine: Mr Speaker, I beg to second.

3025 The Speaker: I put the question that clause 1 stand part of the Bill. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 2, Mr Hooper.

Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. 3030 Clause 2 sets out that the Bill will come into operation on such day or days as the Department of Infrastructure may by order appoint and provides that any such order can contain consequential, incidental, supplemental, transitional and transitory provisions. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 2 stand part of the Bill.

3035 The Speaker: Mr Quine.

______2039 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

Mr Quine: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second.

3040 The Speaker: I call on Mr Thomas to move amendment number 1.

Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Firstly, let me congratulate the Hon. Member for bringing this limited scope but potentially significant piece of legislation forward. I am led to believe that it might help with some properties 3045 around the Island, and some properties in that context that have been mentioned to me include Kings/Queens/Rectory Courts, Ballastowell, Kings Reach, Saddle Mews, Cherry Orchard. I followed up with the professionals as I promised at Second Reading, and my queries have been answered satisfactorily and again, I congratulate the Hon. Member for this limited scope but important Bill. However, I hope that the mover will acknowledge that there have to be checks and balances 3050 to make sure that the process is right for all parties involved. For instance, I hope the mover shares my concern that all long leaseholders will benefit from primarily improved management structure and maintenance for the building, and it is not a facility for a long leaseholder mutiny for the sake of it due to personality clashes, say. Surely there would be little good in causing a building to slowly decline into disrepair because of a couple of long leasehold directors who have worked to keep 3055 the service charge low and avoided basic maintenance to the detriment of all. That is just one imagined possibility. My amendment should be seen in this context: the context of making the process proper, making sure it is a process that works for all. Specifically, I propose the amendment to clause 2, which is before you on the Order Paper, substituting the existing text on page 3, lines 7 to 12 with 3060 additional text regarding commencement, so that a better, indeed adequate and fair tribunal process will be put in place before the amended Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011 is used. Specifically, we add in a new sub-clause whereby the Department may not make an order under subsection (1) to bring the Bill into force unless the power which by section 42(1) is applied 3065 in respect of the Commissioners’ functions under this Act have been exercised and the resulting rules of procedure apply in respect of the Commissioners’ functions under this Act. The amendment also provides inter alia that a decision of the Commissioners under this Act may be appealed to a court only if the ground of appeal is exclusively a question of law. The powers referenced in my amendment are to the powers in the Tribunals Act to make rules 3070 of procedure under section 8 of the Tribunals Act. Now, from Members’ perception around the House, primarily I am moving this legislation so it is there if anybody ever needs to construe this legislation because this is quite a technical legal point; but surely nobody can disagree that it is always preferable to work within a set of modern procedure rules. The 2018 Employment and Equality Tribunal rules provide a good basis for this, 3075 certainly better than the existing rules of procedure under which these Commissioners – the Rent and Rating Appeal Commissioners – operate. These are the rules dated the year 2000 which apply for rates, the rules dated 2003 which apply for Property Services Charges, and in fact, there are no specific rules that apply to the rent procedures. So, for instance, I will just give you one example: in the modern 2018 Employment and Equality 3080 Tribunal Rules there is an overriding objective, and that is surely necessary in every situation. That overriding objective is to enable the tribunal and chairperson to deal with cases justly and they define dealing with a case justly, as far as practicable, ensuring that the parties are on equal footing, dealing with a case in ways which are proportionate to the importance of the case and the complexity of the issues, avoiding unnecessary formality and seeking flexibility in the 3085 proceedings, avoiding delay so far as consideration is compatible with proper consideration of the issues, and finally, saving expense. Beyond that, Hon. Members, having an appeal to the High Court, the Staff of Government Division, on a point of law in the primary legislation would provide clarity for applicants and would

______2040 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

seem preferable to defaulting to a doleance claim, which has happened in respect of matters 3090 around housing, rents, property service charges, I believe. So, Hon. Members, I was told in connection with another potential use for these Rent and Rating Appeal Tribunal Commissioners recently in a Written Tynwald Answer that at the appropriate time, formal consultation will be undertaken with the Deemsters, the General Registry and, as noted above, the Appointments Commission regarding the creation of the rules 3095 of procedure and the membership and operations of the tribunal. Let’s make sure this happens, Hon. Members. Let’s avoid potentially expensive Petitions of Doleance because of an underdeveloped tribunal system and let’s encourage Mr Hooper to make his Private Member’s Bill even better in respect of the process around tribunals. I do hope, but I no longer expect, support for this amendment, given the previously stated 3100 positions of the mover and the Minister for Infrastructure, although it was only very recently that I heard of the final decision of the mover and I am completely unaware of what the intention of the Department of Infrastructure or the Council of Ministers and its housing working group in which the Member of this Private Member’s Bill serves. In particular, I note that Minister Baker welcomed a similar amendment to the commencement 3105 provision expressed here for the Landlord Registration Bill: the inclusion of conditionality around the existence of regulations for commencement of the substantive Bill. In terms of allowing only points of law arising in a tribunal as questionable in the Staff of Government Division, I moved to have that effect included in the Landlord Registration (Private Housing) Bill, through omission of the words ‘on the question of law’, arguing that:

We need to more fully develop […] the process in the tribunal so that we can reserve legal matters for consideration in the Staff of Government Division, because everybody can have confidence that the tribunal system is going to work properly. We cannot do that until Tynwald has approved the rules of procedure that are referenced in the law before us.

3110 But Mr Hooper, the mover of this Bill, argued against that as recently as 15th April in respect of clause 49 on that day, saying:

… [what] is worrying me is he [yours truly] admits himself that it is not usual for tribunals to be challengeable on anything other than a point of law, and yet that is exactly what [Mr Thomas] is proposing with his amendment. I am not sure exactly why that makes any sense. The arguments he set out did not make much sense to me.

Mr Hooper continued a hundred Hansard lines later on:

They have not been particularly well explained in respect of why they are necessary, especially the appeal process on a question of law […]

For good measure, Minister Baker focused on this very point too, saying:

… removing those few words ‘on a question of law’ may not seem much, but they fundamentally change the intention of the Bill. It is very common for an appeal at first instance to provide that the appeal may consider and determine questions of facts and law, but that a subsequent appeal considers only the questions of law. I cannot support [Mr Thomas’s] amendment. The decision of the Department will already have been reached after a process of negotiation and discussion with the landlord and the landlord will have had the opportunity to have the full facts of the case aired before the Commissioners. It is therefore considered unnecessary to have a full rehearsing of the facts if the matter is further appealed, and I consider therefore that it is sufficient for the further appeal to be on a question of law.

Therefore, Mr Speaker, and Hon. Members, I do hope that we will put in place consistency 3115 between the arguments made six weeks ago and those being made here today. I do hope the mover, Government, Hon. Members will support the amendments before you standing in my name for the purposes of consistency. Just before moving, I did talk with the drafter about whether it would be helpful to consider the nature of the Rent and Rating Appeal Commissioners in terms of part 1/part 2 membership of

______2041 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

3120 the Tribunal and we decided together that I would not have any amendment drafted on that basis, because if … I am not in any way suggesting here today that the Rent and Rating Appeals Commissioners are not operating perfectly. Obviously, it is an important Tribunal in the Isle of Man system. It needs modernisation, I am sure. We will get to that eventually. But I do think that if we go into areas of law with an underdeveloped tribunal system that do not have rules of 3125 procedure that will be applied, that they should have had since 2006 when the Tribunals Act came into force, I do believe that we need to operate with care. So with that, Mr Speaker, I beg to move:

Amendment to clause 2 1. Page 3, lines 7 to 12, for the existing text substitute the following — «2 Commencement (1) This Act (except sections 1 and 3 and this section) will come into operation on such day or days as the Department of Infrastructure (“the Department”) may by order appoint, but the Department’s power to make such an order is subject to subsection (3). (2) An order under subsection (1) may make such consequential, incidental, supplemental and transitional provisions as appear to the Department to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of the order. (3) The Department may not make an order under subsection (1) unless — (a) the power which, by section 42(1), is applied in respect of the Commissioners’ functions under this Act has been exercised; and (b) the resulting rules of procedure — (i) provide, inter alia, that a decision of the Commissioners under this Act may be appealed to a court only if the ground of appeal is exclusively a question of law; and (ii) have commenced.».

The Speaker: Ms Edge.

3130 Ms Edge: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second and I just really want to say to Hon. Members that I do feel that this amendment ensures that what our role is is to make sure that we have the best legislation possible. That is what this amendment would achieve, and I hope Hon. Members will support it. Thank you, Mr Speaker. 3135 The Speaker: Mr Hooper, you wish to speak to the amendment?

Mr Hooper: Yes, thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I think the Hon. Member that moved this amendment was right. He said this is a limited scope 3140 Bill. It is designed to do one thing and one thing only, and that is to split out the process of applying for a management order into two distinct routes. One where an individual tenant can apply, where they are demonstrating that the landlord or agent is in breach of some obligation under the lease, and another route that actually does not require faults to be demonstrated at all, and it only requires that certain conditions are met in relation to the number of people who are participating, 3145 the number of flats in the premises, the type of premises. At no point is this Bill seeking to change the relationship between the Rent and Rating Appeal Commissioners and the courts, which is what Mr Thomas is proposing. At no point is this Bill trying to change the process by which the Rent and Rating Appeal Commissioners determine management order applications. Again, that is what Mr Thomas is trying to achieve here. He said 3150 himself, he is not saying the Tribunal is not operating perfectly, so why are we insisting they implement rules of procedure? I am not objecting to the idea of rules of procedure. I think the tribunal probably should have some rules of procedure written down for all of its various types of cases. But to turn around and

______2042 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

say, ‘This thing that we have been doing since the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act was in 3155 force some 10 years ago, actually we are not going to keep doing that now; we are going to stop doing that the way we do it until we have some rules of procedure written down.’ I do not understand that argument. I do not understand why we are turning around and saying, ‘You know what? We cannot improve the system for people until a box has been ticked, a bureaucratic process has been established.’ 3160 So for me, I am really unclear as to the purpose of the amendment. I actually would not have objected to an amendment that said, ‘You should probably get away and make some rules of procedure.’ What I do object to is Mr Thomas trying to wreck the implementation of this Bill, which will materially improve the lives of his constituents on the basis of what is, as far as I can tell, not really anything that is provide them with any benefit. 3165 No one is saying that the Rent and Rating Appeal Commissioners are perfect; I am certainly not. But what I am saying is I have not heard anything today that demonstrates an urgent and desperate need for rules of procedure dealing with these kinds of cases before you can actually start to change some of the criteria by which you get into that process in the first place. So this Bill, Hon. Members, is a very limited scope. It is designed to do one thing and one thing 3170 only. I do not want to get into conversations around whether an appeal should be on a point of law or not. From my perspective, the Rent and Rating Appeal Commissioners actually make a lot of determinations which are not necessarily down to a point of law. So, for example, applying conditions, applying who gets rights and responsibilities and how they are transferred – all this stuff is very much left up to the Commissioners, whereas in the UK it is very strict, set down in a 3175 formulaic approach inside statute. Now, if you want to go down this route and say you can only appeal on a point of law, what you are essentially saying is that the first point that someone makes an application is to the Rent and Rating Appeal Commissioners. That decision is final. There is no way of having a secondary appeal then to someone else about the context of some of those decisions, because no one is 3180 asking them to make a decision on a point of law with some of this stuff. You are actually saying, ‘I need to apply this law to the particulars of your case’, and I would have thought that you need an appeal process around that that deals with more than just the aspects of law that they are considering. Again, I did not intend to go into this process trying to change that relationship between the Tribunal and the courts. So I have not really given it a massive amount of thought as 3185 to whether or not this is the right thing to do or not. I have not heard any convincing arguments today that it should be. And in response to Mr Thomas not being aware that I was not supporting this amendment, we did talk on 7th May for 16 minutes, at which point I made my views very clear to Mr Thomas that I would not be supporting an amendment that tried to scupper the implementation of this Bill, 3190 which is, in my view, the sole purpose of this amendment. And so, Hon. Members, I will not be supporting it and I would encourage you not to either. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Mr Baker. 3195 Mr Baker: Yes, thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand to support my hon. friend from Ramsey’s comments. We seem to have journeyed down one of Mr Thomas’s well-worn paths of tangling everything together and nothing ever happening, which seems to be his intention with this. Quoting back lots of Hansard from the previous Bill, I 3200 just do not see the relevance of that. The bottom line here is this is an important Bill. It does what it says on the tin. My Department will have to implement this going forward and it fits in well with the direction of travel to improve things for the people of the Isle of Man. So with that, Mr Speaker, I will be opposing the amendment.

______2043 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

3205 The Speaker: Mr Harmer.

Mr Harmer: Thank you. Very briefly, I have noticed the recent tendency to put conditionality around commencements of Bills, which I just think is really dangerous, and it is quite clear that this is a … not main intent 3210 but main outcome, rather, to actually stop the Bill from going forward. So I will not be supporting the amendment. Thank you.

The Speaker: Mr Thomas to respond to the debate on the amendment.

3215 Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and to the three Members who have commented, and particularly to the Speaker, to enable the arguments to be put down and the responses to the arguments to be put down on the benefit of Hansard, which I am sure will be very useful to the Tribunal and perhaps later on to the courts, or perhaps never even used in the Tribunal because it could be that what will carry on will carry on, which is that we will go straight to petitions of 3220 doleance, given some of the arguments that have been put down. But just to very specific assertions, to which I will respond. The first one is that there is absolutely no way that this Hon. Member was trying to wreck this Bill. I complimented it to the hilt at the beginning of the Bill. I have known for many years about some of these issues and we do need to address them, but we do not need to address them in a way that might end up in 3225 expensive litigation. The second point is that what I have learned about Mr Hooper particularly, but also the two Ministers who spoke as well, is that Mr Hooper’s personality, it seems to be a black-and-white personality. His initial reaction when I first mentioned this amendment was to say no, and therefore it was going to be no forever. I think I was aware that he had this black-and-white 3230 attitude to things, but I am glad to think he has reflected on it so much since 6th May. The second point is that what I have learnt is that there are at least three people in this Hon. House who are prepared to argue the exact opposite today on 25th May as what they argued on 15th April. That is fine, but they have just argued the exact opposite in two different situations regarding two different Bills, which is there now forever in terms of the record. 3235 Conditionality and commencement was brought in probably in modern times by yours truly back in 2015-16, when we had what was called the National Health and Care Service Bill/Act, which has never been implemented because it was a poorly designed Bill, and there was a commencement provision conditionality on the commencement put in, which was that the Act could not be brought into force fully until the first scheme had been made under that Act. It was 3240 a very useful addition because it stopped bad legislation being brought into force. It was absolutely excellent that Minister Baker recognised that what is now a fit-for-purpose Bill, the Landlord Bill, still needed lots of regulations and lots of developments to be made and tribunal development will take place alongside that. It is absolutely wonderful. He conceded and admitted this conditional commencement on the terms of the regulations that have not been in 3245 place. I appreciate that. Mr Hooper has declined to have that, but the arguments have been made now twice. People will see in terms of votes whether people are prepared to vote for a different thing six weeks apart in exactly the same situation. And with that, I move the amendment moved in my name.

3250 The Speaker: Mr Hooper to respond to the debate on the clause.

Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Let’s be quite clear: this is not exactly the same situation.

3255 Mr Thomas: That is the interesting bit.

______2044 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

Mr Hooper: The commencement provisions inside the Landlord Registration Bill does not have any conditionality surrounding the commencement provision in that Bill. The Bill itself comes into force, actually. There is no similar similarity there at all. So, Mr Thomas trying to present this 3260 situation as being analogous and identical to one that we debated six weeks ago is not an accurate representation of the facts –

Mr Thomas: It was amended.

3265 Mr Hooper: Mr Thomas is also seemingly aware that he has been aware of this problem for many years and yet has openly admitted, he has not had anything about it. He also then talked about that a good example of when this has happened was with the 2016 Health and Care Act, which never came into force. That is the very definition of a wrecking amendment, Hon. Members. You put an amendment in that sounds great, but actually it just stops things from happening. 3270 There is nothing in law that I can see that prevents the Council of Ministers engaging with the Deemsters and producing rules of procedure. I cannot see anything that stops that from happening, and I would absolutely 100% support the Council of Ministers engaging in that process. What I do not think is necessary is making this Bill conditional on that process having happened. The other thing I would like to draw Members’ attention to is the wording of the amendment 3275 itself. It makes reference to section 42(1) of some Act, it is not specific as to what Act it refers to. It actually also makes no reference to section 8 of the Tribunals Act, which is the section we are talking about in respect of these powers. So I am a little bit confused actually around the wording. (Interjection by Mr Thomas) I know that Mr Thomas mentioned in his remarks that it referred to the – 3280 Mr Thomas: Would the speaker give way?

Mr Hooper: Yes, of course.

3285 Mr Thomas: Obviously the Act is not drafted by the mover of the amendment, the Act is drafted by legislative drafters, and I can assure the Member that I am confident that the Act is defined in the rest of the Bill and the section inside the Act. If it has been drafted wrongly, I will be taking it up with the legislative drafters, because I think Hon. Members have a right to expect that the drafting is done in compliance with the Bill that is on the table. 3290 Mr Hooper: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is the Hon. Member bringing this clause to this House, not the drafter. It is the Hon. Member’s name behind this. It is my view, it is up to us to check that we are comfortable with what it is we are presenting and if we are not comfortable with what we are presenting, maybe 3295 we should not be presenting it. Personally, like I say, I am opposed to this on the principle that it just is not necessary. I am more than happy to push the Council of Ministers and the Department of Infrastructure to try and work with the tribunals to put together rules of procedure, I think is the right thing to do; not happy making this conditional and actually, on balance, I am not even sure that the amendment 3300 works as drafted. So for all those reasons, Hon. Members, I would suggest we just move it to one side and focus on trying to achieve the one thing this Bill is actually trying to achieve. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

The Speaker: I put amendment number 1 first in the name of Mr Thomas. Those in favour, 3305 please say aye; against, no. The noes have it. The noes have it. Putting to you clause 2 as per the Bill: those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 3, Mr Hooper.

______2045 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. 3310 Clause 3 states that the following clauses amend the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011, which is hereafter referred to as ‘the 2011 Act’. I beg to move clause 3 stands part of the Bill.

The Speaker: Mr Quine. 3315 Mr Quine: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second.

The Speaker: I put the question that clause 3 stand part of the Bill. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. 3320 The Speaker: Clause 4, Mr Hooper.

Mr Hooper: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause 4 amends section 16 of the 2011 Act by inserting additional definitions as follows. 3325 A ‘qualifying tenant’ is defined by reference to the existing definition in section 25 of the Act. ‘RTM company’ is defined in section 20A, which this Bill inserts later on. ‘Relevant premises’ is defined as the block of flats or other composite premises consisting of multiple residential units for which a management application relates. ‘Relevant RTM company’ is defined as a company that meets the following criteria: (a) the 3330 membership of which includes at least two qualifying tenants of the premises or of any premises containing or contained in those premises in respect of which the RTM company makes a specific management application; (b) in relation to premises containing, or in which is contained, the premises of which the qualifying tenants referred to in paragraph (a) are tenants; and (c) which is not already the subject of a management order granted in respect of any premises. There is also 3335 a reference to section 20A(2) which has additional stipulations. ‘Specific management application’, which is referred to a number of times in the Bill, is defined in section 17(1)(b). Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 4 stands part of the Bill.

3340 The Speaker: Mr Quine.

Mr Quine: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second.

The Speaker: I put the question that clause 4 stand part of the Bill. Those in favour, please say 3345 aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 5, Mr Hooper.

Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Clause 5 amends section 17 of the 2011 Act. This is the section of the 2011 Act titled ‘Tenant’s 3350 right to apply to Commissioners for appointment of manager’, which sets out the first part of the requirements for making a management application. This clause re-designates the existing management order application route as a general management order and retains the existing provisions under this new designation. This is the existing route whereby a tenant must prove a landlord is in some way in breach of their obligations under the lease. 3355 This clause also establishes that an RTM company may apply for a specific management application. This is the new no-fault route being introduced by this Bill. This clause goes on to restate the existing requirement that under a general management application, the Commissioners have discretion in who to appoint as the manager. This clause then adds a provision that in the case of a specific management application, the Commissioners must appoint 3360 the RTM company as the manager.

______2046 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 5 stands part of the Bill.

The Speaker: Mr Quine.

3365 Mr Quine: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second.

The Speaker: I put the question that clause 5 stand part of the Bill. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 6, Mr Hooper. 3370 Mr Hooper: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause 6 amends section 18 of the 2011 Act, which sets out the notice that is required to be given before a management application is made. This clause simply adds in that these notice requirements also apply to a specific management order. 3375 I beg to move that clause 6 stands part of the Bill.

The Speaker: Mr Quine.

Mr Quine: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second. 3380 The Speaker: I put the question that clause 6 stand part of the Bill. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 7, Mr Hooper.

3385 Mr Hooper: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause 7 amends section 19 of the 2011 Act, which sets out the preconditions for a management application to specify that it refers only to a general management application, as the preconditions for a specific management application are inserted later by this Bill. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 7 stands part of the Bill. 3390 The Speaker: Mr Quine.

Mr Quine: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second.

3395 The Speaker: I put the question that clause 7 stand part of the Bill. Those in favour, please say aye against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 8, Mr Hooper.

Mr Hooper: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 3400 Clause 8 replaces section 20 of the 2011 Act with a new section. Section 20 of the 2011 Act is the section that sets out how management orders are made following a management application. Clause 8 retains the existing processes required for the now re-designated general management order and makes clear that a general management order can only be made where there has been an actual or apprehended failure to discharge management obligations. 3405 Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 8 stands part of the Bill.

The Speaker: Mr Quine.

Mr Quine: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second. 3410 The Speaker: I put the question that clause 8 stand part of the Bill. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

______2047 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

Clause 9, Mr Hooper.

3415 Mr Hooper: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause 9 inserts new sections into the 2011 Act, being sections 20Ato 20G, to address the details of an RTM company, to introduce the specified management application procedure, the effect of an order being granted under this section, and how such orders may be discharged. This is a substantive portion of the Bill and introduces a number of new sections into the 2011 Act, and 3420 as such I will provide an overview of each of these sections. Section 20A defines an ‘RTM company’ as a private company limited by guarantee and incorporated in the Island, where its articles state that one of its objectives is the ‘acquisition and exercise of the right to manage premises’. Only one RTM company can exist in relation to a premises and an RTM company cannot also hold the freehold of any premises. This section clarifies 3425 that ‘RTM’ refers to ‘Right To Manage’. Section 20B sets out who is entitled to be a member of the RTM company, being qualifying tenants of flats in the premises and the landlord or landlords under any of the long leases. This section also states that the Department of Infrastructure may make regulations about the content and form of articles of association of RTM companies. These would require Tynwald approval. This 3430 section outlines that the regulations can contain optional and mandatory provisions for RTM company articles. As the Bill has gone through the legislative process, it has become apparent that some of the language in 20A around ensuring each qualifying tenant only has one vote in matters pertaining to the company is not quite as clear as it could be, and Mr Callister has a helpful amendment to address this, which I am happy to support. 3435 Section 20C makes further provision regarding preconditions for a specific management application. Specifically, it requires that where there are only two qualifying tenants in a premises, they must both be members of the RTM company. Otherwise, membership of the RTM company must include a number of qualifying tenants at least equal to one half of the total number of flats in the premises, and in either case the total number of flats held by qualifying tenants must be 3440 not less than two-thirds of the total number of flats contained in the premises. Again, as this Bill has come through the process, it has become apparent that this language is not as clear as it could be, and again, Mr Callister has an amendment to tidy this up which I am fully supportive of. This section also stipulates that a specific management application cannot be made where more than half of the internal floor area of a premises is non-residential. 3445 Section 20D sets out that prior to a specific management application being made, a notice inviting participation in the RTM company must be sent to all qualifying tenants, inviting them to take up their membership of the RTM company. This section sets out what must be contained in this notice and enables Tynwald to make regulations prescribing any additional particulars. Section 20E sets out that prior to a specific management application being made, the RTM 3450 company must serve a notice on the landlord and anyone else with any management responsibilities under the leases. This section allows Tynwald to prescribe any additional details by regulation. This section requires that this notice cannot be given to the landlord until 14 days after the notices inviting participation have been sent to all qualifying tenants. The section allows the Commissioners to waive these notice requirements if it would not be reasonably practicable 3455 to serve the notices. Section 20F sets out the steps the Commissioners must take on receipt of a specific management application. Where they are satisfied that the RTM company has followed all the correct procedural steps, they must issue a management order appointing the RTM company to carry out management functions in connection with the premises. The remaining parts of the 3460 section mirror the effects of a general management order as are already set out in the 2011 Act. Section 20G sets out that a management order may be varied or discharged by the Commissioners on the application of any interested person. The Commissioners may also impose conditions on the variation or discharge of the order. The Commissioners may also only vary or discharge the order if the RTM company is: in breach of an obligation owed under the leases; if

______2048 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

3465 unreasonable service charges are made or are proposed or likely to be made; if no service charges are made, or are proposed or likely to be made; if there has been a failure to comply with a duty imposed by or by virtue of section 11 of the Property Service Charges Act; if the state of repair of the premises or their management is likely to improve if this order was made, varied or discharged; and it is just and convenient in all the circumstances of the case to vary or discharge 3470 the management order. Mr Speaker, I beg that clause 9 stands part of the Bill.

The Speaker: Mr Quine.

3475 Mr Quine: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second.

The Speaker: Now, I call on Mr Callister to move amendments number 2 and 3 standing in his name.

3480 Mr Callister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just two small amendments. The first one relates to the word ‘share’. We are replacing the word ‘share’ on page 9, line 28, ‘vote in matters pertaining to the affairs or proposed activities of the Right to Manage company’. I beg to move the amendments standing my name, Mr Speaker:

Amendments to clause 9 2. Page 9, in line 28 for “share” substitute «vote in matters pertaining to the affairs or proposed activities of the RTM company».

3. Page 10, lines 10 to 22, for the existing text substitute the following — «(1) A relevant RTM company must not make a specific management application unless — (a) either of the following applies — (i) where there are only two qualifying tenants of flats contained in the relevant premises on the date of application, the relevant RTM company’s membership includes both tenants; or (ii) in any other case, the membership of the relevant RTM company on the date of application includes a number of qualifying tenants of flats contained in the relevant premises which is not less than one-half of the total number of flats so contained; and (b) in any case, the total number of flats held by qualifying tenants of the relevant premises is not less than 2/3 of the total number of flats contained in the relevant premises.».

3485 The Speaker: Mr Perkins.

Mr Perkins: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second.

The Speaker: I call on Mr Hooper to reply. 3490 Mr Hooper: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank Mr Callister for those very helpful amendments and I beg to move.

The Speaker: Putting to you first amendments number 2 and 3 in the name of Mr Callister: 3495 those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Putting it to you clause 9, as amended, stand part of the Bill. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 10, Mr Hooper.

3500 Mr Hooper: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

______2049 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

Clause 10 inserts a new cross-heading, ‘Miscellaneous provisions relating to all management orders’, above section 21 of the 2011 Act. Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 10 stands part of the Bill.

3505 The Speaker: Mr Quine.

Mr Quine: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second.

The Speaker: I put the question that clause 10 stand part of the Bill. Those in favour, please 3510 say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 11, Mr Hooper.

Mr Hooper: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause 11 repeals section 22 of the 2011 Act, which is in relation to the form and particulars of 3515 any notices required under the Act and replaces it with almost exactly the same clause, the only change being the new wording requires the Department of Infrastructure to make regulations, as opposed to leaving it optional. Mr Speaker, I beg that clause 11 stand part of the Bill.

3520 The Speaker: Mr Quine.

Mr Quine: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second.

The Speaker: I put the question that clause 11 stand part of the Bill. Those in favour, please 3525 say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Bill 2021 – Standing Orders suspended to take Third Reading

The Speaker: Mr Hooper, you wish to suspend Standing Orders?

Mr Hooper: Yes, I do. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. As the clauses stage of the Bill has moved through relatively smoothly, and the Bill itself is quite 3530 straightforward and there appear to only be the one issue of contention that has been raised, given the short time left before the dissolution of this Hon. House, I would respectfully ask Hon. Members to support the suspension of Standing Orders to allow this Bill to continue with its Third Reading today and then onward onto the Legislative Council. So, Mr Speaker, I beg that Standing Orders be suspended to allow the Third Reading of the 3535 Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Bill 2021 to be taken today.

The Speaker: Thank you very much. Mr Quine.

3540 Mr Quine: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second. Mr Speaker, you will no doubt recall I spoke previously regarding this very welcome Bill. I continue to stand by my previous remarks concerning this Bill. I would encourage Hon. Members to accept that we take the Third Reading at this sitting. Thank you, Mr Speaker. 3545

______2050 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

The Speaker: If nobody wishes to respond, I put the question that Standing Orders be suspended to permit Third Reading to be taken at this sitting. Those in favour, please say aye; against no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Bill 2021 – Third Reading approved

The Speaker: I call Mr Hooper to move Third Reading. 3550 Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and thank you very much, Hon. Members. You will be very pleased to know I do not have a very long speech prepared. (Laughter)

The Speaker: So he will not give one! (Laughter) 3555 Mr Hooper: This Bill is a very small step towards reforming leasehold law on the Isle of Man and I think will provide long leaseholders of residential property a solution to a problem that has been faced admittedly by only a small percentage of people in that type of property. But although it is not an issue faced by many, where it is faced, it can often present a significant challenge. I 3560 know the provisions of this Bill will help a number of people in my constituency, and I know that this is true of many others around the Island. I wholeheartedly accept that this Bill is not a panacea. It will not resolve all of the problems faced by long leaseholders of residential flats. It will not resolve all the problems created by our tribunal system and the approach we take to tribunals, but it is a start on that journey and I hope 3565 to be in a position, following the election in September, to continue that journey on with hon. colleagues. I am very grateful for the support of my seconder, the Hon. Member for Douglas South, Mr Quine, and for Mr Callister, the Hon. Member for Onchan, bringing these very helpful amendments today. I would also like to thank both the current Minister for Infrastructure and the 3570 previous Minister for their support, and hopefully I will be able to continue working with Minister Baker to go through the regulations and get everything ready to bring this Bill online in a very positive way. So with that, Mr Speaker, I beg to move that the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Bill 2021 be read for a third time. 3575 The Speaker: Mr Quine.

Mr Quine: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to second, and I would like to associate myself fully with the remarks made by the 3580 mover, the Hon. Member for Ramsey, Mr Hooper. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Mr Thomas.

3585 Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I congratulate the mover on this Bill. Obviously it has been a long-standing problem for many of the residents, older residents in particular, in Ramsey and in various other constituencies around the Island. I welcome also the Member’s announcement that he looks forward to the Legislative Council engaging fully with advocates and with people directly affected to make sure that they give it 3590 proper consideration, because obviously –

______2051 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

Mr Hooper: I am pretty sure I did not say that.

Mr Thomas: – in this place the Bill has gone through relatively smoothly, but it is a very 3595 technical area of property law and one Member has managed to do what has been difficult for Government for a great number of years. So I do hope that we have adequate attention to the detail of this. It would be a shame if we ended up with petitions of doleance citing things that have happened and so on and so on, and I am sure the hon. mover will agree with me that it is very important to have legislation that is fit 3600 for purpose, that is fair to all the parties involved.

The Speaker: Hon. Member for Glenfaba and Peel, Mr Harmer.

Mr Harmer: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 3605 This Bill is an excellent Bill. It is exactly what a Private Member’s Bill can do. It can be flexible, in the same way the Island can be flexible in a global world to meet a specific area that I know really does affect people right here, right now. So I would caution against over-confusing this. The point is it could be a real help to narrow but important issues. So with that, I commend the Third Reading. Thank you. 3610 The Speaker: I call on Mr Hooper to reply.

Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I am relatively certain I made no such reference at all to the Legislative Council. It would be 3615 entirely improper for me to suggest the way the Legislative Council will wish to conduct their business. But I do actually agree with the Hon. Member for Douglas Central that it is important that legislation is fit for purpose when it goes through, and I am sure that the Hon. Members of Legislative Council will give this Bill their usual level of detailed scrutiny and dedication that we have seen them provide to other Bills going through both these Branches. 3620 Again, I would just like to thank Minister Harmer for those very supportive words, and with that, Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

The Speaker: I put the question that the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Bill 2021 be read for a third time. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The 3625 ayes have it.

7.3. Liquor Licensing and Public Entertainments Bill 2021 – Clauses considered

Mr Cregeen to move.

The Speaker: We turn now to the Liquor Licensing and Public Entertainments Bill 2021. I call on Mr Cregeen to move.

Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 3630 The Liquor Licensing and Public Entertainments Bill consists of 64 clauses and two Schedules. Members will be aware that this is a well-supported Bill with a good deal of positive feedback from many of the interested parties. This includes the membership organisations that represent the licensed hospitality industry, various businesses, as well as several hundred individual members of the public. The Bill has been shaped by the input we have received.

______2052 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

3635 The Bill has been drafted to ensure that the hospitality industry on our Island is well regulated now and into the future. That is why it has been drafted to be an enabling piece of legislation, being flexible and responsive to the changing needs of that industry and with the commitment to future consultation when formulating any secondary legislation clearly and formally enshrined in law on the face of the Bill. This is a very important Bill for our hospitality industry and the wider 3640 Island community. Mr Speaker, clauses 1 to 6, Part 1 of the Bill comprising clauses 1 to 6 together. This Part provides a short title, commencement and general interpretation provisions, along with the detailed definitions of ‘entertainment’ and ‘public entertainment’, ‘sale by retail’ and ‘resident on licensed premises’. 3645 Clause 2 provides that sections 61 and 64 of the Bill, which relate respectively to restrictive agreements and to the extension of the triennial session of the Licensing Court to now take place in 2023, will come into operation on the day on which this Act is passed. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that Part 1 of the Bill, clauses 1 through 6, do stand part of the Bill.

3650 The Speaker: Mrs Barber.

Mrs Barber: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

The Speaker: I call on Mr Hooper to move amendments 1, 2 and 3, please. 3655 Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I am rising to move amendments 1, 2 and 3 that are standing in my name. Mr Speaker, amendments 1 and 3 deal with minor editorial corrections and amendment 2 amends the meaning of ‘licensing objectives’ in clause 3 to align with the new clause that forms amendment number 58. 3660 As had been previously stated by the Department, the ethos of this Bill and the proposed licensing regime it underpins is focused around these seven core licensing objectives. Following on from the presentation given to Members of Tynwald by the Department recently, and in response to a pertinent question raised by the Hon. Member for Douglas Central, Mr Thomas, the Department now wishes to place these licensing objectives into a separate specific clause on the 3665 face of the Bill, thus reinforcing their importance within the regime that is to come. As noted, this new clause will be moved as amendment number 58, and I propose to invite Members to consider and agree in principle to include that new clause in the Bill at the appropriate time during this sitting of the House. If that is agreed, it will become clause 58 within the Bill. I mention this now as the changes brought here to clause 3 and those within that new clause are 3670 intertwined, so I would politely ask that Members note this when considering this amendment and the one further down the Order Paper. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that amendments 1, 2 and 3 be approved:

Amendment to clause 2 1. Page 13, line 10, after ‘Department’ insert «of Home Affairs».

Amendment to clause 3 2. Page 14, lines 23 to 31, for the definition of licensing objectives substitute — «“licensing objectives” has the meaning given in section [NC1];» .

Amendments to clause 5 3. Page 16 — a. line 21, after ‘sale’, for the comma substitute a semi-colon; b. line 23, for ‘alcohol’ substitute «liquor»; c. line 24, after ‘trade’, for the comma substitute a semi-colon; d. line 26, after ‘licence’, for the comma substitute a semi-colon;

______2053 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

e. line 27, renumber paragraph (d) as (c).

The Speaker: Mrs Corlett.

3675 Mrs Corlett: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second Mr Hooper’s amendments.

The Speaker: I put the question first that amendments 1, 2 and 3 be approved. Those in favour, please say aye; and against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Putting to you clauses 1 to 6, as amended. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The 3680 ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clauses 7 to 10, Minister Cregeen.

Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Part 2 deals with the Licensing Court and the Licensing Court of Appeal. 3685 Clause 7 provides for the continuation of the Licensing Court, its composition, place and function. Clause 8 provides for the continuation of the Licensing Court of Appeal; clause 9 that both courts are courts of justice and courts of record. Clause 10 makes a provision for rules of court to be made for the effective and efficient 3690 operation of both courts. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that Part 2 of the Bill, clauses 7 through to 10, do stand part of the Bill.

The Speaker: Mrs Barber. 3695 Mrs Barber: Thank you. I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

The Speaker: I put the question that clauses 7, 8, 9 and 10 stand part of the Bill. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. 3700 Clause 11, Mr Cregeen.

Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Part 3 of the Bill comprises one clause, clause 11, which enables my Department to make regulations regarding the formation of an independent licensing authority, its composition and 3705 terms of reference. Subsection (3) provides that regulations may provide for some or all of the powers of the Licensing Court to be transferred to the licensing authority. As I made reference in my previous speech, and I believe it is important to highlight once again before making any secondary law such as regulations and orders under the subsequent Act, clause 58 of the Bill as drafted first requires my Department to consult widely (Laughter) with key 3710 stakeholders and beyond when making this secondary legislation. This means the status quo will remain until regulations are drafted, consulted upon, and the relevant parts of the Bill are brought into force. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that Part 3, clause 11, do stand part of the Bill.

3715 The Speaker: Mrs Barber.

Mrs Barber: I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

The Speaker: I put the question that clause 11 stand part of the Bill. Those in favour, please 3720 say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clauses 12 to 16 … Oh, sorry, clauses 12 to 20. Sorry. Mr Cregeen.

______2054 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This Part deals with matters pertaining to licences. Clause 11 requires my Department to make 3725 regulations before 1st November 2022 to provide for the granting of licences in relation to brewing, distillation, storage, transportation, sale or supply of liquor and for public entertainments. I would note that here, that with particular reference to public entertainments and in response to comments from Hon. Members regarding that regime, such regulations as are made providing for public entertainments will clearly set out those events for which a licence is 3730 needed and those which do not require a licence. This will provide a regime that is similar to that presently in place and harmonises with both guidance to be provided by my Department to assist those wishing to host an event and any notification required under clause 20. I would also note here that undoubtedly the work done by the community, by our various local charities and the public events which provide the funding are a lifeline to that sector. In bringing 3735 this regulation to public entertainment, my Department’s intention is that these events do not encounter unnecessary bureaucracy or cost in the future. Clause 13 provides that the regulations must specify the types of licences that may be granted and makes provision for the premises, persons, public entertainments or activities that are required to be licensed. Regulations may provide that a licence is granted to one or more persons 3740 or a company, and in respect of one or more premises or activities. Regulations must provide for the length of the licence and renewal, and may provide for the duration of a provisional licence, transfer of licence, disqualification from holding a licence and exemptions from the requirement to hold a licence. Clause 14 specifies that regulations must provide for the licence application procedure and 3745 that the matters that must, or may, be taken into consideration by the Licensing Court or licensing authority when making a decision. Clause 15 requires that regulations must provide that the Licensing Court or licensing authority may refuse to grant a licence or may grant a licence subject to conditions or an undertaking given by the applicant. Also, regulations may prescribe the conditions that can be attached to a licence, 3750 provide that the licence court or licensing authority may vary or remove any conditions or impose a further condition and provide any undertaking given may be waived or a further undertaking accepted. Non-compliance with a licence condition is an offence which may result in the subsequent suspension or revocation of that licence. Clause 16 specifies the content that regulations with regard to suspension, revocation or 3755 surrender of licences must have and clause 17 requires that regulations must provide for the renewal of licences and renewal procedure. Clause 18 requires the Department to make regulations regarding the keeping of a register of licences and that have been granted, suspended or revoked, along with a register of any such activities that must be notified under section 20 of the Bill. The regulations must specify who is to 3760 establish and maintain the register and in what format, what details are to be held and who may access the information, along with processes involved with requesting access to the information, including any fee payable. Clause 19 requires that regulations must provide for the establishment and maintenance of a register of persons employed as a guard, doorkeeper or responsible person on a licensed 3765 premises, the Licensed Staff Register; subsection (2) introduces various provisions which the regulations may include. Subsections (3) to (5) state that it is an offence to employ someone or be employed as a guard, doorkeeper or responsible person if that person’s name is not entered onto the Licensed Staff Register. It is also an offence to give false information in relation to the Register. 3770 Mr Speaker, the final clause of Part 4, clause 20 details that regulations may provide that specified activities for which a licence is not required must be notified to the Department or licensing authority before the activity takes place. The regulations may provide that failure by the person to make such a notification would then constitute an offence. Such notifications must be maintained on the register specified in clause 18.

______2055 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

3775 Mr Speaker, I beg to move that Part 4, clauses 12 through to 20, do stand part of the Bill.

The Speaker: I call on Mr Hooper to move amendments number 4 to 11, please. Oh, sorry, Mrs Barber, (Laughter) apologies. I was so enthralled!

3780 Mrs Barber: I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

The Speaker: Now, Mr Hooper, amendments 4 to 11.

Mr Hooper: Are you sure, Mr Speaker? 3785 The Speaker: Let’s do that. (Laughter)

Mr Hooper: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise to move amendments 4 through 11 standing in my name. Amendment 5 to clause 12 3790 inserts the requirement for the Department, Licensing Court or licensing authority when exercising their functions under this Bill to take into consideration the licensing objectives. This provision adds further weight to reinforce the overarching importance of these core licensing objectives in relation to the licensing regime that is to come. The remaining amendments being 4 and 6 through to 11 deal with minor editorial corrections. 3795 Mr Speaker, I beg to move that amendments 4 to 11 be approved:

Amendments to clause 12 4. Page 18, line 25, number the text beginning ‘The Department’ as subsection (1). 5. Page 18, line 30, after subsection (1) insert — «(2) When making regulations under this Part the Department must — (a) have regard to the licensing objectives; and (b) must make provision to require the Licensing Court or the licensing authority, as the case may be, to have regard to the licensing objectives when exercising its functions in respect of licensing under this Act.».

Amendment to clause 13 6. Page 19, line 31, for ‘“Beneficial owner”’ substitute, «In this section, “beneficial owner”».

Amendment to clause 15 7. Page 21, line 20, omit ‘or’.

Amendments to clause 18 8. Page 22 — a. line 23, for ‘Regulations’ substitute «regulations»; b. line 26, for ‘licensing’ substitute «Licensing»; c. line 29, after ‘authority’ insert a full stop. 9. Page 23 — a. line 4, renumber paragraph (a) as (f); b. line 6, renumber paragraph (b) as (g); c. line 7, renumber paragraph (c) as (h); d. line 8, renumber paragraph (d) as (i).

Amendments to clause 19 10. Page 23 — a. line 23, for ‘register’ substitute «Register»; b. line 29, for ‘register’ substitute «Register».

______2056 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

11. Page 24, line 13, after ‘himself’ insert «or herself».

The Speaker: Thank you. I call on Mrs Corlett.

Mrs Corlett: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second, Mr Hooper’s amendments. 3800 The Speaker: Thank you. Putting to Hon. Members first then amendments number 4 to 11 in the name of Mr Hooper. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clauses 12 to 20, as amended. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. 3805 The ayes have it. Clause number 21, Mr Cregeen.

Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Part 5 of the Bill comprises one clause, clause 21, which enables my Department to, by order, 3810 designate an area as a restricted licensing area for the purpose of one or more of the licensing objectives. An order can only be made after consultation with the Chief Constable, the Fire and Rescue Service and such other persons that the Department considers to be representatives of businesses and residents and of licensees in the proposed area. Any designation order issued must be reviewed at intervals at not more than three years and revoked if the Department is satisfied 3815 that the designation is no longer necessary for the purpose of one of the licensing objectives. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 21 do stand part of the Bill.

The Speaker: Mrs Barber.

3820 Mrs Barber: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

The Speaker: Now, I call on Mr Hooper to move amendment number 12, please.

Mr Hooper: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 3825 Amendment number 12 is a small amendment to resolve an editorial correction by appropriately capitalising the name of the Fire and Rescue Service. Mr Speaker, I beg to move amendment 12:

Amendment to clause 21 12. Page 24, line 37 for ‘fire and rescue service’ substitute «Fire and Rescue Service».

The Speaker: Mrs Corlett.

3830 Mrs Corlett: I beg to second, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Thank you very much. I put the question that amendment number 12 in the name of Mr Hooper be approved. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. 3835 Clause 21, as amended, stand part of the Bill. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clauses 22, 23 and 24, Mr Cregeen.

Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 3840 Moving now on to Part 6 of the Bill, which deals with conduct on licensed premises, clause 22 provides that regulations may be made requiring the holder of a licence or a person required to

______2057 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

give notification of a specified activity to give notice to the Chief Constable of the hours between which they intend to sell or supply liquor for the consumption on licensed premises or to undertake any activity for which a licence or notification is required. 3845 Clause 23 enables the Department to make regulations concerning the sale to and purchase of liquor to and for a minor and restrictions on employment of minors in licensed premises. Regulations may be made concerning identification documents required and non-compliance with any provision of the regulations is an offence. Clause 24 provides that a licensee must ensure that there is a responsible person on licensed 3850 premises at all times when the premises are open to the public. The clause also specifies who may be designated as a responsible person and includes a requirement that a logbook must be maintained on the licensed premises which records the name of the responsible person at any given time. Subsection (5) enables the Department to make regulations specifying the criteria for a person to act as a responsible person. 3855 Subsections (6) to (10) deal with the offences and the potential suspension or revocation of a licence in respect of the offence. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clauses 22 to 24 do stand part of the Bill.

The Speaker: Thank you. 3860 Mrs Barber.

Mrs Barber: Thank you. I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

The Speaker: Thank you. 3865 I call on Mr Hooper to move amendments 13 to 18, please.

Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Amendments 13, 14, 15 and 16 relate to the concept of a ‘responsible person’ and the meaning of that term which was introduced in this Bill. As currently drafted, the Bill does not make a clear 3870 distinction between the roles of licensee and that of responsible person. A licensee will be appointed by the Licensing Court or licensing authority. A responsible person will be the person designated by the licensee and will have to be registered on the Licensed Staff Register, as set out in clause 19. In order to be registered, a responsible person will have to comply with such requirements for registration to be determined in regulations made under subsection (2) of 3875 clause 19. These amendments clarify this distinction. Amendment 17 deals with a minor editorial correction, and amendment 18 substitutes the words ‘opened’ with the correct term ‘operated’ and includes reference to a licensee to ensure consistency with the previous amendment to this clause. Mr Speaker, I beg to move amendments 13 to 18 be approved:

Amendments to clause 24 13. Page 26, line 14, for ‘Responsible person’ substitute «Licensee or responsible person». 14. Page 26, line 16, for ‘there is a responsible person on’ substitute «the licensee or a responsible person is on». 15. Page 26, lines 18 to 22, for subsection (2) substitute — «(2) A responsible person is a person designated by the licensee as having personal responsibility for the premises in the absence of the licensee.». 16. Page 26, lines 23 to 25, for ‘the holder of such qualification or licence as may be specified by the Department in regulations or otherwise approved by the Department to act as a responsible person of those premises’ substitute «registered as a responsible person under regulations referred to in section 19». 17. Page 27, line 5, for ‘(5)’ substitute «(6)». 18. Page 27, line 9, for ‘opened without a’ substitute «operated without a licensee or a».

______2058 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

3880 The Speaker: Mrs Corlett.

Mrs Corlett: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second the amendments moved by Mr Hooper.

The Speaker: Putting to Hon. Members first amendments 13 to 18 in the name of Mr Hooper. 3885 Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Putting to you clauses 22, 23 and 24, as amended. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clauses 25 to 30, Mr Cregeen.

3890 Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Continuing with Part 6 of the Bill, clause 25 provides for an offence of selling or supplying an excess measure of liquor, and clause 26 gives enabling powers to the Department to make regulations with regard to minimum pricing of liquor, the regulation or prohibition of the supply of liquor with other products or services for a single price, the regulation of the labelling of liquor 3895 in relation to its price. Clause 27 provides for the offence of sale of liquor on credit and provides that both the licensee or employee or agent of the licensee who provides liquor on credit and the person consuming the liquor are guilty of an offence. Subsection (3) provides for exemptions to this offence that includes a sale alongside a meal. 3900 Clause 28 concerns the permission required to make alterations to licensed premises and the consequences of contravening such requirements. Clause 29 enables the Department to make regulations requiring the display of notices at licensed premises stating the names of the licensee and responsible persons, the nature of the licence, opening hours and the charges made for liquor and any licence conditions imposed. The 3905 regulations may make non-compliance an offence and subsection (3) provides for the offence of falsely stating or implying that a licence is in force. Clause 30 deals with the offence of disorderly or indecent behaviour on licensed premises and provides that a person who appears to be guilty of such behaviour may be arrested without warrant. Subsections (3) and (4) relating to banning orders, orders the court may make on 3910 conviction, and subsection (5) the provision that the court may issue a warrant for photographs of the offender to be distributed to licensees. Subsections (6) to (9) refer to defences, subsection (10) to what constitutes a defence by a licensee and subsection (11) provides that the Department may by regulation provide that a person who is subject to an order not to enter any licensed premises be permitted to enter the licensed part of an airport, seaport or bus station or other 3915 travel hub for the purpose of undertaking a journey. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clauses 25 to 30 do stand part of the Bill.

The Speaker: Mrs Barber.

3920 Mrs Barber: I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

The Speaker: I call on Mr Hooper to move amendments 19 to 26 please.

Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. 3925 Amendment 19 deals with an editorial correction. Amendment 20 expands the meaning of what is meant by licensed premises in relation to banning orders. Amendment 21 includes a ‘responsible person’ along with a licensee, as someone who must not supply liquor to a person subject to a court order. 3930 Amendment 22 deals with an editorial correction.

______2059 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

Amendment 23 removes offences listed in subsection 6(c) and (d) and instead streamlines this provision, as the offences now omitted were already covered by subsection 6(a) being offences committed on licensed premises. Amendment 24 adds a responsible person as someone who is guilty of an offence if they 3935 knowingly contravene an order not to supply liquor to a person who is the subject of a court order. Amendment 25 amends subsection (9) of clause 30 to include, along with the licensee, all persons who are required to be registered on the Licensed Staff Register as someone who is guilty of an offence if they, on licensed premises, get intoxicated, sell liquor to an intoxicated person or permit intoxication or violent, quarrelsome or disorderly behaviour. 3940 Amendment 26 replaces subsections (10) and (11) of clause 30. The amendment to subsection (10) is made to ensure consistency with the amendment made to subsection (9). Subsection (11) is expanded to provide that a person who is subject to an order not to enter licensed premises, be permitted to enter such licensed premises as are specified in regulations – for example, supermarkets and garages – for the purposes of purchasing food, non-alcoholic beverages or fuel. 3945 Mr Speaker, I beg to move amendments 19 to 26.

Amendments to clause 30 19. Page 30, lines 9 and 10, for “custody for a term not exceeding 6 months” substitute «6 months’ custody». 20. Page 30, line 19, for “any licensed premises” substitute «such licensed premises, types of licensed premises or parts of licensed premises as may be specified in the order». 21. Page 30, line 24, for “a licensee must not supply liquor to him” substitute «a licensee or a responsible person must not supply liquor to the person in respect of whom an order has been made». 22. Page 30, line 30, after “licensees”, for the comma substitute a semi-colon. 23. Page 31 — a. lines 1 to 3, omit subsection (6)(c); b. lines 6 and 7, omit subsection 6(e). Renumber paragraphs. 24. Page 31, line 18, after “a licensee” insert «or a responsible person». 25. Page 31, line 22, after “If a licensee” insert «or a person who is registered under section 19(1)». 26. Page 31, lines 30 to 39, for subsections (10) and (11) substitute — «(10) If in proceedings for an offence under subsection (9) it is proved that a person (“D”) was intoxicated on the licensed premises, a person (“P”) who is the licensee or a person registered under section 19(1) shall be guilty of an offence if P was on the licensed premises when D was intoxicated, unless P shows that P took all reasonable steps for preventing intoxication on the premises. (11) The Department may by regulations provide that, in the case of a person who is subject to an order under subsection (3)(b), despite the order — (a) the person may enter such part of an airport, sea port, bus station or other travel hub as may be specified in the regulations for the purpose of enabling the person to undertake a journey; or (b) the person may enter such licensed premises as may be specified in the regulations for the purposes of purchasing food, non-alcoholic beverages or fuel.».

The Speaker: Mrs Corlett.

3950 Mrs Corlett: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second.

The Speaker: Putting to Hon. Members first amendments 19 to 26 in the name of Mr Hooper. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

______2060 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

Putting to you then clauses 25 to 30, as amended. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. 3955 The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clauses 31 to 38, Mr Cregeen.

Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause 31 relates to the offences of procuring or assisting the procurement of liquor for an 3960 intoxicated person. Clause 32 provides for the offence of assault against a licensee, responsible person, guard, doorkeeper or any other member of the staff of licensed premises in the course of their employment. Such an offence is to be regarded as an aggravated offence, and the clause provides that, in sentencing, the court must decide on the level of sentence as if the person against whom 3965 it was committed is a police officer or other person serving in a public facing role. Clause 33 deals with refusal to allow entry to licensed premises, refusal to supply liquor and the power to order someone to leave licensed premises without giving any reason. Subsection (4) makes it an offence to fail or refuse to leave if ordered to do so by the responsible person, any employee or agent of the responsible person and a police officer. 3970 Clause 34 relates to the offence of permitting prostitution on licensed premises, and clause 35 provides for the offence of permitting gaming on licensed premises, with subsection (2) detailing what gaming activities may be legally undertaken. Clause 36 provides for the offence of misuse of drugs on licensed premises, and clause 37 for the offence of keeping liquor on licensed premises which the licensee is not authorised to sell. 3975 Finally, clause 38 provides that if a licensee, who is not authorised to sell liquor for consumption on the premises, sells liquor and allows consumption on the premises, or permits a person to consume liquor on or near to the licensed premises, that licensee is guilty of an offence. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clauses 31 through 38 do stand part of the Bill.

3980 The Speaker: Mrs Barber.

Mrs Barber: Thank you. I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

3985 The Speaker: I call on Mr Hooper to move amendments 27 to 35, please.

Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Amendments 27, 29, 30, 31 and 33 deal with editorial corrections. Amendment 28, which amends subsection (1) of clause 32 in relation to the offence of assault 3990 on staff of licensed premises, removes the list of offences and simplifies that any offence committed by a person on, or within close vicinity of, licensed premises against a member of staff constituting an aggravated offence. Amendment 32 is made to ensure consistency with the amendments made to clause 24 in relation to how a licensee and responsible person are defined. 3995 Amendments 34 and 35 are made to clarify that, if a licensee is convicted of an offence in relation to the misuse of drugs, it is the licensee’s licence that may be revoked. Mr Speaker, I beg to move amendments 27 to 35.

Amendments to clause 31 27. Page 32 — a. line 7, after “any person” insert «(P)»; b. line 8, for “the person” substitute «P».

______2061 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

Amendments to clause 32 28. Page 32, lines 12 to 29, for subsection (1) substitute — «(1) Subsection (2) applies to any offence committed by a person while the person was on, or within close vicinity of, licensed premises at the time of the offence.». 29. Page 32, line 34, for “the premises” substitute «the licensed premises».

Amendments to clause 33 30. Page 33, lines 2 and 3, for “or other responsible person, and any employee or agent of the responsible person” substitute «or responsible person, and any employee or agent of the licensee». 31. Page 33, lines 5 and 6, in subsection (1) — a. at the end of paragraph (b) for the comma substitute a full stop; b. omit “if the responsible person considers it inadvisable to do so.”. 32. Page 33, a. Line 7, omit “other”; b. line 8, for “responsible person” substitute «licensee»; c. line 14, for “responsible person” substitute «licensee»; d. line 15, for “responsible person” substitute «licensee»; e. line 20, for “responsible person” substitute «licensee»; f. line 21, for “responsible person” substitute «licensee»; g. line 26, for “responsible person” substitute «licensee»; h. line 27, for “responsible person” substitute «licensee». 33. Page 33 — a. line 30, for “(4)” substitute «(2)»; b. line 33, for “(4) or (5)” substitute «(5) or (6)».

Amendments to clause 36 34. Page 35, line 6, for “licence” substitute «licensee’s licence». 35. Page 35, lines 12 and 13, for “in respect of the premises” substitute «to the person whose licence has been revoked».

4000 The Speaker: Mrs Corlett.

Mrs Corlett: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second.

The Speaker: I put to Hon. Members amendments 27 to 35 in the name of Mr Hooper. Those 4005 in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clauses 31 to 38, as amended. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 39, Mr Cregeen.

4010 Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Part 7 of the Bill comprises one clause, clause 39, which deals with the application and decision- making process for appealing the decision of the Licensing Court or licensing authority. Subsection (14) enables the Department to make regulations to include further provisions for appeals including the contents and forms of applications for appeals, the way in which appeals 4015 must be made and the persons who must be notified of the appeal and be permitted to make representations. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 39 do stand part of the Bill.

The Speaker: Thank you. 4020 Mrs Barber.

______2062 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

Mrs Barber: Thank you. I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

The Speaker: I call on Mr Hooper to move amendments 36 and 37, please.

4025 Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Both of these amendments deal with editorial corrections. I beg to move amendments 36 and 37.

Amendments to clause 39 36. Page 36, line 35, after “(1)” insert «or (2)». 37. Page 37 — a. line 2, after “appeal” insert «under subsection (1) or (2),»; b. line 13, for “(7)” substitute «(6)»; c. line 24, for “the or licensing” substitute «the licensing»; d. line 34, for “such an appeal” substitute «an appeal under subsection (9)»; e. line 39, for “(11)” substitute «(9)».

The Speaker: Thank you. 4030 Mrs Corlett.

Mrs Corlett: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second.

The Speaker: Thank you. 4035 Putting to Hon. Members amendments 36 and 37 in the name of Mr Hooper. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 39, as amended. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clauses 40 to 44, please, Mr Cregeen. 4040 Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Part 8 of the Bill deals with other offences. Clause 40 provides for the offences of selling liquor without a licence, and holding a licensable event without a licence, and the subsequent penalty for these actions. Subsection (4) provides the 4045 circumstances under which a person may sell liquor without being a licensee. Clause 41 provides for the offence of being drunk in a public place, and clause 42 provides for the offence of drinking liquor in a public place after being warned not to do so by a police officer. Clause 43 provides for the offence of knowingly selling liquor in confectionery to a person under the age of 16. An offence is not committed if the amount of liquor in the confectionery 4050 complies with the provisions of subsection (2) of this clause. Finally, clause 44 enables the Department to make regulations which prohibit the sale of liquor that is in powder or vapour form, with contravention of such regulations being an offence. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that Part 8, clauses 40 through 44 do stand part of the Bill.

4055 The Speaker: Thank you. Mrs Barber.

Mrs Barber: Thank you. I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

4060 The Speaker: I call on Mr Hooper to move amendments 38 to 45, please.

Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Amendments 38 and 39, and 41 to 44 all deal with editorial corrections.

______2063 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

Amendment 40 to clause 41 clarifies it is a police officer who may arrest without warrant a 4065 person who appears to be drunk in a public place. Amendment 45 amends clause 44 to ensure that regulations made in respect to the sale or use of powder liquor or liquor vapour may prohibit or regulate such sale or use should this become necessary in the future. Mr Speaker, I beg to move amendments 38 to 45. 4070 Amendments to clause 40 38. Page 39 — a. lines 16 and 17, for “(Summary conviction) – 6 months’ custody and a fine not exceeding” substitute «(summary conviction) – 6 months’ custody and a fine of»; b. line 22, for “Court” substitute «court».

Amendments to clause 41 39. Page 39, line 39, after “(summary” insert «conviction». 40. Page 40, line 2, for “any person” substitute «a police officer».

Amendments to clause 42 41. Page 40, line 20, after “(summary” insert «conviction»; 42. Page 41, line 5, after “(summary” insert «conviction». 43. Page 41, line 13, after “(summary” insert «conviction».

Amendment to clause 43 44. Page 41, line 31, after “(summary” insert «conviction».

Amendment to clause 44 45. Page 42, line 5, after “prohibit” insert «or regulate».

The Speaker: Mrs Corlett.

Mrs Corlett: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second. 4075 The Speaker: I put the question that amendments 38 to 45 in the name of Mr Hooper be approved. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Putting to you then clauses 40 to 44, as amended. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. 4080 I turn now to clauses 45 to 56, Mr Cregeen.

Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Part 9 deals with enforcement provision. Clause 45 provides that if two or more persons are a licensee, then each is liable in respect of 4085 an offence, and proceedings may be brought against any one or more of those persons. Subsection (2) specifies what constitutes a defence where a licensee is charged with an offence committed by an employee or agent of the licensee. Subsection (3) deals with repeat offences and subsections (4) and (5) relate to forfeiture of liquor. Clause 46 provides for liability of persons other than the licensee, and clause 47 relates to 4090 disqualification of a person who is, or has been a licensee, who is convicted of any offence triable on information or any other offence prescribed in regulations made by the Department. Clause 48 deals with suspension or revocation of a licence in certain circumstances, and clause 49 provides for the deferral of the suspension or revocation of a licence pending the outcome of an appeal.

______2064 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

4095 Clause 50 enables a police officer to, at any time, enter licensed premises for the purpose of preventing or detecting the carrying out of any offence under the Act. Refusal to admit the officer is an offence and any person who permits another to make this refusal is guilty of an offence. Clause 51 provides that a warrant may be issued to authorise a police officer to enter premises to search, seize and remove any liquor that the police officer has reasonable grounds to believe is 4100 to be sold, supplied or consumed unlawfully. Any person who fails or refuses to give their name or address, or gives a false name or address, when asked by a police officer is guilty of an offence. Clause 52 provides for the offence of failure, by a licensee, to produce the licence relating to the licensed premises, and clause 53 relates to the evidence needed to prove whether a sale or consumption of liquor took place. 4105 Clause 54 enables any member of the Licensing Court or licensing authority to enter and inspect any licensed premises, and failure to permit or obstruct entry is an offence. Clause 55 concerns the closure of licensed premises in case of riot or violence, and provides that if any person knowingly keeps premises open for the sale of liquor during the time that they are directed to be closed, the person is guilty of an offence. 4110 Clause 56 provides that regulations may make provision for the issue of a fixed monetary penalty and the processes involved with the issue and appeal of such. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that Part 9, clauses 45 through 56 do stand part of the Bill.

The Speaker: Thank you. 4115 Mrs Barber.

Mrs Barber: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

The Speaker: I call on Mr Hooper to move amendments 46 to 57. 4120 Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Amendments 46 to 49 all deal with editorial corrections. Amendment 50 amends subsection (6) of clause 48 to clarify that if a licensee, a responsible person or an employee or agent of the licensee is convicted of an offence under this Bill on two 4125 or more occasions, then the licence of the licensee may be revoked. Amendment 51 clarifies that when an order to suspend or revoke a licence is made under clause 48, the court may order that a licence must not be granted in respect of the premises or person for such period, not exceeding two years, as the court may direct. Amendments 52 to 54 all deal with editorial corrections. 4130 Amendment 55 amends subsection (1) of clause 56 to make clear the instances in which a fixed penalty may be given. Amendment 56 and 57 deal with editorial corrections. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that amendments 46 to 57 be approved.

Amendment to clause 45 46. Page 42, line 22, for “person” substitute «licensee».

Amendment to clause 47 47. Page 43, line 3, for “Regulations” substitute «regulations».

Amendments to clause 48 48. Page 43 — a. line 13, for the comma substitute a semi-colon; b. line 14, for the comma substitute a semi-colon; c. line 32, after “there)” insert a full stop. 49. Page 44, line 7, after “(summary” insert «conviction».

______2065 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

50. Page 44, line 15, after “licence” insert «of the licensee in respect of those premises». 51. Page 44, line 17, after “premises” insert «or person».

Amendment to clause 50 52. Page 45, line 5, after “(summary” insert «conviction».

Amendment to clause 51 53. Page 45, line 21, for the semi-colon substitute a comma.

Amendment to clause 52 54. Page 46, line 3, after “(summary” insert «conviction».

Amendments to clause 56 55. Page 47, line 24, for “or order, as the case may be” substitute «or such provisions of this Act as may be specified in the regulations». 56. Page 48, line 31, omit “or order, as the case may be”. 57. Page 49, line 4, for “may not provide for the making of an appeal other than” substitute «must provide for the making of an appeal». 4135 The Speaker: Mrs Corlett.

Mrs Corlett: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second.

4140 The Speaker: I put the question first that amendments 46 to 57 be agreed. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clauses 45 to 56, as amended. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Now we turn to amendment 58, new clause 1 and I call on Mr Hooper to move in principle. 4145 Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise to introduce a new clause and invite Hon. Members to agree in principle to include this in the Bill. In the event of agreement in principle I would like to move also that this proposed new clause form part of the Bill. 4150 Mr Speaker, the purpose of this new clause – which the Department intends would be numbered 57 and be inserted into the Bill immediately before the current clause 57 with the current clause 57 and subsequent clauses being renumbered – places the definition of ‘Licensing Objectives’ into a stand-alone clause, rather than as part of the interpretation section of the Bill as is currently the case. This clause arose from a helpful suggestion from the Hon. Member for 4155 Douglas Central, Mr Thomas. The new clause stipulates that the Department of Home Affairs must have regard to the licensing objectives when exercising its functions under the Bill, defines what is meant by ‘licensing objectives’ and provides that the meaning may be amended by order subject to the approval of Tynwald. 4160 Mr Speaker I beg to move that the new clause number 1 be approved in principle.

Insertion of new clause NC1 58. Page 49, line 12, after the heading, (and before clause 57) insert — «NC1 Licensing objectives (1) When exercising its functions under this Act the Department must have regard to the licensing objectives,. (2) “Licensing objectives” means the following objectives — (a) securing public safety;

______2066 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

(b) preventing crime and disorder; (c) preventing public nuisance; (d) protecting and improving public health; (e) protecting children from harm; (f) providing an environment in which the hospitality industry may flourish; and (g) promoting high standards across the hospitality industry. (3) The Department may by order amend subsection (2).». Renumber subsequent sections and cross references throughout.

The Speaker: Thank you. Mr Cregeen. 4165 Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second and I would also like to pass on my thanks to the Hon. Member, Mr Thomas, for his assistance.

4170 The Speaker: In which case I put to you that amendment 58, new clause 1, be agreed in principle. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. I call on Mr Hooper to move new clause 1 in detail.

Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. 4175 I am very grateful for the support of Members to the new clause in principle and formally move the detail of new clause 1 be approved and new clause 1 stand part of the Bill.

The Speaker: Thank you very much. Mr Cregeen. 4180 Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second.

The Speaker: Thank you very much. I put the question that new clause 1 be approved in detail. Those in favour, please say aye; 4185 against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clauses 57 to 62, Mr Cregeen.

Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Part 10. Clause 57 makes general provision in respect of regulations and orders made under 4190 this Bill. Clause 58 provides that, except as otherwise provided for, the Department must consult with the Licensing Forum, the Deemsters and the High Bailiff, the licensing authority, if established, any person to whom the regulations or order relate, or person appearing to the Department to represent such person, and any other person that the Department considers appropriate before 4195 exercising any power to make regulations or an order under the Act. Clause 59 provides that regulations may be made in respect of fees that are required to be paid for the purpose of the administration of this Bill, including provision for exemption from payment, discount or deferral. Clause 60 provides for the publication of codes of practice to give practical guidance to persons 4200 engaged in liquor licensing or public entertainments and to promote good practice. The Licensing Court or licensing authority may impose as a condition of a licence that the licensee must comply with an approved code of practice, and failure to do so may be used in any civil or criminal proceedings. Provision is also given for the publication of guidance which will be very important to steering the various licensees adherence to licensing standards, and in assisting 4205 their understanding of what is expected within the regime.

______2067 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

Clause 61 relates to restrictive agreements and restrictive covenants. Subsection (3) includes a provision preventing new restrictive covenants being placed on premises after the bringing into operation of this Act, where those premises have, at any time, been licensed. Clause 62 enables the Department to make regulations with regard to the sharing of 4210 information between the Chief Constable and licensees about persons who are subject to any court order excluding them from licensed premises, or who are otherwise excluded or restricted from licensed premises under this Bill. Any regulations made must specify the nature of the information, any constraints to sharing – GDPR, LED – the processes for exchanging the information, restrictions on the information supplied and the purposes for which it may be used 4215 and such other measures to ensure compliance with data protection legislation. This clause also provides for the sharing of information of persons who have requested that a licensee take measures to assist the person in his or her efforts to reduce the amount of liquor they consume. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clauses 57 through 62 do stand part of the Bill.

4220 The Speaker: Thank you. Mrs Barber.

Mrs Barber: I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

4225 The Speaker: I call on Mr Hooper to move amendments 59 to 62.

Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Amendments 59 to 62 all deal with editorial corrections. I beg to move amendments 59 to 62.

Amendment to clause 59 59. Page 50, line 3, for “Regulations” substitute «regulations».

Amendment to clause 60 60. Page 50, line 30, for “court” substitute «Court».

Amendment to clause 61 61. Page 51, lines 10 and 11, for “Licensing Act 1995” substitute «Licensing Act 1995».

Amendments to clause 62 62. Page 51 — a. line 20, after “premises” insert «or»; b. line 25, after “33(5)” insert a full stop; c. line 31, after “2018” insert a footnote to reference «SD No. 2018/0145, as amended». 4230 The Speaker: Thank you. Mrs Corlett.

Mrs Corlett: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second. 4235 The Speaker: Thank you very much. Putting to Members amendments 59 to 62 in the name of Mr Hooper. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clauses 57 to 62, as amended, those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. 4240 The ayes have it. Clauses 63, 64, Schedule 1 and Schedule 2, Mr Cregeen.

Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

______2068 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

Part 11. Clause 63 introduces Schedule 1, which lists enactments that are repealed, and 4245 introduces Schedule 2 which makes amendments to other enactments as a result of the enactment of this Bill. Clause 64 amends the Licensing Act 1995 so that where a triennial sitting of the Court is due to be held before 31st March 2022, that sitting shall instead be held before 31st March 2023. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 63 and 64 and Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 do stand part 4250 of the Bill.

The Speaker: Thank you. Mrs Barber.

4255 Mrs Barber: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

The Speaker: Thank you. I call on Mr Hooper to move amendments 63 to 68, please. 4260 Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Amendments 63 to 67 all deal with editorial corrections. Amendment 68 adds in an amendment to the Education Act 2001 to the table of minor and consequential amendments to other enactments. 4265 Mr Speaker, I beg to move that amendments 63 to 68 be approved.

Amendments to clause 63 63. Page 52 — a. line 8, for “under made under” substitute «order made under»; b. line 9, after “2” insert a full stop.

Amendments to schedule 2 64. Page 54 — a. line 20, renumber paragraph (e) as (f); b. line 21, renumber paragraph (f) as (g); c. line 25, renumber paragraph (g) as (h); d. line 28, renumber paragraph (h) as (i); e. line 33, for “Section 8” substitute «[Section 8]». 65. Page 55 — a. line 4, for “Part 1” substitute «Part 2»; b. line 5, for “Part 2 (liquor licensing)” substitute «Part 4 (licences)»; c. line 9, omit “section 54 (inspection of premises); d. line 11, for “section 47 (disqualification).”.” substitute — «section 47 (disqualification); section 54 (inspection of premises).”.». 66. line 24, for “selling liquor” substitute «operating». 67. Page 56, line 8 after “Licensing and” insert «Public». 68. Page 56, line 11, in the table, after the entry for the Custody Act 1995 insert –

«Education Act 2001 Section 21D(6) (discipline: supplementary), in the definition of “liquor”».

The Speaker: Thank you very much. Mrs Corlett.

______2069 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

4270 Mrs Corlett: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second.

The Speaker: I put the question that amendments 63 to 68 be approved. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. I put the question that clauses 63, 64, Schedule 1 and Schedule 2, as amended, stand part of 4275 the Bill. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

Liquor Licensing and Public Entertainments Bill 2021 – Standing Orders suspended to take Third Reading

The Speaker: Now I call on Mr Cregeen to move suspension of Standing Orders.

Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to move that Standing Order 4.11(1) be suspended to permit the Third Reading of this Bill 4280 to take place at this sitting. I am grateful to Hon. Members for their consideration of and support for this Bill and invite Members to support the suspending of Standing Orders to the extent necessary to permit the Third Reading of the Bill today. I beg to move. 4285 The Speaker: Mrs Barber.

Mrs Barber: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second and reserve my remarks. 4290 The Speaker: I put the question that Standing Orders be suspended to permit the Third Reading to be taken at this sitting. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

Liquor Licensing and Public Entertainments Bill 2021 – Third Reading approved

The Speaker: Mr Cregeen to move the Third Reading. 4295 Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am very grateful to Hon. Members for agreeing to the suspension of Standing Orders so that the Third Reading of the Bill may be taken today. Mr Speaker, it has been my privilege to move this long-awaited piece of legislation that will 4300 fundamentally change the structure of licensing on our Island, and bring much needed modernisation to our licensing and entertainments laws. This Bill will enable a licensing regime that is standards driven, safety orientated, less bureaucratic and more flexible. Through the clauses stage today, a number of amendments have been considered and approved, and I would like to personally thank Mr Hooper for bringing forward the Government 4305 amendments on behalf of my Department, and Mrs Corlett for seconding those amendments. I would also like to thank Members for attending the presentation given by my Department and for your most helpful questions and contributions, particularly the insightful comments that gave rise to some of the amendments brought today.

______2070 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

Mr Speaker, I would also like to thank you for the time you spent reviewing the Bill and 4310 engaging with officers and the valuable points that you raised which again gave rise to some of the amendments here today. I would also like to thank the licensing trade for their engagement and support and all those people who responded to the consultation which has helped to form the Bill here today. I would also like to express my thanks to officers who have worked so hard to get this Bill before 4315 us today, especially Julian Lalor-Smith for his meetings with the licensing trade and the work he has done on the Bill prior to his retirement last Friday. (A Member: Hear, hear.) It is important, Hon. Members, that we ensure the safety and wellbeing of our Island’s people, but it is also equally important that we provide for the vibrant social life that we have, for the most part, been able to enjoy on our beautiful Island. Social interaction plays a tremendous role 4320 in people’s lives, particularly in enabling and sustaining good mental health, and for many people our hospitality industry provides a vital point of contact and a sense of community for people who are – for whatever reason – isolated. Having, as an Island community experienced three lockdowns, the importance of social interaction and community is now even more apparent. All that remains for me to do is to thank Mrs Barber for seconding the Bill, and to thank all 4325 Hon. Members for their contributions, consideration and interest in this matter. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that the Liquor Licensing and Public Entertainments Bill 2021 be read for the third time.

The Speaker: Mrs Barber. 4330 Mrs Barber: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second, but I would also like to thank the Minister because this has been a real team effort, and I echo his thanks to all the people he has listed already. Thank you very much. 4335 The Speaker: Mr Robertshaw.

Mr Robertshaw: Mr Speaker, in the absence of any serious comment in Third Reading, can I thank the Minister for his hard work in ensuring this is brought through; and in a lighter mood, 4340 drawing attention to clause 41(1)(c). It says:

If any person in a public place … is drunk while in charge of any horse or cattle or … cart.

So can the Minister please assure me that there has been no noticeable increase in the number of drunks in charge of cattle (Laughter) and can I also be assured that there has been no noticeable increase in the number of people putting carts before the horses? (Laughter)

4345 Several Members: Oh!

The Speaker: The mover to reply.

Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 4350 Most of that I can agree with, but I am not too sure about how many people have put the cart before the horse in the previous few years. But I would like to again thank all Hon. Members for their support and I hope that we will be able to move this Bill forward for the benefit of the industry and also for the people of the Isle of Man so that we can enjoy our beautiful Island. (Several Members: Hear, hear.) 4355 With that, Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

______2071 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

The Speaker: I put the question that the Liquor Licensing and Public Entertainments Bill 2021 be read for the third time. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

3. Questions for Oral Answer (concluded)

INFRASTRUCTURE

3.9. Prince’s Half-Tide Dock – Impact of new IOMSPCo vessels

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Ms Edge) to ask the Minister for Infrastructure:

What assessment has been carried out of the impact on Prince’s Half-Tide Dock of any new vessel commissioned by the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company?

4360 The Speaker: Now, Hon. Members, in accordance with our earlier resolution, we go back to Oral Questions and we pick up where we left off at Question 9 and I call on the Hon. Member for Onchan, Ms Edge.

Ms Edge: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 4365 I would like to ask the Minister for Infrastructure what assessment has been carried out of the impact on Prince’s Half-Tide Dock of any new vessel commissioned by the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company?

The Speaker: I call the Minister for Infrastructure to reply. 4370 The Minister for Infrastructure (Mr Baker): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The brief for the design of the new berth at Prince’s Half-Tide Dock in Liverpool was based on the requirement for accommodating the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company’s existing vessels, the Ben my Chree and Manannan, together with a future third vessel, which at the time had yet to be 4375 commissioned. Berthing studies and simulations were undertaken for all vessels, including a notional maximum 142-metre roll-on roll-off vessel for the third vessel, to ensure that all vessels could operate in the new berth. The only impact that the new vessel commissioned by the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company 4380 has had, the Manxman, is in relation to the scour protection required at the berth. This could only be assessed once technical details of the new vessel were known, which were provided by the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company in December 2020. The project team is currently assessing the design changes required in this regard, which will result in more robust and extensive scour protection around the southern and westerly quay wall areas. 4385 The Speaker: Supplementary question, Ms Edge.

Ms Edge: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

______2072 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

I rather assume everybody in here knows there is an article in the paper today which talks 4390 about the scour, and obviously the Chair of the Steam Packet said that plans were provided and, indeed, the fast craft water jets were worse for scour. So I am just wondering, if we had accommodated the fast craft, why are we having to do work for the new vessel, which the Minister indicated in a previous Answer.

4395 The Speaker: Minister to reply.

The Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Hon. Member for her question and of course, I confirm the article in The Examiner today, which covers a number of aspects but does cover the scour issue. 4400 What I would say to the Hon. Member is when the scheme was designed the Manannan was known about and could be modelled and fully assessed, the Manxman is different and until the design was known and the specification, it could not be fully evaluated. So in particular, the power of the thrusters and the location of the thrusters on the new vessel are significant in terms of the design of the scour protection scheme that is required. So until the Steam Packet made the 4405 decision of what size of vessel they wanted and what configuration, that information was a known unknown.

The Speaker: Another supplementary, Ms Edge.

4410 Ms Edge: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Obviously, what the Minister has just said does not really reflect what is in the article, that there was no unexpected increase in bow thrust of power of the Manxman, but one of the other queries of concern in here is that when the Department has done the design perhaps the potential seven knots of tide in the River Mersey and westerly winds, that that has not been taken into 4415 consideration. I just wonder if the Minister would reassure Hon. Members, or certainly provide some confirmation, following this article today, that his Department will ensure that costs are kept to a minimum for the people of the Isle of Man, bearing in mind that it does not appear that answers that were given on a previous Question on 11th May were accurate at that point in time. The 4420 Minister said that obviously the protection needed to be there for the Peel asset, but clearly from this article today it does seem that you were aware of all of the implications. So I am unsure as to why there is an increased cost for us to protect the Peel Ports asset. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

4425 The Speaker: Minister to reply.

The Minister: Thank you very much. Firstly, the Hon. Member has, I am sure unintentionally, but she has cast doubt on the accuracy of my Answer on 11th May. I do stand behind the Answer I gave at that time, and that was, as I 4430 explained Mr Speaker, around: we are required to produce a design of a scheme to protect the quay wall, which is an asset of the Peel Group. When the scheme was agreed and the contractual purchase of the land from the Peel Group companies was confirmed, which of course predated my appointment as Minister by quite some time, it was known that the details of an acceptable scour protection scheme would need to be 4435 brought forward and agreed with the landlord. That is still a work in progress, Mr Speaker. It is influenced by the design and the specification of the Manxman, which again at that time the Steam Packet Company could not have been expected to know exactly what vessel they were going to acquire at that time. So there is an awful lot of work going on, Mr Speaker, to manage the situation and to ensure 4440 that the public money is spent in the most appropriate way. I did make it clear last time that we

______2073 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

have got some significant budget challenges and some significant time challenges around delivering this scheme. There is nothing new in the article that has been publicised today, other than making public a letter that was written from the Chairman of the Steam Packet Company to myself on 14th May – a week last Friday – to which I immediately acknowledged and a full reply 4445 is being prepared by the Department to the issues that he raised in that letter. Hon. Members will see that that article relates back to design decisions and the appointment of the professional team and I have to say we have got some very high-quality, well-respected UK specialists who are advising the Department. The Department’s role is as ‘client’ for this scheme, so the Chairman of the Steam Packet Company has made those comments. Obviously, he is 4450 entirely within his rights to make those comments. I am very happy to sit down and meet with the Chairman once I have got the full facts at my fingertips, but Mr Speaker, most of those comments relate to decisions which were made well before I was Minister for this Department.

The Speaker: Final supplementary, Ms Edge. 4455 Ms Edge: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for talking about significant budgets. I wonder if he could give an estimate, because clearly since the outset of the project he has been responsible for ports and clearly there is going to be some increase. If there is a figure that you are aware of, I am sure you will have had 4460 to do some estimates, can you declare that today? Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Minister to reply.

4465 The Minister: I will just reiterate my Answer to the Question that the Hon. Member referred to on 11th May, which was a fortnight ago, and we fully discussed the financial implications and the project situation at that time.

3.10. Billown Circuit – Progress with upgrade

The Hon. Member for Arbory, Castletown and Malew (Mr Moorhouse) to ask the Minister for Infrastructure:

How the final part of the programme to upgrade the Billown Circuit is progressing?

The Speaker: Question 10, I call on the Hon. Member for Arbory, Castletown and Malew, Mr Moorhouse. 4470 Mr Moorhouse: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister for Infrastructure how the final part of the programme to upgrade the Billown Circuit is progressing?

4475 The Speaker: I call on the Minister for Infrastructure to reply.

The Minister for Infrastructure (Mr Baker): Thank you, Mr Speaker. In response to the Hon. Member’s Question, the Department does not have a programme of improvements around Billown Circuit. However, as part of the Department’s long-term asset 4480 management programme, the Department does have plans to improve the carriageway at Douglas Street and the Hairpin, which is driven by the condition of the road. This is likely to require

______2074 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

reconstruction of large areas due to the number of thresholds and geometry of the road through this area and will therefore require a capital bid. If approved, it is likely this work will be carried out in 2024-25 at the earliest. 4485 The Speaker: Supplementary question, Mr Moorhouse.

Mr Moorhouse: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you, Minister. There is a slight concern that two parts of the programme had already been completed and 4490 one was remaining, but you have identified the remaining area so hopefully we are heading in the right direction. Does the maintenance programme of the road reflect that it is actually a race course? Concerns have been raised.

The Speaker: Minister to reply. 4495 The Minister: Yes, thank you, Mr Speaker. I can confirm that both the Southern 100 race course and the TT course benefit from two aspects. Firstly, they are part of the normal road infrastructure on the Island and so are covered by the normal maintenance activity and assessment activity that goes on for our highways 4500 network. Secondly, there is a programme of inspections for both courses which are undertaken by the Department officers in conjunction with the race organisers. Clearly those particular aspects have not taken place in recent times due to the regrettable cancellation of the racing programmes. They normally occur in or around the February prior to the racing season, so I would hope that those will be re-instigated in February next year. As a 4505 result of that, potentially there may be more work required than would normally be the case, simply because we have missed a couple of years of that inspection, which obviously does mean that the roads are maintained to a slightly higher standard.

The Speaker: Further supplementary, Mr Moorhouse. 4510 Mr Moorhouse: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you, Minister. With regard to the area around Douglas Street, that you made reference to in the first part of the Answer, can I just have clarification that he mentioned 2024, because there are two races between now and then which could potentially cause concern? Is this being taken into account? 4515 The Speaker: The Minister to reply.

The Minister: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The pre-race inspections will ensure that any aspects of the road which are of concern are 4520 picked up at that time. The elements that I have referred to are more of a longer term improvement programme and more substantive in terms of their work. So they do require a capital bid because it is a more significant intervention. A cheaper solution is possible and may temporarily resolve surface defect issues, but those would not address the underlying issues. So it may be that a short-term fix can be found if there were any concerns from a racing perspective. 4525 The Speaker: Supplementary question, Mr Quine.

Mr Quine: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just following on from what the Hon. Member for Arbory, Castletown and Malew, 4530 Mr Moorhouse said, can the Minister confirm, therefore, on such a condition the decision rests with the Clerk of the Course? Thank you, Mr Speaker.

______2075 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

The Speaker: Minister to reply. 4535 The Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In terms of the decision for racing and fitness thereof, of course it does rest with the Clerk of the Course as the responsible individual, but clearly the Department works in partnership with the race organisers to make sure that these important events are in the right position to proceed.

3.11. Green-list travel status – Readiness for Manx inclusion

The Hon. Member for Arbory, Castletown and Malew (Mr Moorhouse) to ask the Minister for Infrastructure:

What actions have been taken in readiness for the Island being placed by nearby jurisdictions on green lists for foreign travel?

4540 The Speaker: Question 11. Again, I call on the Hon. Member for Arbory, Castletown and Malew, Mr Moorhouse.

Mr Moorhouse: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister for Infrastructure what actions have been taken in readiness 4545 for the Island being placed by nearby jurisdictions on green lists for foreign travel?

The Speaker: I call on the Minister for Infrastructure to reply.

The Minister for Infrastructure (Mr Baker): Thank you, Mr Speaker. 4550 Whilst the changes in the UK are welcome, the bigger issue for us is the welcome news that all being well our borders will continue to open up. Unlike many airports, as Hon. Members know, Ronaldsway has remained open throughout the coronavirus pandemic, although with significantly fewer flights. In terms of preparedness for the potential restart of additional flights, with effect from borders reopening on 28th June, the Airport 4555 has operated with social spacing, sanitisation stations and thorough cleaning schedules throughout the last 14 months. This supports the industry standard which continues to require passengers to wear masks on their flights. Douglas Harbour has, throughout the last year, continued to operate with little change to routine. There is space at the Sea Terminal to allow for social distancing, with hand sanitiser 4560 continuing to be provided. I am confident that the main ferry passenger terminal could cope with an increased influx of passengers, as it has done for a number of years.

The Speaker: Supplementary question, Mr Moorhouse.

4565 Mr Moorhouse: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you, Minister. With the current open skies policy in place, what limits are there currently on the arrival of planes from UK airports? Could Ryanair and easyJet, for example, simply ask to land a plane every hour between eight o’clock and 10 o’clock from 28th June onwards?

______2076 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

The Speaker: Minister to reply. 4570 The Minister: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I thank the Hon. Member for his question, which is giving me the opportunity to clarify that the open skies policy provides unfettered access to the Island’s skies, but that is very different from actual services just starting to be provided. Any airline who wished to provide services to the 4575 Island would have to engage through the Director of Airports in terms of their plans, negotiate landing fees within the charging structure that the Airport operates; and of course, there would be an airport at the other end of their journey because it is very much a round trip. So there is not going to be suddenly airlines descending in an uncontrolled way (Laughter) on the Island. The Hon. Member is citing a hypothetical example, I appreciate that. He has mentioned 4580 Ryanair; well, I understand specifically in terms of Ryanair that they have no interest in flying to the Isle of Man. (A Member: Hear, hear.) We do have very good relationships with a number of airlines at present. Discussions are ongoing with them, but I am extremely optimistic that those established partners for the Island will be looking to resume their services very promptly. 4585 On current information, I am able to advise Hon. Members that the Department is expecting the return of easyJet on services to London, Gatwick, Liverpool, Belfast International and Bristol on 28th June, and hopefully Aer Lingus Regional operating to and from Dublin from 1st July, whilst Loganair is still to finalise their schedule. So that is great news in terms of restoring connectivity to the Island, which hopefully will facilitate visitors exploring the Island and, of course, residents 4590 being able to connect to adjacent islands. But the example that the Hon. Member has cited is simply not going to happen, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Supplementary, Mr Moorhouse.

4595 Mr Moorhouse: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you, Minister. In July 2018 and 2019, about 75,000 arrivals arrived at the Airport. Given the existing staff infrastructure and the COVID restrictions which are in place, what is the maximum number of visitors that could arrive and depart from Ronaldsway during July 2021?

4600 The Speaker: The Minister to reply.

The Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am very confident that the Airport can cope adequately with the volume of visitors that we will be expecting. It would be a delightful challenge to have to go beyond the level of our peak 4605 throughput in the Airport, which I understand was in 2007 during the TT centenary period. So I am very confident and the more people who want to come to the Island the better, Mr Speaker!

A Member: Hear, hear.

HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE

3.12. Lateral flow tests – Stock held

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Ms Edge) to ask the Minister for Health and Social Care:

How many lateral flow tests are held in stock in the Island?

______2077 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

The Speaker: Question 12, I call on the Hon. Member for Onchan, Ms Edge. 4610 Ms Edge: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister for Health and Social Care how many lateral flow tests are held in stock in the Island?

4615 The Speaker: I call on the Minister for Health and Social Care to reply.

The Minister for Health and Social Care (Mr Ashford): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Hopefully the quickest Answer of the day. Manx Care do not stock lateral flow tests.

4620 The Speaker: Supplementary question, Ms Edge.

Ms Edge: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In a recent presentation, comment was made around lateral flow tests that they might be used for mitigation. Does the Minister not feel that it would be appropriate to be approaching a supplier 4625 or that if our policy does change then to help with mitigation at our borders? Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Minister to reply.

4630 The Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yes, lateral flow is being considered potentially as part of our mitigation strategy and we have certain supply routes in the UK, should we require them.

The Speaker: Supplementary question, Mrs Christian. 4635 Mrs Christian: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Would the Minister confirm if the Department has liaised with any private sector businesses, particularly those who are part of UK organisations, to understand their stock holding of future approach to lateral flow tests; and has the Department established any protocols to work 4640 alongside such businesses? Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Minister to reply.

4645 The Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Not in relation to the Department, but I believe that Public Health has had discussions with the Co-op on Island who do have access to lateral flow tests for their staff.

The Speaker: Supplementary question, Mrs Caine. 4650 Mrs Caine: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Could the Minister confirm that, according to the report we discussed earlier, providing analysis for the Steam Packet related COVID cluster, the Steam Packet are now using lateral flow tests for their crew? 4655 Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Minister to reply.

The Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

______2078 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

4660 I understand the Steam Packet are using lateral flow, but as far as I am aware, we are not providing them with that.

The Speaker: Final supplementary question, Ms Edge.

4665 Ms Edge: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Minister stated there that the Director of Public Health has been in discussions with the Co-op. Do lateral flow tests not have to comply with procurement, is the first question; and bearing in mind that some companies and organisations are clearly using them on the Island, if we do go down that route what is the Minister considering – is it that they will be free like the 4670 NHS in the UK, and will we be linking in to their systems for results etc. as well? Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Minister to reply.

4675 The Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. We have had various animal analogies so I will throw in another one, that we do not want to rush our fences on this. It is important if we are going to do any form of pilot that it is designed properly and correctly. In terms of procurement, if we have do go out for procurement we will have to follow the usual processes, Mr Speaker, we would not be exempt from that. 4680 The Speaker: I understand, Mrs Christian, you want one further supplementary question?

Mrs Christian: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just a very quick one. Will Manx citizens be provided with free lateral flow tests as part of our 4685 mitigation strategy moving forward?

The Speaker: Minister to reply.

The Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 4690 It is still being considered how a lateral flow will form part of our mitigations. That may be one of many options under consideration, but at the moment it is fluid.

MANX UTILITIES AUTHORITY

3.13. Electrical vehicle charging points – Selecting locations

The Hon. Member for Arbory, Castletown and Malew (Mr Moorhouse) to ask the Chairman of the Manx Utilities Authority:

How the locations are selected of charging points for electric vehicles

The Speaker: Question 13, I call on the Hon. Member for Arbory, Castletown and Malew, Mr Moorhouse.

4695 Mr Moorhouse: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to ask the Chairman of the Manx Utilities Authority how the locations are selected of charging points for electric vehicles?

______2079 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

The Speaker: I call on the Chairman of Manx Utilities Authority to reply. 4700 The Chairman of Manx Utilities Authority (Mr Baker): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I can advise that locations for the installation of charging points for electric vehicles are selected based on multiple factors, with the main factors considered being: firstly, the geographical spread to create an all-Island network to meet likely customer demand and to avoid 4705 range anxiety; secondly, site suitability to afford 24-hour availability for practical and convenient public access, including disabled access; and, thirdly, landowner permission with an agreed licence to operate for a five-year term. Other factors considered include: the availability of electrical network infrastructure to avoid expensive reinforcement words which may render a charge point financially unviable; adequate 4710 surface dressed locations to allow highway standard line painting, which is required to enforce parking orders; and site expansion options as additional infrastructure such as ducting can be installed during initial civil works to afford future expansion at a minimal cost, whilst avoiding sterilising standard parking spaces until the numbers of electric vehicles increase. Manx Utilities works with Government Departments and other public authorities to identify 4715 appropriate sites and to identify where civil works are already planned to allow shared excavations where possible. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Supplementary question, Mr Moorhouse. 4720 Mr Moorhouse: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you, Minister. To help avoid range anxiety, is there a process in place to enable local people to influence the process?

4725 The Speaker: Mr Baker, Chairman to reply.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. As I have explained, there are a number of factors that are taken into account in planning where charge points can go, but if members of the public do have specific suggestions they would 4730 be more than welcome to make those suggestions to the customer services team at Manx Utilities and they can be properly evaluated.

The Speaker: Mr Callister.

4735 Mr Callister: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Minister for his response this afternoon. Can I ask the MUA Chairman if there is a list of the proposed sites to be used online; and can I ask the Chairman also to confirm if the one site that was originally earmarked for Onchan has been withdrawn? Thank you, Mr Speaker. 4740 The Speaker: Chairman to reply.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In terms of the specifics of the site in Onchan, I am quite happy to pick that up and discuss it 4745 with the Hon. Member – and in fact, both Hon. Members for Onchan as necessary. I do not know the sensitivities of the particular site in Onchan or indeed the details. In terms of current provision, there are 43 public charging sockets at 18 locations on the Island and these can be seen on the pod-point.com website. A further 30 sockets are planned during this year and 60 additional sockets in 2022 – obviously, subject to site acquisition.

______2080 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

4750 In terms of the specifics of ones that are in the pipeline at the moment: 16 charge points are due to be installed on Douglas Promenade and six charge points in Kirk Michael, as part of regeneration schemes; six charge points are due to be installed in East Quay, as part of the proposed works in Peel, and plans are being drawn up for four charge points near the campsite in Peel as well; the number of charge points at the northern pool in Ramsey is to be doubled to four 4755 sockets; and Manx Utilities are also in discussions with Port Erin Commissioners for additional charge points. I know the Hon. Member will inevitably ask me ‘What about Castletown?’ (Laughter)

The Speaker: We will have to ‘socket’ and see! 4760 Members: Ooh!

The Chairman: Manx Utilities have worked with Castletown Commissioners to expand the town’s number of charge points to six. 4765 Mr Callister: Six! There are already five; we only get one?

Ms Edge: Yes, exactly!

4770 Mr Moorhouse: And you’re not getting that!

The Chairman: All of these charge points are Pod Point, pay-to-use Smart charge points, Mr Speaker.

4775 The Speaker: A supplementary question, Mr Moorhouse.

Mr Moorhouse: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Is it possible for private companies to offer this facility or is it just the MUA that is responsible?

4780 Mr Thomas: Hear, hear.

The Speaker: Chairman to reply.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. 4785 Private companies can provide charging points and a number have done so. For example, Jacksons Motors, Mountain View Innovation Centre in Ramsey and the Motor Museum in Jurby, to name but three. Manx Utilities does not provide or install charge points for private companies and, in fact, Manx Utilities does not necessarily need to be involved in private companies needing to or wishing to 4790 put in provision, depending on their electricity consumption at present. Zurich is another company that I believe is leading the way in terms of provision for their staff. Obviously, I would suggest that if private companies are interested in stepping forward and making provision for their employees or customers then it would be well worth them getting in touch with the team at Manx Utilities. 4795 The Speaker: Supplementary question, Mr Shimmins.

Mr Shimmins: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The feedback I am receiving from electric vehicle users is that there are not enough charging 4800 points close to where people work in central Douglas. There are quite a lot of charging points in Government-owned locations, which are little used around the Island.

______2081 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

Is the Manx Utilities Authority stuck, in that it can only put these charging points in on Government-owned property? Is that the barrier to more central Douglas high-use charging points? 4805 The Speaker: Chairman to reply.

The Chairman: Thank you and I thank the Hon. Member for Middle for his question. The short answer is no, they do not have to be installed on Government land and, indeed, there 4810 are some charging points recently installed on South Quay in Douglas on private land. The important thing is that there must be public access to that. I think it is probably easier in the short term – or it has been easier for the Authority – to gain some traction with Government bodies just because of the closeness of the relationship. For example, the provision at the National Sports Centre is one where clearly it has been easy to make 4815 progress there, given the ease of public access and the fact that that is already in public ownership. But Manx Utilities is very happy to engage with landowners who wish to provide facilities. Obviously, it needs to be subject to the criteria and the considerations that I have already outlined, specifically an assessment of the location, including land ownership, the impact on drivers and cost of provision. In addition, clearly, planning considerations do come into it and there is often a 4820 planning angle to be considered. But I would reiterate my suggestion that if landowners or employers wish to become engaged in this that they reach out to Manx Utilities and develop conversation from there, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Supplementary question, Ms Edge. 4825 Ms Edge: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It seems to me that the areas that are chosen seem to be on a bit of a whim; there does not seem to be any planning around it. Obviously there are more people with Teslas in Kirk Michael, if they are getting six charging points, than there are in Onchan! I am beginning to wonder what 4830 the policy is around it. Would the Minister advise or circulate, if he does not have the information, to Members, is it not done on population settlement areas? (Mr Callister: Hear, hear.) How are you deciding where these go? Certainly, I think you said there were even some in Jurby, which surprises me, and we might get one in Onchan! (Interjections) 4835 Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Chairman to reply.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 4840 I understand the sensitivity from the Hon. Members for Onchan that they have only got one in their area, but to say –

Mr Callister: One? We would like one!

4845 Ms Edge: Yes, we haven’t got one yet!

The Chairman: I did say I would follow it up with you. There is a methodology. Hon. Members will be pleased I am not going to repeat the Answer that I gave to Mr Moorhouse to the original Question, but I did outline the approach, the 4850 methodology, the main factors being considered, and there is an element of opportunism in terms of where schemes are going on. It makes it easy for Manx Utilities to operate in a joined-up way with other parts of Government, so it costs less to do these things.

______2082 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

So, for example, there is a highway scheme ongoing in Kirk Michael at the moment. (Mr Cannan: Hear, hear.) It absolutely makes sense for provision to be made now whilst the 4855 ground is already dug up, in the same way as, I am sure Hon. Members will have noticed, there is civil engineering work going on on the Prom that has allowed the 16 charge points to be installed. But Manx Utilities has a target of one charge point per 10 electric vehicles and that is based on EU guidance, and should ensure that there are enough, but not too many, charge points available. From memory, there are something in the order of just over 500 electric vehicles. 4860 Mr Peake: Five hundred and eighty.

The Chairman: Five hundred and eighty. Thank you, Mr Peake. So we have got 43 currently and we have got another 30 planned over the remaining six and a half months of the year, so that 4865 should get us to about the right level by the end of the year. Whilst ever you go on a journey there are going to be some areas that have more and some that have got less, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Final supplementary, Mr Moorhouse. 4870 Mr Moorhouse: Thank you, Mr Speaker. How many charging points are located at the Island’s schools for aspirational reasons? This could have benefits?

4875 The Speaker: The Chairman to reply.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Currently, Manx Utilities do not have any public charge points at the Island’s schools. However, Manx Utilities has been discussing the possibility with the Department for Education, Sport and 4880 Culture. Whilst it would seem to be an obvious opportunity, there are some complexities, particularly around planning and parking, which means that that needs to be fully considered, but discussions are ongoing, Mr Speaker.

INFRASTRUCTURE

3.14. New Steam Packet vessel – Douglas Harbour

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Ms Edge) to ask the Minister for Infrastructure:

What, if any, works are required in Douglas Harbour to accommodate the new Steam Packet vessel; and whether an impact assessment has been carried out?

The Speaker: We turn to Question 14 and I call on the Hon. Member for Onchan, Ms Edge.

4885 Ms Edge: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister for Infrastructure: what, if any, works are required in Douglas Harbour to accommodate the new Steam Packet vessel; and whether an impact assessment has been carried out?

4890 The Speaker: I call the Minister for Infrastructure to reply.

______2083 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

The Minister for Infrastructure (Mr Baker): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The current berthing infrastructure on the King Edward VIII Pier was designed and constructed in the early 1990s for the ferry, King Orry, which was in service at that time. The fender system 4895 was modified following the introduction of the Ben my Chree, which came into service in 1998 and will, in turn, require modification to offer an adequate facility for the new vessel, Manxman. Whilst it had been anticipated that the new ferry would be larger than the Ben my Chree, there had until recently been little detail on which to base future requirements for the current berth. In December 2020, the Department received confirmation of the detailed design and general 4900 arrangements of the new Ro-Pax ferry. Using this, an assessment of the current berthing arrangements has been carried out. This confirms that, although the larger and more powerful vessel will be able to operate on a day-to-day basis from the facility in its current form, there is a clear need to carry out modifications in order to protect both the Pier and the vessel. Berthing studies for the new vessel demonstrate the modifications required to ensure the vessel can 4905 operate or remain safely onside in all conditions and considerations as to the extent of these works are currently ongoing. There is provision in the Pink Book for the capital funds needed to undertake this work, starting with the allocation of £250,000 to undertake the necessary investigation and design work.

4910 The Speaker: Supplementary question, Ms Edge.

Ms Edge: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Minister for that detailed Answer. Obviously, it is all ongoing at the present time, but does the Minister feel that the works will be complete by the time the vessel arrives? 4915 The Speaker: Minister to reply.

The Minister: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I can confirm that the works do not necessarily have to be completed before the vessel arrives. 4920 It is not that the berth cannot cope with the vessel, it is that there are some modifications to protect the Pier, which is basically the scour issue. Scouring will occur over time, so it would be preferable to have the work concluded before the new vessel comes into service, but if it is not then that is not a show-stopper. The structure of the King Edward VIII Pier itself requires some consolidation works and this was 4925 identified in the Harbours Strategy; and over the years as vessels have developed to become larger the engines and thruster power has also increased, so it does create a situation where there is potential for the harbour bed and stone pier face to be attacked from high volumes of pressured water during manoeuvring, which leads to undermining and washing out of the grout and destabilisation of the block work. 4930 Improvements must incorporate an increase in the length of the pier to allow the vessels to put out a suitable number of lines at the best angles to ensure a suitable spread of tension and force on to each of the lines, especially loadings which increase during poor weather. Should the procurement process run smoothly, it is anticipated that improvement works could commence in early 2022 and would ideally be concluded ready for the new vessel. 4935 The service date: there is no firm date as yet for the new vessel to be in service, but it is anticipated to be in 2023; and of course, my Department will remain in close discussion with the Steam Packet Company on this matter and many others over the coming months.

The Speaker: Supplementary question, Mr Thomas. 4940 Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does the Minister have any idea of whether any changes to the Harbours Strategy will be needed in respect of Douglas Harbour and, if so, at what cost?

______2084 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

Secondly, can the Minister advise whether the residents of South Quay should actually expect 4945 substantial works around the fact that we have now got a newer, more scouring vessel coming into operation?

The Speaker: Minister to reply.

4950 The Minister: The answer to the second part is no, Mr Speaker. The answer to the first question is that the Harbours Strategy was quite an all-encompassing strategy which outlined plans for the long-term development of the harbour, and within that the King Edward VIII Pier was identified for further work, along with a number of other elements. Within the Harbours Strategy in 2018, the King Edward VIII Pier upgrade was allocated a sum 4955 of £15 million to update the facility. Obviously, the detailed scheme needs to come back and go through the proper Treasury process. But there is provision within the Harbours Strategy and Hon. Members will recall that at the time each element of the strategy was to be brought forward for independent Tynwald approval at the time it was to be developed. So whilst there was that allocation of money, it is when a proper scheme is brought forward that it will go through the 4960 usual Treasury and Tynwald approvals.

The Speaker: Final supplementary, Ms Edge.

Ms Edge: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 4965 Obviously the £15 million, we have heard many answers from the Minister with regard to the new vessel and you did not know what it was, did not know about scouring and, quite clearly, you did not know that when the Harbours Strategy came to Tynwald. So clearly, does an update to the Harbours Strategy need to take place and be presented to this Hon. Court? Thank you, Mr Speaker. 4970 The Speaker: Minister to reply.

The Minister: Yes, thank you, Mr Speaker. I am not sure how the Hon. Member can expect me to know something back in 2018 before 4975 the Steam Packet had even identified that it was going to purchase the Manxman; and at that time, not only was I not even the Minister, the Steam Packet Company was not even in Government ownership. So frankly, I am not going to be accepting that criticism of lack of understanding, Mr Speaker. My focus is on getting the ferry terminal in Liverpool delivered and the King Edward VIII Pier 4980 work to accept the Manxman, which the Steam Packet Company has chosen to buy to fulfil their obligations, their business plan, to continue to deliver the outstanding service to the people of this Island that they have delivered for such a long period of time; and we need to work with them to ensure that not only do we have a fantastic sea service facility, we have good port facilities at both ends, Mr Speaker.

3.15. Housing improvement schemes – Assistance to improve living accommodation

The Hon. Member for Douglas Central (Mr Thomas) to ask the Minister for Infrastructure:

What housing improvement schemes have been made under Part 2 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011; and what plans he has to provide assistance to improve living accommodation?

______2085 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

4985 The Speaker: Question 15, I call on the Hon. Member for Douglas Central, Mr Thomas.

Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg leave to ask the Minister for Infrastructure what housing improvement schemes have been made under Part 2 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011; and what plans he 4990 has to provide assistance to improve living accommodation?

The Speaker: I call the Minister for Infrastructure to reply.

The Minister for Infrastructure (Mr Baker): Thank you, Mr Speaker. 4995 I can confirm that in 2019 the Department made the House Improvement (Adaptations) Scheme 2019 using its powers contained in sections 5 and 7 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011. The scheme was approved by Tynwald on 17th October 2019 and came into operation on 1st November of that year. In terms of my Department’s future plans, the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011 5000 provides the ability to develop schemes as required. Any scheme the Department brought forward will be subject to need and be both data and evidence led. At this point in time, my Department does not have any proposals for a new scheme. However, the Hon. Member will be aware that my Department is bringing forward the Landlord Registration Bill, which in due course, will provide data and information on the private rented sector. It is 5005 therefore possible that, subject to need, further house improvement schemes may come forward in due course. Should that be the case, I can reiterate that any scheme will be subject to formal consultation, Treasury concurrence, where relevant, and full Tynwald approval. The Hon. Member will also be aware that in addition to the scheme operated by my Department, the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture provides the Energy Efficient 5010 Scheme 2018, which provides assurance to residents seeking to improve their living accommodation and reduce the usage of fossil fuels.

The Speaker: Supplementary question, Mr Thomas.

5015 Mr Thomas: Thank you, Minister. So my understanding is that the Minister has just advised that the only scheme that has been made for a decade now is the one that was transferred from the DHSC to be better in line with the vires. Does the Minister agree with me that we do need to spend a huge amount somehow on 5020 improving the vacant properties and the properties that are in need of improvement in terms of living accommodation, and the Department of Infrastructure should be proactive in actually proposing a scheme combining public and private funds to deal with the vacant property issue and the fact that we have got £80 million of expenditure that is needed on private housing?

5025 The Speaker: Minister to reply.

The Minister: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I am not sure actually I can agree with the Hon. Member’s comment about the only thing that has come forward in a decade was something that came from the DHSC, because if he had listened 5030 to my Answer, the Department made the scheme in 2019 when Housing was part of my Department. So I think it was completely incorrect for him to assert that it was made by a different Department, but to be honest that is what we expect from the Hon. Member from Douglas much of the time. In terms of the issue of vacant property the Hon. Member has made his opinions clear. That is 5035 one of many challenges that face the Island and the housing sector, both private rented and owner-occupied. It may well be something that should be developed, but to jump to a mix of

______2086 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

private and public funding and to immediately elevate it to the top of the Department’s priorities on a complete whim is not something I am going to do, Mr Speaker.

5040 The Speaker: Supplementary question, Mr Thomas.

Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does the Minister agree with me that the adaptation scheme had been in existence a long time before the Department decided to put it with this legal basis in 2019? 5045 Secondly, does the Minister agree that he seems to have said that the only use of the housing improvement scheme will be for private rented accommodation when eventually the Department gets more information; so in other words, the Department has no plans to do anything about vacant properties or no plans to do privately owned and owner-occupied property for years, in fact? 5050 The Speaker: Minister to reply.

The Minister: Thank you very much. I think you have to bring it down to: what is the Department’s vires? So does the Department 5055 have both the vires and the intention to go into those areas that the Hon. Member has highlighted? That would need careful thought. The Hon. Member actually, I know is very good on his history, but he has not quite given us the full picture. There was a house improvement scheme in the past that targeted owner-occupiers. That was made under this Act. It was made by the Department of Social Care. It was called the 5060 Housing Improvement and Energy Conservation Scheme 2013. It ceased on 1st April 2015 when the budget was no longer available. So the scheme that my Department did bring through in late 2019 was a different scheme and was not the one that he referred to.

The Speaker: Supplementary question, Mr Thomas. 5065 Mr Thomas: Thank you. I think the Minister is actually confused in terms of the legislation, so does the Minister agree with me that the House Improvement and Energy Conservation Scheme 2010, to which he has just referenced, was made under previous legislation and was transitioned as part of this 5070 legislation coming into force before it was extinguished in 2013-14 by the Department of Social Care at the time? My second question: does the Minister agree with me that, with the concurrence of the Treasury, the Department may make schemes to assist residents of the Island, as defined in the scheme, to make specified improvements to their living accommodation or to living 5075 accommodation which they intend to occupy once specified improvements have been made? Then under section 7 of the Act, there is a whole range of possibilities to do with grants, to do with loans, to do with taking equity, to do with taking charges, and it is very unimaginative and very disappointing that the Department has not explored … since this legislation came into force and since Tynwald approved a £50 million bond to develop schemes, that his Department has not 5080 brought forward any schemes despite having the vires and despite having the money approved by Tynwald?

The Speaker: Minister to reply.

5085 The Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. There are many things that one may do; what one should do and what one does do are not necessarily the same.

______2087 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

The Speaker: Supplementary question, Mr Hooper. 5090 Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The scheme the Minister has referenced a couple of times is very specific to house adaptations for individuals with disabilities. I am just curious if the Minister will be able to circulate information on the number of applications that have been made and approved under the scheme since it was 5095 put into force? Also one of the requirements of the scheme is that the individual – obviously it is means-tested so you are on a low income anyway – is required to contribute 50% of the cost of any improvements themselves; so whether he can provide any information on the number of people who have applied and then not been able to fund it because they do not have the 50%? And what 5100 he is intending to do in this space to make sure that people on low incomes who are disabled actually can get these house improvements made, because the scheme, as it stands, seems to prohibit that from happening?

The Speaker: Minister to reply. 5105 The Minister: Mr Speaker, I am happy to accept the request from the Hon. Member for Ramsey and to get the information collated as requested and circulated, and to review what that tells us and to use that as an evidence base to consider how we should move forward.

3.16. Douglas Promenade – Red concrete remedial work

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Ms Edge) to ask the Minister for Infrastructure:

What progress has been made with remedial works on the red concrete on Douglas Promenade?

The Speaker: Question 16, I call on the Hon. Member for Onchan, Ms Edge. 5110 Ms Edge: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister for Infrastructure what progress has been made with remedial works on the red concrete on Douglas Promenade?

5115 The Speaker: I call on the Minister for Infrastructure to reply.

The Minister for Infrastructure (Mr Baker): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The main contractor, Auldyn Construction Ltd, and the rail designer, Burroughs Stewart Associates Ltd, have informed the Department that they will submit a proposal to rectify the 5120 concrete cracking defect in the near future. When the proposal is received the Department will review it to determine if it is adequate. Until both of these things have happened I am not in a position to give any further information.

The Speaker: Supplementary question, Ms Edge. 5125 Ms Edge: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wonder if the Minister can advise, has he seen any specialist reports with regard to the issues and has he got any financial appraisal of what the costs will be to do any rectification? Thank you, Mr Speaker.

______2088 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

5130 The Speaker: Minister to reply.

The Minister: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. In terms of the financial aspects, this is a matter for the contractor and the rail designer. They need to remediate the situation and the financial aspects are matters for them, not for the 5135 Department. It is very much that the ball is in their court. The cost for repair will be met by the contractor and/or the rail designer as this is a defect under the contract. It is up to them to work up a solution that meets the Department’s needs. The Department will require a solution that protects the interests of the taxpayer and will only accept a solution that offers a proper solution to the problem of cracking, looks right and meets the 40-year design life. 5140 The Speaker: Supplementary question, Mr Shimmins.

Mr Shimmins: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Is the Minister happy with the design on this section of the Promenade works? It has been 5145 suggested that the concrete and the horse tram rails expand and contract at different rates, reflecting their different thermal expansion coefficients and the laying of the concrete right next to the steel rail is potentially a major design flaw. What are his views on this? Will we see ongoing cracking on this concrete, causing additional works and disruption on the Promenade for many years to come simply because you should not have concrete right next to 5150 steel?

The Speaker: Minister to reply.

The Minister: Thank you very much. 5155 The Hon. Member makes a very pertinent point, and the key question is: is this a design issue or is this an implementation issue? So has the solution been designed incorrectly and implemented correctly or has the right solution been designed and implemented incorrectly. In either of those scenarios that is a matter between the contractor and the designer to resolve between them. There has been lots of dialogue between them. There have been various 5160 documents produced in the past. Either way, the Department is the client and expects the solution to be provided. I am confident that that is going to be the case and it has to be the right solution for the scheme and for the people of the Isle of Man. But to directly answer the Hon. Member’s question, I expect the solution to resolve the problem for the long-term, Mr Speaker. 5165 The Speaker: Supplementary question, Mrs Barber.

Mrs Barber: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I note the Minister said the financial aspects are for the designer and the contractor, which I 5170 completely appreciate, but the financial implications will very much be for the businesses and the residents of the Prom who are already emotionally and financially exhausted. I wonder how he will consider this in the bigger scheme of how this is rectified.

The Speaker: Minister to reply. 5175 The Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Again the Hon. Member makes an important point. I think she is making the assumption that remedying the situation is going to be a long, drawn-out affair. My understanding of what is currently being considered is that it is going to be done effectively within the current timescales, 5180 so we are not expecting a big exercise to go back and dig up what has been done and create a lot

______2089 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

of disruption. We are expecting that it will be resolved within the contractual framework and timescales that are already in place.

The Speaker: Supplementary question, Ms Edge. 5185 Ms Edge: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am just wondering if the Minister can confirm who signed the design off? Did the Department have any say and did his engineers have any say in the design and the sign-off of the design? There was a reason Douglas Promenade was done in asphalt with rails in amongst that, but obviously I 5190 did ask him in my very first question what specialist reports has his Department seen and how many has he received?

The Speaker: Minister to reply.

5195 The Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The point of having a professional specialist involved in designing things is to let them design it, so my Department did not do the design and the reports are matters for both parties. Clearly the designer’s starting position will be that their design is not at fault and the contractor’s starting position will be that their contractual work is not at fault. The reality is both parties need to get 5200 an agreed solution. I am quite happy to update Hon. Members as soon as we have got clarity, but at the moment I would just be speculating.

The Speaker: Supplementary question, Mr Shimmins. 5205 Mr Shimmins: Thanks, Mr Speaker. I am grateful for the Minister’s response and he has clearly said that really this needs to be sorted out between the contractor and the designer. It has been suggested though that actually elsewhere these rails are laid on rubber mats to stop the difference between the thermal 5210 coefficient (Interjection) and effectively we might need to dig up all the rails again. That is a pretty frightening prospect, given the issues that we have had on the Promenade. Is there any likelihood of that at all, Minister?

The Speaker: Minister to reply 5215 The Minister: Not to the best of my knowledge, Mr Speaker. As far as I am concerned, the solutions that have been talked about are relatively straightforward to implement, but as I say, as soon as we have got clarity on this I will quite happily write to Hon. Members and appraise you. But my understanding is – and there is lots and lots of 5220 scrutiny around this and lots of work going on in all aspects of the team that will be involved – that this is something that will be a reasonable solution, an effective solution that will not be onerous to implement in the way that I think has perhaps been indicated by some of the comments. I would urge Hon. Members not to speculate and not to see this as a bigger issue than it is, but 5225 I will commit to updating all Hon. Members as soon as we have got complete clarity on the situation.

The Speaker: Final supplementary, Ms Edge.

5230 Ms Edge: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and obviously I thank the Minister. I would like the Minister to just re-confirm that there will be no additional cost to the Manx taxpayer and public; and can the Minister confirm, have any defect fees been called in by his

______2090 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

Department which would then perhaps be able to help the Hon. Member for Douglas East and the businesses? Clearly if there are defects there is an allowance within the contract for defects to be 5235 called in and obviously the Department, I would have expected to have done that and how much have they done with regard to that? How much have they received back from the contractor or the designer for delays?

The Speaker: Minister to reply 5240 The Minister: Thank you very much. The first part of the question was really reiterating the fact that this is not going to fall onto the public purse, and I think I have made it abundantly clear, but I will make it clear again, that the cost of this will be borne either by the designer or by the contractor, or by a combination of the 5245 two. In terms of the overall contractual situation, that is a matter which we have got our professional team engaged in. We have not received money back from the contractor, but clearly there is a whole process under the contractual framework for resolving these sort of issues, Mr Speaker.

3.17. Ronaldsway Airport – Scheduled taxiway and runway resurfacing

The Hon. Member for Douglas South (Mr Quine) to ask the Minister for Infrastructure:

What work is to be undertaken on the scheduled resurfacing of the taxiways and runways at Ronaldsway Airport; when it will commence; and what it will cost?

5250 The Speaker: Question 17, I call on the Hon. Member for Douglas South, Mr Quine.

Mr Quine: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister for Infrastructure – not that he has not had enough to answer this afternoon – what work is to be undertaken on the scheduled resurfacing of the taxiways and 5255 runways at Ronaldsway Airport; when it will commence; and at what cost? Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: I call on the Minister for Infrastructure to reply.

5260 The Minister for Infrastructure (Mr Baker): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Hon. Member for his Question and his ongoing interest in the Airport and air services. The Department is imminently commencing the second phase of a £9 million capital project to renew a number of operational areas at Ronaldsway. The first phase of works was undertaken in autumn 2019, in which aircraft parking stands seven and eight were renewed. The second phase 5265 of the project is due to commence on site in June and the main works will include: the widening of the runway end starter strips at both ends of the main 08/26 runway; the strengthening and resurfacing in part of the parallel Taxiway Alpha; the resurfacing of the 03/21 cross runway; important minor repairs to the forecourt of the Airport fire station; and renewal of the aeronautical ground lighting in the areas where these works take place. 5270 The Speaker: Supplementary question, Mr Quine.

Mr Quine: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

______2091 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

I would like to thank the Minister for his Answer. If you will permit me to just give a quick 5275 outline in order to help explain this question, for the benefit of Hon. Members – that is of course with the exception for the Hon. Member for Peel and Glenfaba, Mr Boot – a runway at an aerodrome is referenced by a two-figure designator. This corresponds with the first two figures and the runway’s magnetic bearing. So, for example, if a runway is 080 degrees from magnetic north then the runway’s designation is runway 08. The main runway at Ronaldsway is 08 and it is 5280 corresponding of a directional runway being 26 and the secondary being 03 and 21. Can the Minister confirm, therefore, what he has just said as to whether any commercial operators were consulted with regard to the works on the secondary runway, and that will be finished with a grooved surface; this will allow the dissipation of water during operations and wet conditions and will therefore aid performance planning for landing aircraft by increasing the 5285 performing standing weight for commercial aircraft? Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Minister to reply.

5290 The Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. That is a level of precise detail that I do not have, but I am very happy to advise the Hon. Member directly. I know he does know his subject matter in this area, and I am sure it is a helpful suggestion, but I cannot provide immediate clarity to this Hon. House.

5295 The Speaker: Further supplementary, Mr Quine.

Mr Quine: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and again I thank the Minister for his answer. I appreciate I am speaking in somewhat technical language with relation to this Question. However, I would like to speak directly with regard to what the Minister said in his Answer to the 5300 original Question: that is the work to be carried out on the starter strips. I would be grateful if the Minister could seek to undertake a written reply to this because of the technicality involved. Would he agree with me that the widening of the extension strips at either end of the main runway will serve no practical purpose whatsoever, by which I mean it will not alter what is referred to as declared distance for the calculations and performance planning considerations, would therefore 5305 be a waste of taxpayers’ money and clearly an exercise in cosmetic vanity? Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Minister to reply.

5310 The Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I cannot, unfortunately, agree with those comments, because clearly if I did I would be taking some action to make sure that that work was excluded from the package, which has already been approved. What that question boils down to is why is it necessary to widen the main runway starter 5315 strips? That is the fundamental question the Hon. Member is asking. The immediate requirement is for those works to be carried out first in order to allow for the main taxiway to be taken out of use for two months and, as the Hon. Member would know, large aircraft operators such as easyJet would have a loss of take-off run available on departure as they cannot currently turn around the aircraft on the runway within the reduced width starter strip. Turning around and straightening 5320 to line up for take-off would mean using up part of the take-off distance available, which could mean that operators like easyJet may need to restrict the number of passengers and bags that they could carry which as a one-off may be acceptable, but as a sustained situation, would not. If the works were not to be done at all by maintaining future reduced width starter strips then at any stage when the main taxiway was out of use – for example, an aircraft has a maintenance 5325 failure or if the Taxiway Alpha is out of use for work in progress, has a taxiway lighting failure or is

______2092 K138 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th MAY 2021

blocked by a vehicle or contaminated by adverse weather conditions – there could be future issues of not being able to use the full length of the runway for take-off. However, the Department has looked at the point the Hon. Member has made, and has looked at what the implications are of potentially removing that element from the contract, which has 5330 already been placed, would be, and there would be substantial costs to take those out of the existing contract and it would add no value. So there is value in the work and it does provide a degree of future-proofing, so the Department’s perspective is to continue with that work.

The Speaker: Final supplementary, Mr Quine. 5335 Mr Quine: Yes, thank you, Mr Speaker. If the Minister will report back to his Department and see if they considered what is called a promulgation by NOTAM – a notice to air crew that the starter extension would be out of commission and therefore it is perfectly acceptable for aircraft to backtrack, so to land on the 5340 main runway, turn 180 degrees and then proceed to the parking area from there, so at no extra cost to the taxpayer. I appreciate what he says, that it is now factored into the contract, and I am sad to say that that happens to be the case. Thank you, Mr Speaker. 5345 The Speaker: Minister to reply.

The Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am happy to take the point back that the Hon. Member has made. It is not an area that I have 5350 got deep technical knowledge on, as you would expect. But we do need to make sure that our Airport is appropriately fit for purpose and this scheme was heavily scrutinised, it has gone through all the governance that one would expect, but I am happy to take that question back just to give him closure on that particular matter.

5355 The Speaker: Hon. Members will be relieved to learn that that completes the business before the House today. The House is now adjourned until our next sitting, which will be 10.30 on 15th June in Tynwald Court. Thank you, Hon. Members.

The House adjourned at 5.10 p.m.

______2093 K138