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

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF TYNWALD COURT

DOUGLAS, Wednesday, 19th, February, 1986 at 10.30 a.m.

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

In the Keys: The Speaker (the Hon. Sir Charles Kerruish, O.B.E.), Messrs. W.K. Quirk, W.A. Gilbey, J.D.Q. Cannan, Mrs. C.M. Christian, Messrs. S.L. Morrey, J.H. Kneale, D.G. Maddrell, R.A. Payne, P. Karran, M.R. Walker, N.Q. Cringle, Dr. D.L. Moore, Messrs. C.A. Cain, A.R. Bell, B. May, G.V.H. Kneale, E.C. Irving, C.B.E., A.C. Duggan, D.C. Cretney, D.F.K. Delaney, D. Martin, J.A. Brown, with Mr. R.B.M. Quayle, Clerk of Tynwald.

The Lord Bishop took the prayers.

PUBLIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM — QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE — STATEMENT BY MR. DELANEY

The Governor: Hon. members, the hon. member for East Douglas has asked me for leave to make a statement and I call upon Mr. Delaney.

Mr. Delaney: Prior to that, Your Excellency, I require the services of this hon. Court if they would call to the Bar of the Court later on this morning the editor of the Isle of Man Gazette, Mr. William Dale. I beg to move:

That Mr. William Dale be summoned to the Bar o f Tynwald as a witness.

The Governor: Is it hon. members’ wish that Mr. William Dale should be called to the Bar of this Court? Will those in favour say aye; those against say no.

Mrs. Christian: Your Excellency, before that happens could we have some reasons why this should be so?

The Governor: Yes.

Public Telecommunications System — Question of Privilege — Statement by Mr. Delaney T 1112 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986

Mr. Delaney: Your Excellency, in order to make the statement which will need confirmation of certain parts, they have to be confirmed by Mr. William Dale, the editor of the said Isle o f Man Gazette.

Mr. Gilbey: Your Excellency, can we be told about this, we are just being told mysteries. I think we need a clearer reason why this gentleman should be summoned here at, no doubt, some inconvenience to himself.

The Governor: I think the case which has been put by Mr. Delaney is that in order for his statement to be complete he needs the opportunity for this person to be questioned by the Court. If subsequently, when the statement has been made, it appears unnecessary it may not then be our wish to proceed with his questioning. I ask again, will hon. members in favour of this preliminary action being taken so that he is here and available, say aye; those against no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. 1 call on Mr. Delaney.

Mr. Delaney: Thank you, Your Excellency. I wish to take the Court through a chain of events which commenced with the meeting of the members a week on Monday in the rooms of Executive Council where we were informed, as members outside of the committee and Executive Council, of what the nomination would be for the telecommunications service of the Isle of Man. At that time most members, after being been told about the SLIVi million which would be offered, were euphoric; the feeling was it was Utopia and I, with all the members, felt the same way. At that time I think I was the first to congratulate the chairman on getting such a deal. I also handed in, because I thought they were unnecessary, the documents which we had been handed, four documents been handed to members, as I thought they were non-necessary. I then on the Tuesday morning, having heard Manx Radio where the Chairman of Executive Council made a statement and, with permission, I would like to quote from that statement: ‘And there was always the danger of having a public debate, but on the other hand I think it would have been very wrong for Government to have made the decision without publishing the documents and without the public having an opportunity to express their view. I think this has always been a danger and that the whole thing could have been wrapped up and finalised before the public even knew what we were talking about.’ The statement also contains certain other references to the documents, to which I will refer later. Having heard that I then came to the conclusion that the documents were going to be made public because at the end of the debate on the Monday night there was some confusion of what was private and what was not private. I was quite clear in my own mind that certainly Mr. William Dawson’s, the Government Treasurer’s document was private. But on the assumption that the documents were to be made public and in the knowledge that the Isle o f Man Gazette was to carry the story of what was in the documents I then had second thoughts about leaving the documents with the Clerk of Tynwald, as I had previously done, and I removed them. I actually removed them from his ownership into mine and the Speaker was there when I actually drew them out. I was asked by the other gentlemen who was called to the Bar of this Court would I give him the documents. I said ‘Well, I cannot give you the docu­ ment being put forward by the Government Treasurer as I still believe that is private and confidential but certainly from the statements being made this morning — that

Public Telecommunications System — Question of Privilege — Statement by Mr. Delaney TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 T il 13 was on the Tuesday morning — by the Chairman of Executive Council, you can have the expert’s report’. So I passed it on. That is my total involvement in that situation and my conscious is clear because one officer of this Court can confirm that he was of the same opinion as me that the expert’s report was not private and confidential, an officer, and I am sure that he will make this known to the members if they so desire.

Your Excellency, from that situation we then come to the Wednesday morning. On leaving a meeting in Ramsey in the Board of Social Security and travelling back to Douglas, I was amazed, somewhat amazed to find that a member of Executive Council, Mr. Anderson, was actually quoting parts of the report, but it confirmed in my mind that in actual fact it was a public document; there was no doubt about that. On the Thursday the Gazette carried the whole story on the middle pages, what had been recommended by the expert. Now I never passed it to the Gazette, and I am aware which member did. I did not pass it to Manx Radio. They had a copy of the document. I never did. There are other members of this Court that I am aware of passed on these documents. But if they are looking for a political head to have, and that seems to be the object of a political trial at the Bar of that Court, because one of the people who have been called to the Bar of that Court has already declared he is a candidate in the forthcoming general election and to have a situation where the members of this Court are holding trial over a potential candidate or opposition, in my opinion, is totally wrong. (Interruption) I am aware the same party, of which I am not a member, intends putting a candidate in my . . . The hon. member for Ramsey, Your Excellency, is making his own statement over there. The situation is I am aware that this party is putting a candidate in my constituency and I feel totally wrong that I should sit here in judgement on them or try to destroy that political group, even though I disagree with them and I think that is totally wrong, sir, and I think this Court is being used for the wrong purpose. If they want a head to say who passed on one of the documents, they can have mine but I am aware that several other members of this Court passed the documents to the media and to other persons and if those members are not prepared to stand up and be counted I certainly am, but I am not prepared to see this Court send someone to gaol because they have had information passed between them as a political grouping and it is obvious from what Mr. Leventh&rpe said yesterday, or did not say, that the information was given to him in his position in a political party and we are asking him to denounce his own party at the Bar at that Court or misinformation which he had, because that is what it is, misinformation.

Your Excellency, I hope that this hon. Court, because my conscious is clear, will clear its own conscious by letting those two gentlemen leave the Bar of this Court. But if we want to find out who gave out the documents I would be interested in knowing who gave it to Manx Radio and I would be interested in who gave it to the Gazette because that is the media. But the media are fortunate. They have a privilege. If they are brought to the Bar of this Court. They do not have to answer. Most of what I have said can be confirmed by different people in this Court, but I feel it is totally wrong what went on yesterday morning and it does no credit to this Court whatsoever.

Public Telecommunications System — Question of Privilege — Statement by Mr. Delaney Til 14 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986

Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: Your Excellency, the hon. member of East Douglas has just made a statement which has absolutely no relevance to the matters that were mentioned on Manx Radio and (Members: Hear, hear.) why we brought these two gentlemen here, no relevance at all, sir.

PUBLIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM — GRANT OF LICENCE — QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE —FURTHER WITNESS QUESTIONED

The Governor: Hon. members, if it is your wish I propose, therefore, that we should proceed and I would like to outline to you the procedure which I believe we should follow. We do not need to take any of this in a hurry. It is very grave and serious business. This is what I propose. In the first place I propose that in accordance with your decision yesterday we should call Mr. Charles Guard to the Bar of the Court. He has but has not yet handed to us, but is ready to hand to us, transcripts of the two Manx Radio programmes referred to and members may have these when we decide that we want them. Once Mr. Guard has been examined by members I propose to re-call Mr. Leventhorpe and Mr. Turner so that members can have the opportunity further to question them. Are hon. members happy with that procedure so far?

The Speaker: Your Excellency, in expressing my satisfaction with the procedure I want to be perfectly clear of the issue before the Court. What is the issue, sir, in your opinion at this moment?

The Governor: The issue before the hon. Court at the moment is a matter of privilege which has been raised by the hon. member for West Douglas.

The Speaker: Could you be explicit as to what that breach of privilege is, sir?

The Governor: The hon. member explained it very clearly yesterday, I believe, but you may do so again if you wish. .

The Speaker: Your Excellency, I have had no opportunity to have a Hansard of yesterday’s proceedings and I wish to be perfectly clear, in a matter of some seriousness, as to exactly what the terms we are discussing are.

The Governor: I call on the hon. member for West Douglas.

Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: A reflection on the integrity of the four members of the Telecommunications Committee, that they withheld a document supposedly prepared by a second consultant.

The Speaker: Thank you, Your Excellency.

The Governor: Hon. members, are we happy to proceed? (It was agreed) Then I call on Mr. Guard to come to the Bar of the Court and the Clerk to administer the oath.

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence — Question of Privilege — Further Witness Questioned TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 Til 15

Mr. Guard took the oath.

The Governor: Mr. Guard, you have been summoned here today to answer questions from hon. members on matters relating to the activities of members of the Court. You are under oath, as I am sure I do not need to remind you, and you are obliged to answer any questions put to you by hon. members. I must warn you that if you fail to answer these questions you could be punishable as in contempt of Court. I ask hon. members to confine their questions to Mr. Guard to the facts of the instances alleged by the hon. member for West Douglas and I will most firmly disallow any questions that are not strictly to the point.

Hon. members, you may now proceed to ask Mr. Guard questions and I turn first to the hon. member for West Douglas.

Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: Thank you, Your Excellency. Mr. Guard, on the 8 a.m. news on Thursday 13th February you made the following remark: ‘A claim was made yesterday by Mr. David Turner of the local telecommuncations firm, ITEL, that there was a secret report to the Telecommunciations Committee from a second consultant which in fact recommended that Cable and Wireless should have the franchise and not British Telecom.“ Is that correct, sir?

Mr. C. Guard: That is, Your Excellency, correct.

Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: On the Mannin Line on Wednesday 12th February Mr. David Turner, talking to David Collister, said: ‘You probably already know that I am going to ask for an inquiry into this anyway. I am going to make an accusation this afternoon to Charles Guard when he comes to interview me, because there is something going on behind the scenes that members have not been told.’ From this remark it is obvious that you had made an arrangement to go and interview Mr. Turner that afternoon. When had you made the arrangement? Was it as his request and had he indicated to you details of the accusation he was going to make when you visited him?

Mr. Guard: Your Excellency, I had made the arrangement with Mr. Turner on Wednesday morning before the Mannin Line. He had phoned me in the news room at Manx Radio, which people do when they have a story, and asked me would I be interested in interviewing him, which I was.

Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: Where and at what time did you interview Mr. Turner?

Mr. Guard: I went to Mr. Turner’s office in Castle Street at 2.15 on Wednesday afternoon.

Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: On the Mandate programme broadcast on Thursday 13th February you began with these remarks: ‘Well, as you heard in the news, Cable and Wireless are returning to the Isle of Man today to seek a meeting with the Chair­ man of Executive Council. He has agreed to see them and Mr. Howard Klein will be meeting Dr. Edgar Mann some time in the early afternoon. Part of the problem

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence — Question of Privilege — Further Witness Questioned TI 116 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 seems to be the revelation that there might have been another report which in fact would have recommended Cable and Wireless, a report from another consultant. This came to light on yesterday’s Mannin Line when Mr. David Turner of the local telecommunications firm ITEL came on to say, that an M.H.K. had told him that that this was the case. I went to see Mr. David Turner yesterday and he told me more about this and other criticisms.’ Is that a correct account of what you said?

Mr. Guard: It is, Your Excellency, yes.

Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: Now to these opening remarks of yours will you confirm that Mr. Turner replied ‘Well, it would appear that there is a denial of another report but there has certainly been an interim report, from what I can gather. I think that the members should be in possession of all the facts when being asked to vote on an issue of this importance.’ What opinion did you form from those remarks?

Mr. Guard: I am sorry, Your Excellency, am I confirming that that was what was said? The Governor: You are being asked for the opinion that you formed on those remarks. Mr. Guard: I am not aware I formed any opinion at that moment. I was merely thinking of the next question.

Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: Well, could you tell the Court what your next three ques­ tions were? Have you got the transcripts that you could . . .

Mr. Guard: I have the transcripts. My next three questions were: ‘Can I ask you where you got that information?’ To which Mr. Turner replied ‘I was told by an M.H.K.’ To which I asked — Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: Could you go back to the question before that?

Mr. Guard: Well, my first question was —

Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: ‘What do you think . . .?

Mr. Guard: ‘What do you think this interim report contains or contained?’ and Mr. Turner replied ‘Well, I am led to believe it contained the information that perhaps Cable and Wireless should be, well, technically are, in front on this particular issue.’ I then asked Mr. Turner where he got that information from. He replied ‘I was told by an M.H.K.’ I then asked him: ‘And obviously not a member of Executive Council?’ Those were the questions.

Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: Thank you. Did Mr. Turner at any time indicate who the M.H.K. was?

Mr. Guard: No. Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence — Question of Privilege — Further Witness Questioned TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 T il 17

Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: Now this is a different matter than was mentioned by the hon. member for East Douglas in his statement. That being so, had you any idea who the M.H.K. was they were referring to?

Mr. Guard: I neither inquired from Mr. Turner on tape or off tape as to the identity of the M.H.K.

Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: Is it true that Mr. Turner had a copy of Dr. Pardoe’s report with him? Mr. Guard: It is, Your Excellency.

Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: Did he indicate where he had got it from?

Mr. Guard: He did not.

Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: Had you seen a copy of that report previously?

Mr. Guard: I had seen a copy, yes.

Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: And where did you get it from?

Mr. Guard: I got it from an M.H.K. ^

Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: Would you name him?

Mr. Guard: Yes, I spoke to him last night. He is happy that I should name him and he is Mr. Charles Cain. Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: During your interview with Mr. Turner a telephone call was received from Mr. Klein of Cable and Wireless. Was this a coincidence or had it been arranged to coincide with your visit?

Mr. Guard: Unusual as it may sound, it was in fact a pure coincidence.

Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: Then why do you think should Mr. Klein ring Mr. Turner to tell him he was coming to the Island? Mr. Guard: Your Excellency, I have no idea why Mr. Klein would have done that and I am not in a position to speak on his behalf.

Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: Now from what you said on the radio it was obvious you had overheard some of the remarks of Mr. Klein. Was Mr. Klein discussing the supposed second consultant’s report?

Mr. Guard: I do not think I could faithfully relay the conversation, as I was overhearing it on a handset that was close to somebody’s ear, but I understand the gist of it was that he was telling Mr. Turner that he was returning to the Island the next day. I honestly cannot vouch for what else was said.

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence — Question of Privilege — Further Witness Questioned TI 118 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986

Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: Now after the call from Mr. Klein, Mr. Turner said to you: ‘It would appear that my suspicions have been well-founded because Mr. Klein is going to ask for an interview tomorrow.’ What suspicions did you think Mr. Turner was talking about? Mr. Guard: Again, Your Excellency, I do not always assess the information I am given there and then. I merely move on to the next question. I have no idea. That was Mr. Turner’s statement.

Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: Did you believe that it was connected with this so-called second consultant’s report?

Mr. Guard: I really cannot comment as to whether I believed it or not, Your Excellency. I have no recollection.

Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: That is all. Thank you.

The Governor: Do any other hon. members wish to ask Mr. Guard any questions? Mr. Delaney: Yes, Your Excellency. I need to confirm the statement I read from the transcript of Manx Radio and if I can quote again, if he has a copy; I think he has a copy.

Mr. Guard: Well, that is true, Your Excellency, as a transcript of the interview I did with Dr. Mann.

Mr. Delaney: Thank you, Mr. Guard, thank you, indeed.

Mr. Cain: Mr. Guard, would you confirm that the copy of the report that I gave to you was for your eyes only, to enable you to understand the nature of the decision that was being made by Government so as to assist you in your task of interviewing and disseminating the information on the radio?

Mr. Guard: This is true, Your Excellency, but on the understanding that I would not show it to anybody else. Mr. Cain: And did you in fact show it to anybody else?

Mr. Guard: No.

Mr. Cain: Thank you.

Mr. Cannan: Mr. Guard, when you interview people and their statements are perhaps not extreme but there are accusations, do you caution them that they may perhaps on reflection wish to withdraw what they said, as an experienced interviewer?

Mr. Guard: I do not caution them, Your Excellency, but they can withdraw it. But there is the understanding in the reasonably relaxed atmosphere in which

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence — Question of Privilege — Further Witness Questioned TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 T il 19 we work that should they wish anything to be removed or withdrawn afterwards then I would be willing to do that.

Mr. Cannan: May I continue, sir?

The Governor: Yes, you may.

Mr. Cannan: Will you accept that you are an experienced interviewer and that those who you interview might not be fully cognizant of what they may or may not say on the radio and perhaps it might be a little more helpful if you did actually suggest to them that they were, shall we say, going over the top unless they could substantiate what they were saying?

Mr. Guard: Your Excellency, I think in most cases, certainly in this particular case, the interviewee is quite happy with what he is saying. He has had plenty of time to think about it. He also has the opportunity of hearing the tape back. It is not in my interests to persuade people not to speak to me.

The Governor: Mr. Delaney.

Mr. Cannan: Sorry, I have one more, sir. I do not recall which morning it was on Mandate but on one of the days mentioned you said, as best as I can remember, ‘These reports are not all that secret. I have here in my hand a secret report. I cannot show it to you but this is what it sounds like. So you were virtually letting everybody know that you had a copy of the secret report.’

Mr. Guard: That is right, Your Excellency, the confidential report. However, it was not shown to anyone nor were the contents disclosed.

Mr. Delaney: Could you just affirm the time and the date on which you received that report from Mr. Cain?

Mr. Guard: I think it was Tuesday or ... I think it was Tuesday evening, Your Excellency.

The Governor: Are there any other questions, hon. members? Thank you, Mr. Guard. I now propose, with the agreement of members, to re-call Mr. Leventhorpe.

The Speaker: Your Excellency, before re-calling the witness may I have some guidance from you, sir? We are conducting these proceedings under the provisions of an Act of Tynwald, under the Standing Orders, and are we also, sir, conducting them in the ultimate under the guidance of Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice, which is an accepted thing to do when there is a void in respect of procedure?

The Governor: Well, the proceedings are those which have been hammered out between the learned Attorney and the learned Clerk.

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence — Question of Privilege — Further Witness Questioned TI 120 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986

The Speaker: I am not interested in the Attorney-General or the learned Clerk, sir. I am intersted in knowing whether or not ultimately we resort to “Erskine May” when there is no clear pattern defined in law or Standing Orders.

The Governor: And we are, I am assured by the learned Clerk, only where there is a void, where there is no clear pattern.

The Speaker: Thank you, Your Excellency.

The Governor: Mr. Leventhorpe, you have been re-called here today to answer questions from hon. members on certain comments that you have made to the media relating to the activities of members of this Court. I would remind you that you remain under oath and that you are obliged to answer any questions put to you which relate to these instances, and that if you fail to answer them you could be punishable as in contempt of the Court. I would ask hon. members to confine their questions to Mr. Leventhorpe to the facts of the instances alleged by the hon. member for West Douglas and I will disallow any questions that do not relate to that mat­ ter. Hon. members, you may now proceed —

Mr. R. Leventhorpe: Your Excellency, may I make a statement?

The Governor: Yes, you may.

Mr. Leventhorpe: Thank you, Your Excellency. I am grateful to this Court for this opportunity to make a statement. I want to make it entirely clear that in the Mannin Line broadcast I made reference to two expert reports, one of which was supposed to favour Cable and Wireless and I asked, then, what had happened to this report, if it existed. At that time only members of Tynwald had seen any of the reports, but the information supplied to me was from David Turner who has authorised me to supply this information to the Court. The reports that Mr. Turner was mentioning were apparently, first of all, one dated 13th December 1985, a five- page document called ‘Initial Financial Appraisal of the Applications for the Public Telecommunications Operations Licence’ by William Dawson, Chief Financial Officer of the Treasury, and second, dated 10th January 1986, a lengthy document entitled ‘Consideration of Submissions for a Public Telecommunications Operations Licence’. This is a lengthy document prepared by Dr. B.H. Pardoe of the Salford University Industrial Centre Limited. At the time I made that statement I had seen neither report and obviously accept the statement that there was a report favouring Cable and Wireless is incorrect. For this I unreservedly apologise. I repeated on a radio programme what I believed to be true and I readily accept, after hearing Mr. Anderson on that programme, that I had been misinformed about their contents. I ask you to accept that I acted in good faith and make a full explanation of this position to the hon. Court.

The Governor: May I ask hon. members of the Court if they accept that state­ ment? (It was agreed) Hon. members, you may now, if you wish, ask questions and I turn first to the hon. member for West Douglas.

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence — Question of Privilege — Further Witness Questioned TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 T1121

Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: Mr. Leventhorpe, in view of the statement you have just made it would appear that you unreservedly withdraw the accusation that was im­ plied in your remarks, that there were two experts reports carried out, one of which favoured Cable and Wireless very emphatically.

Mr. Leventhorpe: I accept, sir, and I apologise that I stated that there was a report favouring Cable and Wireless.

Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: Now the question arose yesterday about the remark that Cable and Wireless people had left the Island feeling that they had not been treated on equal terms. Again we asked you on this yesterday: did you talk to them before they left and what justification had you for making such a remark?

Mr. Leventhorpe: I would repeat, sir, that my information mainly came from Mr. Turner. I would say that I am chairman of an organisation known as the ‘Future of Mann’. We have quite a large membership and a great many sympathisers. I do receive information by various means from a great many people. Now I do not take all of that into too great account but when several things come to me from different sources I am bound to take some notice of them. I cannot name my sources on this because very often I do not know who they are. I get a number of telephone calls. I get messages left on my answer-phone. But these are impressions that I had. I only said, I think, in that interview that it was the impression that I had.

Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: Is Mr. Turner a member of your organisation, the Future of Mann?

Mr. Leventhorpe: Mr. Turner is a member of the organisation.

Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: No further questions.

The Governor: Do any other hon. members wish to ask questions? Mr. Delaney, did you catch my eye?

Mr. Delaney: Yes, sir, please. Mr. Leventhorpe, I need some clarification of the statement I have made early on, sir, and you appreciate that point, no doubt. Am I a member of your organisation?

Mr. Leventhorpe: No, sir.

Mr. Delaney: I have been made aware that you are going to put a candidate up against me at the next election so I have nothing to gain in assisting your party. Is that correct?

Mr. Leventhorpe: I would say that was entirely true, Your Excellency.

Mr. Delaney: Have I spoken to you in relation to these documents at any time from the time they were issued to members?

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence — Question of Privilege — Further Witness Questioned TI 122 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986

Mr. Leventhorpe: No.

Mr. Delaney: Thank you, sir.

Mr. Cannan: Mr. Leventhorpe, you have stated you are an official of the Future of Mann, a political association, and I recall you fought a House of Keys bye-election for Middle about ten months ago, losing by some five or six votes. Sir, do you consider your radio interviews, letters to the Press, contributions to radio phone-in programmes, part of your on-going political activities?

Mr. Leventhorpe: Yes, Your Excellency, I do.

Mr. Cannan: Do you consider the comments you make are part of the daily rough and tumble of politics?

Mr. Leventhorpe: I do, sir, yes.

Mr. Cannan: After today’s proceedings have been settled and completed will you feel inhibited or intimidated to continue your political activities?

The Governor: Mr. Cannan, I do not very much like your line of questioning (Members: Hear, hear.) and I must ask you to confine your questions to the question of privilege which has been raised by the hon. member for West Douglas. I call on Mr. Anderson.

Mr. Anderson: Yes, Your Excellency. Mr. Leventhorpe, do you not think that when you are making a statement over the radio and a lot of people have the opportunity to hear that and where it is not contradicted immediately it gives a very wrong and unfair impression to people who can suffer detrimentally because of it? Would it not be better to actually try and confirm that those statements that have been made are factual? That is the reason I came on the radio, to try to put the —

Mr. Leventhorpe: Your Excellency, I think one of the problems over this telecommunications business has been the total secrecy, blanket secrecy that has been imposed. It has been virtually impossible for any outsider to gain any information. It is a secrecy which I find, frankly, very surprising and I have Mr. Klein’s authority to say that it is no part of Cable and Wireless’ wish that these documents should have been kept secret.

Mr. Anderson: Your Excellency, would I ask the hon. gentleman if he would not agree that it would have been unfair to either party if those documents had been made public prior to the members of Tynwald hearing them?

Mr. Leventhorpe: As I understand it, Your Excellency, once the submissions had been made to Government they were not capable of being changed and therefore I cannot see that it made very much difference whether they were public to the whole of the Island, to the world or just to members of Tynwald.

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence — Question of Privilege — Further Witness Questioned TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 T1123 ------—

Mr. Callin: Could I refer, Mr. Leventhorpe, to answers that you gave to certain questions yesterday concerning your contact with Cable and Wireless. Could I ask you today, were all your contacts by telephone or were there any in writing?

Mr. Leventhorpe: I have nothing in writing, sir, no.

Mr. Callin: How many times did you actually make contact with Cable and Wireless and did they ever make contact with you?

Mr. Leventhorpe: I cannot speak for the exact number of times. Certainly they have contacted me and I have been in touch with them two or three times.

Mr. Callin: So they have contacted you?

Mr. Leventhorpe: They have contacted me.

Mr. Callin: Now if they have contacted you and you have contacted them on a number of occasions, yesterday you could not name the person at Cable and Wireless with whom you were in contact. Now I am going to ask you again today to please name the person at Cable and Wireless with whom you have been in contact.

Mr. Leventhorpe: Mr. Howard Klein.

Mr. Callin: Mr. Howard Klein. Thank you.

Mr. Cain: Would you agree that the decision that was made, in the light of the two submissions which were released to the public, was unintelligible?

Mr. Leventhorpe: Would you mind repeating it?

Mr. Delaney: With respect, Your Excellency, we are asking him for opinions here.

Mr. Cain: Would you agree that the two submissions from Cable and Wireless and British Telecom that were released did not seem to tie up with the decision that was publicised? Mr. Leventhorpe: I do not think I would like to answer that.

The Governor: I cannot allow that question and you have no need to answer it. Hon. members, are there any other questions?

The Speaker: One question, Your Excellency.

The Governor: Yes, first one Mr. Speaker and then Mr. Walker.

The Speaker: Could you tell me, sir, when you first received notice that you would be required to attend at the Bar of this House?

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence — Question of Privilege — Further Witness Questioned TI 124 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986

Mr. Leventhorpe: Sorry?

The Speaker: When were you noticed that you would be required to attend at the Bar of this House?

Mr. Leventhorpe: When I was sitting upstairs in the public gallery, Your Excellency.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Walker: I would like to ask Mr. Leventhorpe, Your Excellency, if he received a document headed ‘In Commercial Confidence’ would you respect that confidence?

Mr. Leventhorpe: Yes, I would, Your Excellency.

Mr. Walker: Thank you, Your Excellency.

The Governor: Hon. members, are there any other questions? If not, I propose to thank you,Mr. Leventhorpe, and call Mr. Turner. Mr. Leventhorpe you are now discharged as a witness, thank you. Mr. Turner.

Mr. D. Turner: Your Excellency, may I be permitted to make a statement?

The Governor: You may indeed.

Mr. Turner: Your Excellency, thank you for permitting me to make a state­ ment on this matter. I am happy to answer any questions put to me by this hon. Court with two exceptions. The first concerns my own telecommunications business and the second concerns the identity of the M.H.K. who has provided me with the information about this matter. As a matter of personal honour I cannot bring myself to do this.

My concern about the existence of two reports expressed on the Mannin Line is borne out by the fact there was the interim financial appraisal on 13th December 1985, provided by Mr. William Dawson, the Chief Financial Officer, and the Pardoe report on 10th January 1986. When I was referring to the reports I was referring to the documents, the second report which subsequently found to be Mr. Dawson’s report. Hon. members will know my interest in these matters and my concern, when I said that I had it on a M.H.K’s word and that the members had not got a copy of the interim report, and I do believe the Member of the House of Keys. I have sought to say openly, which I believe to be true, that the Dawson report of December was not circulated. As a Manxman I have a deep respect for Tynwald and for the Island and certainly would never seek to bring this hon. Court into contempt.

The Governor: May I first say, Mr. Turner, that you are perfectly in order not to answer questions about your own business; that is in order. However, you are obliged to answer all other questions relative to this issue and I now invite hon.

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence — Question of Privilege — Further Witness Questioned TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 T1125 members. I think I should first re-caution you that you have been summoned here today to answer questions from hon. members on certain comments you made in the media, relating to the activities of members of this Court, and to remind you that you are still under affirmation or oath and that you are obliged to answer any questions put to you which relate to these instances and that, if you fail to answer them, you could be punishable as in contempt of the Court. I ask hon. members again and very firmly to confine any questions to Mr. Turner to the facts of the instances alleged by the hon. member for West Douglas and I will disallow any questions that are not strictly on that point. I now invite hon. members to ask questions in turn, first the member for West Douglas.

Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: Yes, Your Excellency. Mr. Turner you have heard the statements made by Mr. Charles Guard here of the accuracy of the quotations that I have given from the interviews.

Mr. Turner: From my recollection of those interviews, yes, that is correct.

Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: And you accept them as being correct statements as well?

Mr. Turner: I do, yes.

Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: Yes. Now I would like,sir, to ask the same questions I asked yesterday. On the Mannin Line on Wednesday 12th February you made the following remark: ‘I am going to make an accusation this afternoon to Charles Guard when he comes to interview me, because there is something going on behind the scenes that members have not been told. We hear there is not another report. I have it on a M.H.K.’s word that there was an interim report and the members have not got a copy of that interim report. They have not got all the facts.’ Again, what justification have you got for making such an accusation?

Mr. Turner: I have the justification because there are two reports, and one is called an ‘interim’ report, and I have produced a paper to the M.H.K.’s which I circularised, saying that I now understood it to be a second report. Most members will have received that document from me.

Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: You are now claiming that the report by the Treasurer is the one you consider to be the second report?

Mr. Turner: Well, I am only repeating what an M .H.K. told me. If there is a third report I have no knowledge of that.

Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: No, that is not what . . . You have already agreed to the accuracy of the remarks,the evidence of Mr. Guard when you were talking about a consultant’s report which favoured Cable and Wireless.

Mr. Turner: Those were the words of the M.H.K. and I purely repeated the words the member told me.

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence — Question of Privilege — Further Witness Questioned TI 126 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986

Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: Well, that has got nothing at all to do with Mr. Dawson’s report.

Mr. Turner: With respect it has because I was not in possession of Mr. Dawson’s report at the time, so I did not know what it contained. I could only assume what it contained from what I had been told.

Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: But you stated very positively you were going to make accusations that there was a second consultant’s report which favoured Cable and Wireless.

Mr. Turner: I think the wording is not quite like that; ‘which I was led to believe contained’ I think the wording was.

Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: The wording has already been vouched for by Mr. Guard and you have accepted it here.

The Governor: Do you wish to refer to the transcript.

Mr. Turner: It says here: ‘I have it on an M.H.K.’s word that there was an interim report and the members have not got a copy of that report. They have not got all the facts.’ That is what the document says.

Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: That is what your remarks said but Mr. Guard in his evidence has agreed that the remarks he made leading up to this, which you have not challenged, is an accurate statement as went out on Manx Radio and that said something entirely different. It referred to a second consultant’s report which favoured Cable and Wireless.

Mr. Turner: Do we believe the transcript or what? This is a transcript, with respect.

Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: I am quoting from the transcript and we have already had the evidence from . . .

Mr. Turner: I do not see how, Your Excellency, I can answer any further than what is in the transcript.

The Governor: Yes, I think we may be very slightly at cross-purposes. Mr. Kneale, I wonder if you could refer to the transcript and to the particular point and which programme we are referring to.

Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: I am referring to the programme first of all on the 8 a.m. news on 13th February when Mr. Guard made the following remark: ‘A claim was made yesterday by Mr. David Turner of the local telecommunications firm ITEL that there was a second report to the Telecomunications Committee from a second consultant, which in fact recommended that Cable and Wireless should have the franchise and not British Telecom.’

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence — Question of Privilege — Further Witness Questioned TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 T1127

Mr. Turner: Excuse me, Your Excellency, those are the words of Mr. Guard. Those are not the words of me.

Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: No, they are the words of Mr. Guard and again I agree with this, but it was leading up and again I would refer to th^Mandate programme broadcast on Thursday 13th February when Mr. Guard started off: ‘Well, as you heard in the news, Cable and Wireless are returning to the Isle of Man today to seek a meeting with the Chairman of Executive Council. He has agreed to see them and Mr. Howard Klein will be meeting Dr. Edgar Mann sometime in the early after­ noon. Part of the problem seems to be the revelation that there might have been another report which in fact would have recommended Cable and Wireless, a report from another consultant.’ Mr. Turner replied after that he did not challenge the accuracy of that introduction by Mr. Guard and I would point out, sir, that the interview had taken place the day before it went out.

Mr. Delaney: We are certainly fishing now, sir.

The Governor: Mr. Kneale, may I suggest that you proceed with any other questions that you have to ask.

Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: Yes, sir. Who was the M.H.K. who told you about the existence of the other report a consultant?

Mr. Turner: With respect, sir, I am not prepared to answer that question.

Mr. Delaney: Your Excellency, can I help the hon. member for West Douglas out? I have already said that I supplied the gentleman at the Bar of the Court with the report, this report, Your Excellency, and thus, to clarify the hon. member for West Douglas on his fishing trips, the situation is I refused to supply him with a copy of the financial report because I personally considered that to be private and confidential and that is how the hon. member is asking the gentleman at the Bar of the Court something which he could not have known because I refused to tell him.

The Governor: Are you content with that, Mr. Kneale?

Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: I am not content at all, sir, with this here. I believe that Mr. Turner is in a situation at the moment where he has conveyed information to other people about the existence of a second consultant’s report.

The Governor: I have to say to you, Mr. Kneale, that you may only ask questions and not make a statement.

Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: Yes. Again I would ask him to name the M.H.K.

Mr. Turner: I am not prepared to say, Your Excellency.

The Governor: Have you any other questions?

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence — Question of Privilege — Further Witness Questioned TI 128 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986

Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: You said you had seen the confidential document. What confidential document were you referring to?

Mr. Turner: Mr. William Dawson’s interim report.

Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: Mr. ?

Mr. Turner: Mr. William Dawson’s interim report, the other report.

Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: Mr. William Dawson’s interim report. Which was that?

The Governor: I will give other hon. members a chance to ask questions and, Mr. Kneale, you may come back to questions if you wish. I have a question from Mr. Delaney and one from Mr. Anderson.

Mr. Delaney: A series of questions. Mr. Turner, did you or did you not ask me for a copy of the financial appraisal applications report?

Mr. Turner: I did, Your Excellency.

Mr. Delaney: Did I refuse to give it to you ?

Mr. Turner: Yes, you did.

Mr. Delaney: Did I supply you with a copy of Mr. Pardoe’s report ?

Mr. Turner: You did.

Mr. Delaney: On what date did I supply you with a copy of that report?

Mr. Turner: The day after you were informed of the decision.

Mr. Delaney: That was the Tuesday. Was it Tuesday lunchtime?

Mr. Turner: Yes, it was.

Mr. Delaney: Your Excellency, a further question, dealing with the statements and the alleged statements and the hearsays which have been batted about this Court. Are you aware who did give you the financial report which I did not give you?

Mr. Turner: Yes, I am.

Mr. Delaney: Was it me?

Mr. Turner: No, it was not.

Mr. Delaney: Are you aware that Charles Guard from Manx Radio had a copy of this report, Pardoe’s report, at the same time as you had it?

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence — Question of Privilege — Further Witness Questioned TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 T1129

Mr. Turner: I do not know whether it was the same time but he was certainly in possession of one, yes.

Mr. Delaney: Right I am not going to ask you what yourTjpinions are but were you aware that Dr. Edgar Mann, the Chairman of Executive Council, made a state­ ment on the radio interview with Charles Guard in the morning of the same Tuesday that I supplied a report, making it clear that he wished a public debate now a decision had been made?

Mr. Turner: Yes, I heard that interview and I assumed from that that the public would be allowed to express their views on what clearly, from his statement, did not appear that the documents would be confidential any further.

Mr. Delaney: Have you had an opportunity to read the Gazette of last week, the middle pages?

Mr. Turner: Yes, I have.

Mr. Delaney: Would you say they had more information than you did?

Mr. Turner: Well, they were printing the confidential document.

Mr. Delaney: They printed it. Have you any idea when they go to Press?

Mr. Turner: I believe their paperwork goes away on the Tuesday evening.

Mr. Delaney: So they had the documents by Tuesday to send off the Isle of Man.

Mr. Turner: Yes.

Mr. Delaney: All the documents?

Mr. Turner: They did, yes.

Mr. Delaney: Do you know where they got them from?

Mr. Turner: From an M.H.K.

Mr. Delaney: Would you know if that M.H.K. is me?

Mr. Turner: I understand it was not you.

Mr. Delaney: Thank you, Your Excellency.

Mr. Anderson: Yes, Your Excellency. I understand that you, Mr. Turner, said that ‘This is fact or the M.H.K. is a liar’, something to that effect?

Mr. Turner: Well, if the report did not exist he would have been a liar.

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence — Question of Privilege — Further Witness Questioned TI 130 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986

Mr. Anderson: Yes, but it is not just the report existing, that he had said the report recommended Cable and Wireless in preference to British Telecom?

Mr. Turner: Well, he may have thought that at the time. I mean, he told me that but, as it turned out, he did not have the document and when I got the docu­ ment it did not appear that way. I mean it may be that I disagree with Mr. Dawson. I may think it favours Cable and Wireless but Mr. Dawson does not.

Mr. Anderson: Yes. But will you not agree that by not disclosing the name of the person who told you that you are casting a reflection on the Members of the House of Keys, especially those who are not prepared to support the British Telecom?

Mr. Turner: I would imagine that the member was fully aware of that when he told me at the time, Your Excellency.

Mr. Anderson: But I am not just concerned about that member. I am concerned,Your Excellency, about those who may wish to speak against that and on whom a reflection will be cast as a result of what you have said in public.

The Governor: Hon. members, I know that we all hope very much to bring this to an end as soon as possible. However, I must ask if any other hon. members, apart from the uncompleted question from Mr. Anderson, wish to ask any questions?

A. Member: Yes, Your ^Excellency.

The Governor: Very good. Thank you. I will not call on you just yet.

Mr. Turner: I think the only way I can answer that, sir, is that I did not wish to imply any aspersions on any other member of the House apart from the one that gave me the information, whom I am not prepared to name.

Mr. Anderson: Therefore it is on the other members.

The Speaker: Mr. Turner, did you receive any notice that you would be called to the Bar of the House yesterday?

Mr. Turner: Formal notice or informal notice, sir?

The Speaker: Formal notice.

Mr. Turner: The first formal notice I had was when I was sitting in the gallery waiting for the debate, but I had heard through the grapevine that it may happen.

The Speaker: Did that lack of notice result in your, shall I say, adopting a very cautious attitude yesterday afternoon?

Mr. Turner: Well, I did not know my legal position, sir.

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence — Question of Privilege — Further Witness Questioned TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 T1131

The Speaker: Thank you. Mr. Turner, you are a businessman in the Isle of Man with a particular interest in communications?

Mr. Turner: Yes, sir.

The Speaker: In recent years you have taken an interest in C.B. radio and issues related to it to the extent that you have actually fought the Government and indeed won. You also took an interest and fought the Government on the question of police coverage of the Isle of Man by radio. Did you regard your interest in this particular issue now as being any different to the interest you took in those earlier cases and likely, in view of your evidence that you had an M.H.K.’s statement, to bring you into conflict in this House in a breach of privilege pattern?

Mr. Turner: No, sir. I believe that my interest is because I believe the Govern­ ment to be handling all of these matters in total incompetence and that is why I have been a member of a political party, because I believe I have been doing this for the good of the Island.

The Speaker: So in respect of this particular issue you were following a pattern, an established pattern, really, of, shall I say, opposition to a programme which you believe sincerely was not likely to be the best one for the Island?

Mr. Turner: That is correct, sir.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Walker: Mr. Turner, can you just clarify for me were you informed by the M.H.K. that the other report to which you refer was not made available to members of Tynwald and the implication being that it was secret to Executive Council?

Mr. Turner: No, I was not informed that, no.

Mr. Walker: Fine.

Mr. Turner: That was something I assumed, sir, because I believed it was a secret report. As we have all heard, it was a very secret matter; only two or three people knew that.

Mr. Walker: After having heard the hon. member Mr. Delaney’s explanation this morning, then, you accept that that document in fact was made available to members of Tynwald at the same time as Mr. Pardoe’s was.

Mr. Turner: Yes, but unfortunately I was not to know that.

Mr. Walker: That is fine. If you received documents that were headed ‘In Commercial Confidence’ would you respect that confidence?

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence — Question of Privilege — Further Witness Questioned TI 132 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986

Mr. Turner: Well, it just depends.

Mr. Walker: I see.

Mr. Turner: It does not seem that everybody does, does it?

Mr. Walker: Well, I asked if you would respect that commercial confidence?

Mr. Turner: As a matter of public importance I may decide that it should be released, as a matter of conscience.

Mr. Walker: So you do not think that hon. members should respect matters of commercial confidence necessarily?

Mr. Turner: Yes, that is quite a different matter, yes. I am not saying that at all.

Mr. Walker: I see. You think that members of Tynwald, if given documents in commercial confidence, should respect that confidence?

Mr. Turner: No, I do not think I should comment on that particular issue.

Mr. Walker: Thank you, Your Excellency.

Mr. Brown:Your Excellency, could I just ask Mr. Turner can he confirm that the documents, the two proposals, the one from British Telecom and the one from Cable and Wireless, which were made public to the members of Tynwald at 2.30 p.m. on Monday were made public to the general public some three hours later?

Mr. Turner: All of the documents?

Mr. Brown: No, the two documents which are public, which gave the background of the basis of the proposals?

Mr. Turner: I see, the two proposals, the applications?

Mr. Brown: The two applications which gave —

Mr. Turner: I believe they were made available to the public, yes.

Mr. Brown: So they were made available to the public some three hours after they were made public to the members.

Mr. Turner: I believe so.

Mr. Brown: Thank you. That is all, Your Excellency.

Mr. Delaney: I begs a question, if I may, sir?

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence — Question of Privilege — Further Witness Questioned TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 T1133

The Governor: Yes.

Mr. Delaney: Did you acquire those copies that were made available to the public of your own accord?

Mr. Turner: Yes, they were from the Government library.

Mr. Delaney: You got them from the Government library?

Mr. Turner: I sent a member of my staff to obtain all the documents that were publicly available.

Mr. Delaney: Thank you, Mr. Turner.

Mr. Cringle: Your Excellency, Mr. Turner, a short while ago in reply to a question from Mr. Speaker you inferred that you felt that Tynwald Court was acting in total incompetence in dealing with telecomunications matters. Do you concur that that is what you said, sir?

Mr. Turner: Yes, I did say that.

Mr. Cringle: Right, and I accept your right as one on the other side, as it were, to comment so. But would you now consider, in the light of the statement which you made when you first came to the Bar of this hon. Court this morning, in the light of that statement would you now consider that the four members of the Telecommunications Committee have acted completely fairly, honourably and honestly in accordance with Tynwald’s wishes and at no time have acted improperly?

Mr. Turner: I cannot answer that question,Your Excellency, because the committee have not even submitted a report.

Mr. Lowey: Could I ask Mr. Turner, in response to Mr. Speaker’s question you did say, when he asked you when did you hear first that you may be called to the Bar of the House, you did say that you had heard on the grapevine. Could you explain to the Court what the grapevine is, please?

Mr. Turner: Well, it is rumour; rumour had it that I may be called.

Mr. Lowey: And where were you informed by this rumour inside the Court or outside the Court?

Mr. Turner: I cannot remember.

Mr. Lowey: You cannot remember.

Mr. Turner: No.

Mr. Lowey: Did you hear in the morning or did you hear in the afternoon?

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence — Question of Privilege — Further Witness Questioned TI 134 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986

Mr. Turner: I am sorry, I cannot remember.

Mr. Lowey: You cannot remember yesterday.

Mr. Turner: No.

Mr. Lowey: You cannot.

Mr. Turner: No.

Mr. Lowey: Could I ask Mr. Turner, you did say in reply to another question at the very start of your statement to the House this morning that you would not discuss your own business dealings and yet you did say later on that you would perhaps, in the light of your public interest in this matter, feel obliged to disclose confidential information that is written on the Salford University Confidential report which you were quoting about. On the front it is quite clearly marked ‘Confidential’ and on the inside page it is marked commercial confidentiality, so would that not suggest that that is a confidential document not for general discussion? As you will not discuss your own business proposition is it not reasonable to assume that that is equally, privileged? Mr. Turner: I am advised that I cannot question the confidence of Government.

Mr. Lowey: I beg your pardon. You are advised that . . .

Mr. Turner: That I cannot question the confidence in Government.

Mr. Lowey: You are advised. Thank you, Mr. Turner.

Mr. Duggan: Your Excellency, could I ask Mr. Turner has he got any direct interest in Cable and Wireless? Mr. Turner: I have no direct interest with Cable and Wireless whatsoever except that I fully support them for the Island’s good. The Governor: Any other hon. member? Mr. Kneale.

Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: Yes, Your Excellency. Mr. Turner, you heard the state­ ment made by Mr. Leventhorpe at the beginning and he was referring to the remarks that he had made on Manx Radio: ‘I get persistent reports that there were two experts’ reports carried out, one of which favoured Cable and Wireless very emphatically.’ You also heard him say that he had got this information from you but he now accepts that it was untrue. Do you also accept that this is untrue?

Mr. Turner: Yes, perhaps I do. I have no further information other than what I have given and that is why I issued a Press statement to that effect.

Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: Well, the Press statement does not deal with.consultants’ reports which are referred to here and been referred to continually. Do you wish

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence — Question of Privilege — Further Witness Questioned TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 T1135 to withdraw any implication you may have made that suggested that there was such a consultant’s report which had not been disclosed to the members of this Court?

Mr. Turner: I merely expressed, Your Excellency, the information I was given. That information turned out to be correct, that there was another report, but what was contained in that report is a recommendation, in fact both reports recommending British Telecom. That is a matter of how you interpret the reports. I do not interpret it to be in favour of British Telecom on my interpretations but that is what the reports themselves recommend. Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: I am afraid, Your Excellency, that Mr. Turner is dodging the issue here. I believe, sir, that the whole reference has been made to a second consultant’s report which is nothing at all to do with the report of the Treasurer, which was one dealing entirely with financial matters.

Dr. Moore: Your Excellency, could I ask Mr. Turner, do you know of any evidence that the Telecommunications Sub-Committee of Executive Council acted in any way improperly? Mr. Turner: The only evidence I have, sir, is that Dr. Mann on his programme on the radio said the members were in possession of all of the papers, all of the papers. On studying Mr. Dawson’s report I discovered two documents were missing, I believe that some of the members have those documents, which led me to believe they were not in possession of all of the evidence.

Dr. Moore: Could I ask another question, to put it another way, Mr. Turner? Would you now be willing to apologise for making unfounded allegations which had a bearing on the integrity of members of Tynwald?

Mr. Turner: I do not wish to take the integrity of the Court, I beg your pardon, and it would appear that the reports I got from the M.H.K. were well-founded that there was another report but contained in that report was not the recommendation for Cable and Wireless, as previously stated. Dr. Moore: I give up, Your Excellency.

The Governor: Hon. members, Mr. Kneale, I do not want to do this but I have to insist that you confine your remarks to questions and not statements. I am very sympathetic to what you are saying and doing but it must be questions and not statements.

Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: Again I would ask Mr. Turner, I would ask him to name the person that has told him about the second report from a consultant, which favoured Cable and Wireless?

Mr. Turner: I am not prepared to answer that, Your Excellency.

Mr. Delaney: Your Excellency, I thought I had made it quite clear when I asked him the questions that I refused to give this gentleman at the Bar of the House the

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence — Question of Privilege — Further Witness Questioned TI 136 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 secret document that the hon. member is fishing for, and on the assumption that I would not give it to him he then made out the situation.

Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: There is no such document, sir.

Mr. Delaney: The document referred to, Your Excellency, as far as I am concerned, is a document entitled Financial Appraisal of the Applications for the Public Telecommunications Operator’s Licence. I was asked for that document. I refused to give that document and that was the reason that gentleman is at the Bar of this House, because I refused to give him the information which I considered to be private and confidential.

The Governor: Hon. members, this is a difficult and grave matter. I believe that we have given it a good airing and if hon. members will support me in this I propose that we should now discharge this witness and return to the second item on the Supplementary Agenda. Will those hon. members in favour say aye; will those —

The Speaker: Discharging the witness, yes, sir, but the second part of the question I would like to know more about.

The Governor: Right. Well then first of all, hon. members, are we agreed that we should discharge Mr. Turner? Will those in favour say aye; those against say no.The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Thank you, Mr. Turner.

Mr. Turner: Thank you, Your Excellency.

The Speaker: Your Excellency, would you help me by telling the Court, sir, just what item of business you now propose to take?

The Governor: Well, my proposal to hon. members is that we should now return to the motion on the Supplementary Agenda, item 2. May I ask hon. members who are in favour of the —

The Speaker: May I make a point, Your Excellency, with your permission? We have had before the Bar of the House two witnesses who have been charged with reflecting on the integrity of four members of the Telecommunications Sub- Committee. They have been charged with this. They have given evidence at the Bar. Does the matter now rest there? I am not satisfied that I have heard the whole of this case. There is a lot more, I believe, to be said in relation to it, in fairness to the witnesses if nothing else and I cannot understand, Your Excellency, the wish to drop it. Having ventilated at this stage are we to come back to it? Or, if I can put it this way, yesterday I was astounded that after some 120 years there was brought to the Bar of the House witnesses on a privilege charge. However, under the Act this is possible I had no intimation of it as a member and I do know that “ Erskine May” provides that witnesses should have notice of being summoned to ihe Bar. Now Your Excellency, I feel in some way that I am being manipulated and that the

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence — Question of Privilege — Further Witness Questioned TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 T1137 presentation of this privilege order at that stage of this particular debate is in some way intended not to bring witnesses to the Bar but to influence me.

If we are going to bring people to this Bar on charges of contempt Cable and Wireless should be here and British Telecom. There is no question, both have behaved in a manner which is contemptuous. Ah yes. You will find it is an offence to attempt to bribe hon. members and this is a very wide-open pattern. What have Cable and Wireless done and what have Telecommunications done? They have offered me, amongst others, a trip to London to have a look of the installation in the Palace of Westminster. Do you think that was to help me improve my knowledge of telecommunications? Certainly not. We have all been wined and dined to an extent that we have never known before in relation to any project coming before this Government and what I am saying to you is this, that if this matter is not to be dropped now we better get on and have a full inquiry into what has been happening in relation to it, because I am having a feeling that somehow we are getting involved in a witch-hunt. (Mr. Delaney: Hear, hear.) Some can get away with the process of saying ‘Come and join us in all sorts of delightful ways’, presentation of books and all manner of things which, according to “ Erskine May” , might be regarded as contempt.

The actions of witnesses might also be regarded as contempt but I believe they have been founded on a desire to really put forward their opposition to a viewpoint being expressed by Government and they have done so on a base which appears to have stemmed from this Court, and from the evidence this morning it would appear that the information has been given out from the Court. Legally or illegally I do not know. I have not been involved. But to me to leave the matter here with witnesses in a sense discredited, it is not fair unless they are absolved and the whole matter is dropped here and now.

The Attorney-General: Can I just make one comment, Your Excellency? Reference has been made to people being charged. This is not correct. Under the Tynwald Proceedings Act this hon. Court has the power to summon witnesses and that is the procedure which has occurred, and this Court agreed that three gentlemen should be summoned to give evidence on a question which the hon. member for West Douglas has raised. That procedure has been gone through and has been completed. No-one has been charged with anything.

The Speaker: Therefore, Your Excellency, do I take it that the hon. gentlemen who were brought before the Bar now leave the Court without any stain on their character and the matter is resolved?

The Governor: The question of privilege has been dealt with.

The Speaker: Thank you, Your Excellency.

Dr. Mann: The question has been resolved, Your Excellency, and I take considerable exception not as a person but as a member who has been dealing with this matter for many years, that neither of these companies are involved in the

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence — Question of Privilege — Further Witness Questioned TI 138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 allegations that have been made either publicly or within this Court. In my knowledge neither of the companies has acted incorrectly and certainly neither of the companies has been acting disproportionately one against the other. If there has been a certain amount of entertainment in the commercial respect it has been equal and therefore does not constitute, in my view, any particular advantage to either company. To suggest, as Mr. Speaker has suggested, that either of the companies is involved in what has taken place in this Court is totally untrue and I would stress that, that no member of this Court, in my knowledge, has at any time questioned the integrity of either company until Mr. Speaker has risen. This would be a very serious matter and I would suggest that we just get on with the Agenda, and a lot of the information that everybody is either seeking or has not yet been spelt out clearly will be spelt out and will be questioned in public and answered in public and that, I think, is what the public wants to know. I beg to move: That the Court proceed to next business.

The Governor: If that is a proposal I look for a seconder.

Mr. Delaney: I would like to second, Your Excellency, but I do require — I give both hon. members of this Court, Dr. Mann and Mr. Speaker, are trying to do their best and I would second that — but I do require that the Clerk would say to the Court that he was of the same opinion as me, that document on Tuesday was a public document. I need that for my own satisfaction, that he was of the same opinion as I was. Could I have that from the learned Clerk? The Clerk: I can only answer that, with your permission, Your Excellency.

The Governor: You may answer it, learned Clerk.

The Clerk: My understanding was that I did not know whether it was a public or a confidential document. I personally did not have a copy of it.

Mr. Delaney: No, I had to supply you with a copy.

The Governor: Hon. members, there is a motion —

Mr. Duggan: For clarification, Your Excellency, could I have the guidance of the Attorney-General regarding confidential documents? Because as a member here 1 feel that the onus is on us all. (Members: Hear, hear.) I would like to know who the mole is.

The Attorney-General: Well, I do not think it is the m atter of this confidential document which is the issue before us at this exact moment. I think the issue before us at the moment is what is on our Agenda. We have considered the evidence given by the three gentlemen who have been summoned to give evidence on a question of privilege and it seems to me, Your Excellency, the next matter is to return to the Agenda and deal with the other business. However, there is one other matter. A further gentleman has been summoned at the request of the hon. gentleman Mr. Delaney, and I wonder if that summons could now be —

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence — Question of Privilege — Further Witness Questioned TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 T1139

Mr. Delaney: Your Excellency, I am sure that my position has been made quite clear as far as all these other releases —

The Governor: In fact, hon. members, Mr. Dale is sick and in bed at this moment.

Mr. Delaney: I am sorry to hear that, Your Excellency.

The Governor: Hon. members, I know we are very anxious to get on. Many people still have many things to say. There is a motion before the Court that we should return to the second item of the Supplementary Agenda. It has been seconded.

The Speaker: Speaking to the motion, Your Excellency, I support it but I want to say, sir, that I feel that the delay in getting to this item on the Agenda has been of doubtful origin. I have made it clear that my feeling about contempt and privilege is based on a widespread interpretation of privilege, and that to pull in people in relation to privilege on a heated issue is not a very judicious thing to do unless you have got full grounds for doing so and when I made my statement that there had been gifts being passed around, which I stand by, I would refer the Court to “Erskine May” and its reference to ‘attempts by improper means to influence Members in their Parliamentary conduct’. On 2nd May 1695 the Commons resolved that ‘The offer of money or other advantage to any member of Parliament for the promoting of any matter whatsoever depending or to be transacted in Parliament is a high crime and misdemeanour and tends to the subversion of the English constitution. In the spirit of this resolution, the offering to a member of either House of a bribe to influence him in his conduct as a member or of any fee or reward in connection with the promotion of or opposition to any Bill or resolution matter, or things submitted or intended to be submitted to the House or any committee thereof, has been treated as a breach of privilege. That still stands and if we are looking for contempt, let us face it, we are surrounded by it.

The Governor: Hon. members, may I just remind you that we are now working on a motion. I shall therefore apply the rules that only one speech from each hon. member. Mr. Anderson.

Mr. Anderson: Yes, Your Excellency. I agree with the motion that is now before the Court. I do want to say, however, that no reflection should be cast upon the hon. member for West Douglas who has brought this in, because I believe it is absolutely imperative we get to the truth before we get to this and I regret that it has not been completely clarified and the hon. members of the House of Keys be exonerated. (Members: Hear, hear.) I think there is a reflection still over those people and I regret that, and I believe that it is completely wrong that statements should be allowed to be made over the radio without being challenged, and to come here to consider the matter that I hope we will be considering shortly without getting to the truth and the facts of the matter is completely wrong, and I believe it is absolutely imperative that we should get to know what the truth is and that is the thing that is important, not any wool pulled over or statements being made in a vague sort of way, but to know what the truth is. I think we have clarified to some

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence — Question of Privilege — Further Witness Questioned TI 140 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 degree, although there is still and if I was a Member of the House of Keys who came here prepared to support Cable and Wireless I would feel very sick indeed about the position in which I was placed because of what has been said and has not been clarified. But I support entirely the hon. member for West Douglas in bringing that here. Mr. Brown: Your Excellency, I would just stand up in support of the motion before us and I would just echo the words of Mr. Anderson, the hon. member of Council, and quite honestly I believe that the Member of the House of Keys who stated to Mr. Turner, they believed that there had been a report in favour of Cable and Wireless, that that member should have the decency and the honour of this Court to stand up and bring forward and admit what they have done. Because if not, there will be a stigma on this House, this hon. House which we will not be able to get rid of and may I make it very clear, absolutely clear, because I know where I stand over this issue, that this is something that this House cannot accept to be continued. Therefore I would hope and I would urge whichever member of this House it is to have the decency to admit it here in public, and I fully support what the hon. member for West Douglas has done because it is about what was said about a second report and nothing else. All the other issues were thrown in. It was the views that were made over the hon. members of that committee and I hope it is made clear from all members of this House they want to know who said what. Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: Your Excellency, I agree it is important that we get on to the main item on the Agenda and deal with this but it was also very important that we cleared the false statements that were being made. It is clear from what we have heard in the Court, sir, that it is accepted there was no second consultant’s report and that is the major part of the exercise today. I am amazed at Mr. Speaker in the remarks he has made. The Speaker: You need not be. I do not like witch hunts.

Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: Well, maybe I should not be surprised but you, as the Speaker of this House, should be defending the integrity of the House (Members: Hear, hear.) and that is its four members of a committee and three of them are members of this House, it has been suggested that they have acted improperly by suppressing a second consultant’s document. It is now very clear that that remark was completely untrue. It is also very clear that it originated from Mr. David Turner, and I am quite satisfied that we have established that, so that we now get on to the main debate without this here suspicion that somehow or other the Telecom­ munications Sub-Committee has acted improperly. The sub-committee has been absolutely cleared here, despite the reluctance of Mr. Turner to say so.

Mr. Lowey: Your Excellency, I believe we are now on the main substantive motion regarding the contract for —

The Governor: No, we are not.

Mr. Lowey: We are not. Well, I too —

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence — Question of Privilege — Further Witness Questioned TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 T1141

The Governor: We are debating a motion put by the Chairman of the Executive Council to return to the second item of the Supplementary Agenda.

Mr. Lowey: I will support that wholeheartedly, sir, and I would endorse the remarks of the hon. member for West Douglas. I believe that there has been a public challenge to the integrity of four members of Executive Council that have been completely vindicated by the evidence that we have heard in this Court and adduced. It was unwarranted, unfounded and if anybody requires public apologies it is those four gentlemen. This Court, I believe, takes a lot and in public life one is expected to take a lot and deserves to take a lot, but when one has to come up against obvious untruths, then I think it is a right and the privilege of this Court should be upheld and I think the hon. member for West Douglas has done that in the tradition that needs to be applauded by each and every one of us. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Cringle: Your Excellency, I too rise as a member of that Telecom­ munications Sub-Committee and I support one hundred per cent, my colleague on that committee, Mr. Kneale, in the activities which have taken place in this hon. Court over the last two days. I too must say that I feel that I accept Mr. Leventhorpe’s apology, sir. I think in relation to Mr. Kneale’s comments we have now established the issue insofar as the second document and Mr. Turner’s particular position allied to that transcript of the Manx Radio broadcasts, and I would say also that I too concur entirely just this morning with my hon. friend and colleague the member for Castletown, Mr. Brown, when he says that there is still an asper­ sion hanging on hon. members of the House of Keys and I too would only wish that the hon. member would be prepared to publicly make his statement. Members: Hear, hear.

The Governor: If hon. members are ready I call upon Dr. Mann to reply.

Dr. Mann: Your Excellency, I feel that it is time first of all to perhaps just relax a little and get away from the tensions that have been created, quite justifiably created, in the last hour or two of this sitting and I think it is very important that we perhaps at some length go through the whole story of how we arrived at this point. I think first of all we go way back to Tynwald at its October sitting in 1968 when it appointed a Select Committee, which I understand, I think, Mr. Speaker and Mr. Kneale were currently on that committee, to investigate and report on the desirability of acquiring the postal service and the telecommunications services operated in the Isle of Man by the General Post Office. Mr. Cannan: A point of order, Your Excellency. Does the hon. chairman refer to the main motion, sir, now, because you did not —

The Governor: Mr. Cannan, he is replying.

Dr. Mann: I think it is important, Your Excellency, that we set the historic detail because it is important.

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence — Question of Privilege Further Witness Questioned TI 142 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986

Mr. Cannan: I see. I thought you were presenting the main motion, sir, sorry.

Dr. Mann: On 13th December 1972 Tynwald agreed that the Final Report of the Select Committee on Postal and Telecommunications Services be received and the recommendations contained therein adopted. The report recommended inter alia “that it is not, at this juncture, advisable for the Isle of Man Government to ask the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications to draft any agreement effecting a surrender of the telecommunications monopoly to the Isle of Man Government.” The report also recommended “That no steps should be taken for the Isle of Man Government to acquire the telecommunications monopoly in the Isle of Man during the next ten years.” But during that time, of course, during that ten years the Post Office Authority was proved to be a profitable move and contributing to the general revenue of the Island.

On 2nd October 1980 at, I believe, the suggestion or a move or a question raised by Mr. Speaker Tynwald resolved that Executive Council give consideration to the possible acquisition and operation by the Manx Government of the existing telecom­ munications systems and report thereon to Tynwald with their recommendation. Executive Council of the day immediately appointed a Telecommunications Committee for this purpose. That, I believe, composed of Mr. Irving, Mr. Radcliffe and Mr. Kneale at that time. That was followed in 1981, following the election, by Mr. Radcliffe, Mr. Kneale and myself and I might add that at a later stage we added the hon. member Mr. Cringle who was by that time Chairman of the Telecom­ munications Commission. These members, I might add, have over a considerable length of time, since 1981, put in an immense amount of work during the various stages before we arrive at our position today and I think hon. members ought to pay some respect to the members of that committee, particularly to Mr. Kneale who has been involved both in the acquisition of the Post Office and all the way through this story of the acquisition of telecommunications.

Meetings and discussions were held subsequently with various interested parties which of course were B.T. and Cable and Wireless and it became clear at a very early stage that the issue was extremely complex and could not be resolved quickly and the reason for that is quite simple, because there had been no separation of the telecommunications system in the Isle of Man from the main United Kingdom system and it became extremely difficult to both value the assets or even separate the assets and separate the traffic, because the traffic statistics of the time did not relate purely to the Isle of Man and therefore all the traffic statistics had to be established.

While these discussions were taking place new circumstances had to be considered following the British Telecommunications Act of 1981 of the United Kingdom Parlia­ ment, when it became clear that the telecommunications services were to become privatised and again, following the publication of the Telecommunications Bill 1983 of Parliament later to become the Telecommunications Act 1984, which enabled British Telecom to be converted into a company.

The Governor: Dr. Mann, will you forgive me if I break into your.very impor­ tant and difficult train of thought, I know. I now sense that Mr. Cannan’s ques­

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence — Question of Privilege — Further Witness Questioned TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 T1143 tion was more valuable than I gave it credit. What I am asking you to do is to reply to the debate on whether we should move to the second item.

Dr. Mann: Oh, I am very sorry, sir.

The Governor: I beg your pardon, Mr. Cannan.

Mr. Cannan: Thank you, sir.

Dr. Mann: Would you please repeat that.

The Governor: Yes, what I asked you to do was to reply to the debate on whether we should now move to the second item on the Supplementary Agenda.

Dr. Mann: My profuse apologies, Your Excellency, and also to the hon. member. (Interruption and laughter)

Dr. Mann: I repeat that rare event: I apologise to the hon. member for Michael! I had assumed that we had already agreed to proceed with the main debate. I am speechless, sir. I must only ask that the hon. members do support the move to con­ tinue or the move to start the main debate and I promise not to repeat all that over again if we get to it. (Laughter)

The Governor: Hon. members, I put the motion to you. Will those hon. members in favour of moving to the second item of the Supplementary Agenda say aye; those against say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. I am going to interrupt you again, Dr. Mann. You will see, hon. members, that Mr. Dale joined us a few moments ago from his bed. 1 take it that we are happy that he should be discharged.

It was agreed.

PUBLIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM — GRANT OF LICENCE TO BRITISH TELECOM — DEBATE COMMENCED

The Governor: Please go on, Dr. Mann.

Dr. Mann: First of all, hon. members, I would like to thank you for getting me out of a difficult situation and allowing me to continue. I do not know how we record this in Hansard, Your Excellency, but could it be read that what I have read so far does not have to be read again?

The Governor: Do hon. members agree?

It was agreed.

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence to British Telecom — Debate Commenced TI 144 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986

Dr. Mann: If I refer, then, to the Telecommunications Bill of 1983 of Parlia­ ment, later to become the Telecommunications Act of 1984, which enabled British Telecom to be converted into a company and to allow the sale of shares in that company to the public. It also provided arrangements for licensing telecommunica­ tions so as to end British Telecom’s exclusive privilege and control in licensing. In December 1982 Executive Council agreed to recommend that the Home Office be informed that it was the wish of the Isle of Man Government that when the ex­ clusive privilege of British Telecom had been abolished the power to licence telecom­ munications systems in the Isle of Man should be invested in the Isle of Man Government. Tynwald would be asked to enact legislation comparable to various clauses of the Bill and certain clauses with modifications will be extended to the Island by Order in Council. On 19th June 1984 Tynwald approved the provisions of the Isle of Man Telecommunications Act which provided for the licensing, regula­ tion and provision of telecommunications services. The provisions relating to British Telecom of both the Telecommunications Act of Parliament and the Telecom­ munications Act of Tynwald came into force together on 5th August 1984 and on 6th August 1984 the business of British Telecom was transfered to British Telecom PLC, a company wholly-owned by the United Kingdom Government.

In the light of these developments Executive Council agreed that there would be little purpose in pursuing the idea of acquisition by the Isle of Man Government of the British Telecom operations in the Island. However, of course, the Isle of Man Act does assume a form of monopoly and I think in our earlier discussions with both parties it became obvious that an Island system in itself could be a viable proposition, but of course it is not large enough to allow two systems and so one has to assume a form of monopoly. I think, however, that the extent of that monopoly of course is ultimately decided by the licence.

One thing that I should refer to at this stage, because it is important in under­ standing what has subsequently happened, is the changed relationships between the two companies between 1981 and 1984. To begin with we have Cable and Wireless who were privatised earlier and therefore during the first stage of that period were actually operating as a commercial organisation, and because they were operating outside the United Kingdom and as a commercial operation their operations were different. They were able to purchase, for instance, the latest forms of equipment from any world supplier, whereas British Telecom as a public corporation were still linked to having to purchase from, I think, two main United Kingdom producers. During that period of time of course the Cable and Wireless operations around the world were being tied together by the satellite systems. During the latter part of that period of course the monopoly of British Telecom in the United Kingdom was broken and the British Telecom public which went from being a department of Government to a public corporation and then to a private company, which allowed competition to develop in the United Kingdom, you have a system which enabled the two to compete side by side in the United Kingdom and ultimately both wholly- owned companies became private companies competing vigorously within the United Kingdom. So what we were talking about initially and what Cable and Wireless were able to talk about initially, that is, in the early stages, that is, a situation where the Island was treated like any other Commonwealth island around the world and

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence to British Telecom — Debate Commenced TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 T1145

we were setting up a separate system here, during the latter part of that time of course the situation changed because Cable and Wireless would then be seeing the Island operation as being linked up to the Mercury Communications in the United Kingdom which was the alternate system.

I think it is important to get this changed relationship both between the Isle of Man and the United Kingdom and between the various companies in the way in which they were forced to act, due to the changes in the legislation both in the United Kingdom and here. However, Executive Council appreciated that the introduction of the Island’s Telecommunications Act gave a unique opportunity to consider various options available to the Isle of Man Government in furthering its aim to achieve local management and control of the Island’s telecommunication systems and consideration was given to the available options. At its sitting in October 1984 Tynwald resolved: 1 that in view of the timescale a two-year short-term interim licence be granted to British Telecom to operate the Manx public telecom­ munications system as from 1st January 1985, and a decision regarding a long-term licence be made and notified within 12 months of the issue of the interim licence. The terms of an interim licence were subsequently agreed by Tynwald and came into effect on 10th July 1985. (2) — in order that the Isle of Man Government can give proper consideration to the issue of a long-term licence provision be included in the interim licence that during the six months following the issue of the licence the Manx Government be supplied by British Telecom with whatever information may be required concerning the operation of the Manx system, and the information was requested from British Telecom concerning the operation of the Manx system and the replies were received. Item (3) — it should be open to any interested party to apply by 1st September 1985 for the long-term licence on the appropriate documents to be issued by the Governor in Council. The invitations were extended to British Telecom and Cable and Wireless to apply for the long-term licence and a notice to this effect was also inserted in the Press and, the fourth item, the long­ term licence should be issued for a minimum period of 20 years and reviewed five years before its expiration. This of course will be the next step following today’s decision. I would also remind hon. members that the terms of the long-term licence will require, once again, Tynwald approval. The fifth — that given the Isle of Man’s Government need to be able to oversee what is an important public service commercially, socially and strategically and the fact that telecommunications technology is complex and subject to rapid change, requiring expert and experienced management, investigations continue into a joint venture between the Government and a telecommunications operating company governed by normal business criteria, and hon. members will note that each and both submissions made give Govern­ ment the opportunity to take part in a joint venture by taking an equity in the local companies that have been formed by both groups. The day-to-day supervisory role of Government in relation to the Manx Telecommunications Act and the licence should be exercised by a new statutory body responsible for matters appertaining to telecommunications. The Telecommunications Commission has already been set up for this purpose.

In view of some of the comments made via the media in this particular matter it may be of interest to members if I give a brief summary of the events leading

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence to British Telecom — Debate Commenced TI 146 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 to the Executive Council’s recommendation. Executive Council agreed in August 1985 that the date for submission of bids for the licence should be 30th October 1985. Cable and Wireless and British Telecom were informed of this by letter dated 14th August 1985. Following receipt of the submissions on 30th October 1985 a further meeting of the Telecommunications Committee was held on 4th November 1985 when it was agreed to obtain an independent technical report and a financial appraisal of the bids, provided there were no objections from either company. The companies were contacted immediately by telephone and both said that they had no objections, subject to any questions and answers required by the advisers being channelled through the Telecommunications Committee. Neither company was made aware of the identity of the advisers until very recently when meetings were held between the committee and both companies.

Executive Council considers itself fortunate to obtain the services of Dr. Pardoe as its technical consultant. Dr. Pardoe holds a B.Sc. in physics, and M.Sc. in telecom­ munications, a Ph.D. in data transmission. He is a chartered engineer and a member of the Institute of Electrical Engineers. He has spent seven years in industry almost equally split between the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Australia. For the past ten years he has been a member of the academic staff of the University of Salford and is Course Chairman for Electronic Communication in the Department of Electronic and Electrical Engineering. His research speciality is data and digital transmission and he is the author of numerous research papers and professional reports, as well as the originator of several patents. Before appointing Dr. Pardoe I personally questioned him as to whether he had any connections with either company and he assured me that he had neither worked for nor had any connection with either company and you will appreciate, hon. members, that it is extremely difficult to find anybody in this sphere of specialisation that has not actually been a working official for one group or another.

Questions and answers were exchanged between the consultants and the officials of the committee and the companies during November and December and on 14th January 1986 a meeting of the Telecommunications Committee was held, attended by both the engineering consultant and the Treasurer who went through their respective reports. These are the only reports to have been received and considered and, I might add, both proposed the same recommendation, in spite of some allegations to the contrary and these proposals or recommendations were arrived at independently because the two people did not meet.

Now in reference to the internal paper from the Treasury it was agreed, as recommended in that paper, to finalise the financial reports with meetings which were then held with British Telecom and Cable and Wireless on 17th and 27th January, respectively, in order to seek clarification on certain financial matters and, after accepting the advice of the Telecommunications Committee, Executive Council agreed to inform the members of Tynwald at the meeting held on 10th February 1986 that Council would be recommending that British Telecom be granted the public telecommunications system licence. It was at that point that the documents were distributed to members, in response to promises and assurances that I had given to this Court, I think, twice during the preceding time. Up until this time the

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence to British Telecom — Debate Commenced TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 T1147 documents had been kept, as people have said, secret. The reason was quite simple, because once these documents become public they would be open to a public auction, that is, each group would be just pushing forward one consideration over another, and in fact both companies freely admit they have absolutely no idea at all what the other company had proposed and it was also quite obvious, in talking to both companies in the subsequent meetings to finalise, that neither company knew what the other had proposed. So therefore we did achieve something that was very important in spite of all the allegations from outside, that up until the time the recom­ mendation had been made neither side knew what the other had proposed. We, as I think I said in one of the broadcasts, were aware of the dangers that would follow public acknowledgment of the submissions because from that time onwards obviously the opportunity was there for either company to try and up the offer if they needed to or thought they ought to, and we made the recommendations purely and simply on the submissions and our own advisers and we must hold to the original documents. Now the original documents plus the technical engineering report and the Treasurer’s report were handed to every member of Tynwald except, I think, two or three who were unable to come and, as far as I know, those members who were given those documents, they were sent to their homes so that they had the documents. The members were advised by myself that at 6 o’clock that evening the two submissions would be made public.

I also said that the engineering report would be considered a confidential report. The reason for that was quite simple. Dr. Pardoe had no inhibitions at all or reservations about his report becoming public but, if you studyjhe back of the report, of course it does contain commercial information regarding both companies which was not cleared for publication and which had clearly printed across, the top of the letters that these letters were, I think, confidential in commercial terms or ‘In Commercial Confidence’. There was also the feeling that for the sake of precedent it was probably not wise, if we ask a consultant to advise Government in the future, that that consultant would automatically assume that his advice would then become public knowledge. But the reason for not declaring the engineer’s report public was not on the insistence of Dr. Pardoe, who was quite prepared to have his recom­ mendations public, but on the recognition and respect of commercial confidentiality on the part of the committee relating to the two companies.

As far as the advice from the Treasurer is concerned it was considered that this was an internal document within Government by a Government official advising Government, and under those circumstances I think we felt that a Government official should be protected in confidence in his advice to Government. No other report existed. No other report was sought. There is some difficulty over the letters or the questions asked at the back of that report. The difference is between the questions asked by the consultant and some questions that had become obvious during consideration over the years by the officials of the committee itself, who asked one or two questions that had arisen during the long build up to the final issue and those were not put in the engineer’s report because they were not asked by him. Now some people have questioned whether the engineer should have asked the questions. I think if we are asking a consultant to advise us we can hardly limit

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence to British Telecom — Debate Commenced TI 148 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986

the questions that he is expected to ask and I think that such a man has to be given the right to ask such questions as he feels are advisable.

Now I think we ought to just consider the contenders. Members will be aware that the British Telecom and Cable and Wireless are both companies which were previously wholly owned by the British Government but privatised at different rates and to a different extent under the present administration. As referred to in the technical consultant’s report, both companies have significant telecommunications installations which they own and operate and have designed. The answers to requests for information and questions has demonstrated the undoubted professional competence of both companies’ officers. Executive Council concurs entirely with the technical consultant’s opinion that either party is competent to install and operate a telecommunications system on the Island. The telecommunications subscriber can therefore expect to be adequately catered for, regardless of which company the licence is awarded. Having said that, however, members will note that the technical consultant has recommended that, from an engineering point of view, the recom­ mendation is that the licence should be awarded to British Telecom PLC.

Having considered the telecommunications subscriber, therefore, we should turn our attention to the Manx taxpayer and it is considered by Executive Council, after taking into account the financial appraisal made, that the interests of the taxpayer would best be served by granting the licence to British Telecom and I think, having said that, we must look at where the ultimate differences lie and how they have arisen and how they are possible and I think if one just looks back and just re-states two of those facts both companies are capable without any doubt at all of providing an efficient telephone service. One happens to be in post, happens to be sitting here with their operating system here and operating so that the sitting tenant, as you might say, is bound to have the edge over somebody wishing to come in. That edge starts by the value of the assets that are here and any other company wishing to take over would have to start by purchasing the existing system. If he then, whoever that company is, if that company then decides that it wishes to install its own type of engineering system over the top of the old he then has the capital expenditure of that new system, and therefore to start with anybody, in sheer financial terms, wishing to take over from the existing has a double disability financially. But of course there are always the temptations to say ‘Let us start anew. Let us have a new wind blow through the whole system and let us revitalise everything’ and of course there is that feeling, that it is time maybe for a change, but of course in the end it comes down to hard financial terms.

But, apart from that one is looking at a different situation and one has to refer to this because it must play a part. Before all the arguments started in this Court yesterday I wrote a little expression of my own view, that we could be in danger of running a teddy bears’ picnic in the middle of a bear garden. Now that might not make very much sense but, ultimately, who puts in the best bid will be the company that is determined to be here and the changing relationships with the company, the changing relationships in the United Kingdom and the changing relationships between the Isle of Man and the United Kingdom in the terms of the operations of two very large, very powerful companies with huge resources is

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence to British Telecom — Debate Commenced TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 T1149 ultimately decided by who feels that their sphere of influence is either under threat or has to be taken over or has to be defended. In the end a large company will use its muscle, financial muscle to ensure that it either defends its own territory or it puts in a bid that is so large that it will have to take over a territory. We see in the Isle of Man one very large group who have decided that this is their sphere of influence and in their view it is going to stay their sphere of influence and they are going to see that they put in a bid that ensures that that will happen. In Bermuda the other company decided the other way round. In Bermuda the other company decided that that was their sphere of influence and they were going to ensure that that became their own. When we are considering things like this we are getting into deep water. All we can seek is the best possible terms that we can achieve for the people of the Isle of Man. That, in my view, was the question that was raised all those years ago. It was raised first of all with the Post Office, how should we get the maximum return for the people of the Isle of Man? In the questions that have been asked since, which set up this committee, the same answer really has to be found: what is the best and most advantageous arrangement that we can make for the people of the Isle of Man? I feel that the one thing that has been totally ignored by all the allegations is that we have over the years, as the years have unfolded, actually achieved a very good final issue. In fact I suppose what we ought to say is that this committee has actually played its game of poker remarkably well. I beg to move that the resolution stands: Tynwald declares that it is o f the opinion that the licence to run the public telecommunication system in the Isle o f Man under Section 5 o f the Telecom­ munications Act 1984 of Tynwald, should be granted to Manx Telecom Limited (a wholly-owned subsidiary o f British Telecommunications PLC) subject to an agreement being reached between the Governor in Council and British Telecommunications PLC on the terms and conditions to be incorporated in the proposed licence.

Mr. Anderson: Your Excellency, I beg to second and support the motion before the Court this morning. I can understand to some degree misgivings in some people’s minds that, in the event of the United Kingdom returning a Socialist Government at some time in the future, they might decide to re-nationalise British Telecom and that is, possibly, something that could happen at some time in the future. I think that we have actually operated under that system for a very-long time and I was not aware about any great difficulty. But I think the difference in this situation would be that we would have a Manx Telecom Company which, although associated with it, would be a completely separate company and the one factor that, I think impresses me about this is, irrespective of that the lump sum would have already been paid into the Manx exchequer, so it would have that advantage and to me the difficulty arises that in a technical appraisal I do not feel competent to comment on them. I am satisfied, however, that either party could have done the job satisfactorily. I think either party would have given the Isle of Man a very good service. I gather there is some criticism about the decision to go for the British Telecom offer. I believe the criticism so offered would be minute compared with the criticism

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence to British Telecom — Debate Commenced TI 150 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 that would have been offered had the alternative financial arrangement been accepted by the Government at this time. To refuse an offer of £7.5 million when the technical appraisal was similar and a minimum licence fee over that period of 20 years of £250,000 and to accept that instead of an offer of £50,000 a year, I believe the criticism that this Government would have received would far have outweighed that.

I believe that the committee have done an exceptionally good job here. They were right to seek an independent appraisal from a technical point of view because, like myself, I do not think any of them would claim to be competent to go into the technical appraisal in that way.

As far as the ordinary person in the Isle of Man is concerned, what they want is to be able to in their own room, in their own house, lift a telephone and dial any part of the world at the cheapest possible cost to them and I believe we can do that. I can sit, as I have done recently, in my own room and within half a minute I can speak to my daughter who happened at that time to be in Australia. I can do the same within 15 seconds to the United States. I believe we have an exceptionally good service.

I come across from time to time those in the financial sector, and I know there are more sophisticated complications in the communications required there, but I have not heard a single criticism of the service offered by British Telecom in that sector with the people with whom I meet and I am confident that there is only one choice as far as I am concerned before this hon. Court, and I would find a great difficulty in answering the criticism of refusing the motion before the Court for the alternative. Your Excellency, I beg to support.

Mr. Brown: Your Excellency, we are today being asked to make a very important decision, a decision which will play an important part in the future of the Isle of Man and one of which I do not underestimate its importance. That decision is who shall receive the telecommunications licence for the Isle of Man for the next 20 years? I have to say that I find it disappointing that Executive Council, and it has been said over the last day or so, have not produced a report detailing their reasons why they wish to offer that licence to Manx Telecom before the actual debate. Here we have one of the major decisions of the Island’s future and yet we have only been presented with the four documents and a recommendation and, as I say, I believe it would have been of benefit to every member to have had political views presented before the debate so that that also could be debated.

As we are all aware, the recommendation from Executive Council is to offer that licence to Manx Telecom Limited and, after reading the documentation very carefully, and I stress, very carefully, I find that I do not agree with that recom­ mendation as I do not believe it is in the overall best interest of the Isle of Man for well into the future, and I would emphasise that point, well into the future. I intend to make it clear why I do not support the recommendation and would state that in my view the offer from Cable and Wireless is an offer which is politically more favourable and, I believe, is also a better one from the business and public angle. In reaching my conclusions I am very conscious that I am disregarding the

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence to British Telecom — Debate Commenced TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 T1151

offer the hon. member for Council has made so much about, that offer of £7.5 million to the taxpayers, to the Manx Government, as an initial licence fee and, of course, a better on-going licence fee. I feel that this proposal is more important to the Isle of Man than just ‘money up front’ and I believe that I can justify that later in my speech.

When considering the two reports from the companies I looked very carefully at what was on offer to the Isle of Man and its people and, while I found that British Telecom offered us £7.5 million up front — and I feel I should make it clear at this point that it states in its offer that an option would be for part of this sum to be paid in shares in equity of the Manx Telecom, and that is on page 19; it states that — so even the £7.5 million is not guaranteed, is not sacred in actual cash terms and is negotiable after we support what is in front of us today. It should also be remembered Manx Telecom will have to find that £7.5 million and there is no doubt its customers will have to pay for it. It will also have to find the licence fee annually and that will also have to come from its customers. B.T. also offer an annual licence fee of £250,000 indexed to telecommunication prices or — because that is the one that has been projected more — or 15 per cent, of past years’ operating profits, or £100,000 plus five per cent, of previous years’ operating profits. So the financial picture has still got to be negotiated later and one has to ask, are we as a Govern­ ment here to make money through our telephone users, in the way of a licence fee for the operator and therefore add to that licence operator’s costs which inevitably must be passed on to the telephone users of the Isle of Man? And the people and businesses of the Isle of Man will have to find that money, as I see it. 1 feel I must also state that apart from option one, that is the £250,000 annual fee, the other options mean very little unless we guarantee that the company will be in real profit throughout the 20 years of the licence and, I emphasise, real profit. I believe that we are here to make sure that we have the best telephone system and its facilities for the Isle of Man and are not just after a good licence fee which, as I have said, will be passed on.

So then one has to ask why have I come out in support of Cable and Wireless. I believe that Cable and Wireless offer the Isle of Man a truly independent system, a truly independent telecommunications system and that is not so with Telecom, although I do accept that the Manx company in both cases will have the parent company holding the majority of shares. But with regard to the actual system and tariffs Cable and Wireless, in my opinion, come out on top. Cable and Wireless also make an offer which I believe could be far more valuable in the future than the £7.5 million or the annual licence fees.

So therefore let me explain how I see the picture. Firstly, the system — may I say that technically I accept that both systems will work and gi«e systems of differing degrees for well into the future. I do not question that at all. I favour the Cable and Wireless system because it offers us, as I have said, a totally independent system. Everything we require will be based here on the Isle of Man and that is not so, as I read it, with British Telecom as they do not state they will move their telex service to the Isle of Man, therefore depriving us of a totally independent system and possible revenue.

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence to British Telecom — Debate Commenced TI 152 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986

Then I move on to tariff systems and it is clear to me that the tariff structures offered by Cable and Wireless will be of more benefit to all sections of the Island’s community. For example, provision is made to allow the elderly to have telephones installed and to pay a reduced standing charge, and it states at least 50 per cent, off their normal charge, and I accept that they will have to pay a dearer unit charge, that is pay as you use it. But how many people, how many hon. members here know of many elderly people who could afford to have the phone installed, or for somebody to pay for it or somebody would pay for it, but they do not because they cannot afford the full present on-going standing charge and it is quite often that those elderly people we know who do have phones rarely phone out but often their families and friends phone in to keep contact with them, and I welcome this offer made by Cable and Wireless and not made by Telecom.

Cable and Wireless offer a range of different tariffs which will enable the private and business sectors to choose what system and how they wish to pay for their phone calls. Cable and Wireless offer four main tariff types; standard tariff, basic tariff, professional and executive tariffs, all of which are clearly laid out in section 4, page 43, of their proposals. I was also pleased to see that there is offered a facility for hotels on the Island, as projected in their proposals on page 36, which in itself could again be of great benefit both to the tourist industry and business on the Isle of Man and adds to that little difference. It is details like this, catering for our island’s needs, for what we need, that have impressed me to some degree. They seem to have looked at us to see what our requirements as an island would be from both local and international needs. From what I see in the B.T. offer our tariff structure, that is, Manx Telecom, will follow very closely with the United Kingdom structure. It is true that they are proposing to permit Manx Telecom to have its own tariff structure, but if you look at page 20 in their proposals it states quite clearly the following and I quote: ‘Within the controls agreed Manx Telecom would be at liberty to set out its own tariff structure free from any precedent set in the United Kingdom.’ and, I would just re-emphasise, ‘within the controls agreed’; that will be the controls agreed after today, if they are offered the licence. But it then goes on to say and I quote again: ‘Naturally, any such divergence from United Kingdom prices would need to be consistent with long-term growth and profitability of the Isle of M an.’ Again it goes on and I quote again: Simple controls over main revenue streams of call fees and line rental could encompass a link with R.P.I. or with United Kingdom tariffs, as in the interim licence. The latter has the advantage of underpricing calls between the Isle of Man and the United Kingdom and thus offering significant advantages to telecommunication units on the Isle of Man.’ Now on the face of it it seems an ideal situation because we will be able to undercut the United Kingdom, but it does not allow the Manx Telecom communications system, as I see it, to have a total freedom of controlling its own tariffs and under this proposal the Isle of Man will always be tied to United Kingdom telephone charges even if the Manx Telecom became very profitable. This, therefore, in my opinion, takes away some of the benefit to the Isle of Man passing its own legislation last year to have its own telecommunications operator. I find that the tariffs offered by B.T. are a copy of the system that we already have and in fact project very little difference in the future.

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence to British Telecom — Debate Commenced TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 T1153

Another aspect of the Cable and Wireless offer is the facility for television transmission. It is only a small item but again one that could be important and it is a problem that has dogged the Isle of Man for many years. It will enable trans­ missions to and from the Island to anywhere in the world and it could play an important part in the Island’s future and may I say before anybody else does, because I am sure somebody will, that I am well aware that live transmissions can be transmitted off the Island and have been as was seen in the Saturday ‘Superstore’ programme in 1984, but to do that the B.B.C. had to hire from Telecom portable transmission units which had to be brought to the Island to transmit the signal back to the United Kingdom for just that period. So the Cable and Wireless offer would mean we had a permanent facility here on the Isle of Man. That is not offered by Telecom.

I now come to one area of concern I have with regards to the Cable and Wireless offer, which involves the present staff of British Telecom. I find that the situation over job guarantees is inconsistent within their proposal document. For, whereas in the specific information requested by Executive Council in question seven, and it asks and I quote: ‘What would be your company’s intention with regard to the present local labour force in the event that your application should prove successful?’ Their response was as follows: ‘In this event Cable and Wireless would guarantee the following — (1) the local company would offer employment on terms no less favourable to those presently enjoyed to all members of the local labour force with the exception of a few senior management and professional staff. ’ And it ends there and yet in their proposals on page 16, item 6, it states and I will quote from that ¡‘guarantee employment on at least comparable terms to existing system staff who are resident on the Island’ and the important word there to me is ‘system’, system staff, and it reiterates this then throughout the proposal, and I as a member who talked to Cable and Wireless at their presentations questioned them very much with other members on this very item, the pension rights of the employees and the employment guarantees, and therefore the answer to Executive Council is the answer they gave us and, as I say, I question what they have put in their document, while I still support what they say, not on the employment, in general terms, Your Excellency; I had better clarify that. I do not support their views on their staff.

The problem is that, as I understand it, the use of the phrase ‘system staff’ means only those working in the exchanges and within the main system, and I am sure that will be clarified before this debate is over, and not those engineers who install and service the actual telephones and actually install them in properties. I would hope that if there is an offer made to Cable and Wireless, and I am anticipating if my amendment is successful which I shall present later, that Executive Council would take this matter on board to clarify it, and may I say I am well aware of the anxiety naturally felt by the present staff. I know some of them very well who, may I add, are professional in every way, carry out their work to the highest standards and I know are very much pro their present employer for very good reasons and I do not take that away from them; in fact it is something they should be proud of and their company should be proud of. Of course on the other hand I do realise that there would be job opportunities created outside the actual licence operator’s area in some of the projections put in. As I say, I have been very conscious of the

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence to British Telecom — Debate Commenced Ti 154 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 position of the staff and before coming to my decision I had very much in my mind their future, their families’ future and what it meant to them but, again, what was projected, to my opinion, was more important with respect to even that as a long­ term future to the Isle of Man. I do understand that B.T. have stated verbally that they guarantee all jobs, although I have to say this is not in their document. I am very aware of the importance to the individuals of their employment and I hope there are very few problems. We now come back to the offer by British Telecom to pay £7.5 million as an initial fee and how I feel I can justify rejecting it. Well, I hope to some degree what 1 have said goes some way to justifying that rejection. It is hard enough at any time to reject such an offer and even more difficult when we find financial constraints, as at present, but I believe that Cable and Wireless offer us an option which in the future may be also of vital importance to the Isle of Man. The position is this: Cable and Wireless offer to the Manx Government in their proposals, as I see it, an important offer. That offer is on top of all the other advantages I see and that offer is on page 19, paragraph 3, and it states and I quote: ‘If a future U.K. Govern­ ment chooses to take Cable and Wireless into public ownership provision will be made to ensure that Tynwald has an option to obtain control of the Isle of Man company.’ I believe that this proposal could be, and I will emphasise, could be of extreme importance to the Isle of Man well into the future if ever there is a move to re-nationalise the telecommunications network in Britain. It is an option the Isle of Man I believe must have to safeguard our future and, as no similar offer is made in the British Telecom proposals, then I believe that this offer alone outweighs the £7.5 million. We all know that if there is a change in the Government of the United Kingdom, which we have no say whatsoever in, that if there is a change and that change is for a prolonged period, then British Telecom will be re-nationalised; that has been made clear, and that could have an effect on our Island telecom­ munications system even though we have our own legislation. Therefore I believe that, while both companies will provide us with a modern, up-to-date telecom­ munications system but with varying degrees with regards facilities, charges et cetera, which will take us well into the next century, I believe that the provisions offered by Cable and Wireless have more to benefit the Isle of Man, an island situated in the middle of the British Isles, an island in the business of off-shore business, finance, insurance et cetera, and that the provision that if needs be in the future we can purchase our own telecommunications company completely if we need to, give Cable and Wireless the edge and I therefore, Your Excellency, move my amendment, which is in front of the members, that we offer the licence to Mercury Communications (Isle of Man) Limited. I beg to move: For the existing wording substitute — Tyn wald declares that it is o f the opinion that the licence to run the public telecommunication. system in the Isle of Man under section 5 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 of Tynwald, should be granted to Mercury Communications (Isle o f Man) Limited, a wholly-owned Manx subsidiary of Cable and Wireless PLC, subject to an agreement being reached between the Governor in Council and Cable and Wireless PLC on the terms and conditions to be incorporated in the proposed licence.

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence to British Telecom — Debate Commenced TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 T1155

The Governor: Hon. members, have we a seconder? If not, the Court stands adjourned until 2.30, the first to speak after lunch, Mr. Lowey. The Court is adjourned.

The Court adjourned at 1.01 p.m.

SELLAFIELD LEAK OF RADIOACTIVITY — MESSAGE TO U.K. GOVERNMENT

The Governor: Hon. members, before we begin this afternoon’s business, I have given the Chairman of Executive Council leave to make a short statement.

Dr. Mann: Thank you, Your Excellency. This has no connection with telecom­ munications. The Isle of Man Government is sending the following telex to Mrs. Thatcher this afternoon: “The Isle of Man Government wishes to express its concern and anger over yet another incident at Sellafield Nuclear Plant. Although each individual incident is limited in its effect, it further damages the confidence in the quality of management of the plant which is now at a very low ebb. It is hoped that Her Majesty’s Government will take such steps as are necessary urgently to restore public confidence in the management of a potentially dangerous activity.” Thank you very much.

PUBLIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM — GRANT OF LICENCE TO BRITISH TELECOM — MOTION APPROVED

The Governor: I call on Mr. Lowey, followed by Mr. Callin.

Mr. Lowey: Thank you, Your Excellency. There are, hon. members, times where in a debate one needs to heighten or to increase the temperature, and I concur with the hon. Chairman of Executive Council when he said this morning it was time to cool the temperature and to look at things in a cool dispassionate way, because, like Mr. Brown — who is not in his seat, I regret to say — I believe that this is a very important decision that the Court is being asked to make.

I dislike very much innuendo, smear, suggestion or doubts, and I regret very much that in the last week so much of that has been floating about outside, because I want to reiterate: there is nothing to hide, there are no secret documents, there are the documents that are before you which you can make your judgement upon.

Certain members have said — and I can have a certain amount of sympathy with them - a week is not long enough to assimilate and perhaps absorb the main arguments, but in this cas; I suggest that we are not looking at something abstract,

Sellafield Leak Radioactivity — Message to U.K. Government Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence to British Telecom — Motion Approved TI 156 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 we are looking at something positive. We have had excellent financial advice — and anyway, I would think in all the arguments the financial implications of both deals are clear; there are no objections, there is no area of doubt. We have heard from Mr. Brown technical details of where he thinks there is some doubt and why he has come to a different conclusion than the independent assessor which the Government — and I am not going to reiterate his qualifications — have produced and the evidence which he has produced, which are the two main documents.

1, as a layman on this particular exercise, must take advice from professional advisers. I am confident in the advice that has been proferred to the committee and therefore to me as a member of Executive Council, and as a member of Executive Council I have had these documents perhaps a little longer than most members; I have had them for about a fortnight and 1 find that when 1 read difficult documents, if you read them two or three times, you may get the message first time — two or three times and you have assimilated it. I have read the reports and I must say, irrespective of the professional advice, after reading both reports many times, like a bit of concrete I am setting harder and harder on the recommendation made by the executive committee’s Telecommunications Committee and that is that British Telecom should have the contract. I am not going to elaborate on the reasons why I think that; I think they are admirably set out in technical merit. Five out of the six points raised by our adviser come down quite unequivocally on the side of British Telecom. There can be no doubt, no argument on that and, therefore, I think it is a clear cut case. It is not a close run thing — it is clear cut.

That does not invalidate what I would call Mr. Brown’s contribution this morning. I would say to Mr. Brown that I disagree with him on his conclusions. The only two points I would raise with Mr. Brown if he was here, Your Excellency, is that I thought . . .

Mr. Brown: I am here.

Mr. Lowey: He is nearly there, at the Bar! I have spoken with Mr. Brown over lunch and explained to him my objection. I believe his report to us was almost an academic thesis. He also suggests that the £7,500,000‘up-front’ payment, I think he used, is not guaranteed. Well, I would suggest that if you read the recommendation from British Telecom it is clear and unequivocal and I read it: ‘An initial licence fee of £7V4 million with a guaranteed minimum'annual fee of £250,000 so that the Island can participate fully in Manx Telecom’s commercial success. British Telecom is prepared to negotiate alternative packages such as equity in Manx Telecom in lieu of part of the initial fee and annual fees as a percentage of profits.’ In other words, all the options are open to the Government, but the offer is absolute and clear, so to suggest that there is a doubt is, I think, wrong.

So I would disagree strongly with Mr. Brown on that. Where he says ‘nothing is for nothing’ — that is what he was, in effect, saying — and he said that has got to be paid for by the consumer, make no mistake about it, Mr. Brown, whichever company gets it, it is the consumer that will pay. There is nothing for nothing in this world, so let us get that clear and, if 1 may say so, British Telecom, as the Chair­

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence to British Telecom — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 T1157 man of Executive Council has already said, has an advantage historically, it is here and is in possession of the assets. The alternative, Cable and Wireless, would either have to purchase them or rebuild them so the costs of that would be borne — make no mistake about it — by the consumer of the service. So again I say myself, a simple country lad that I am, a bird in the hand is worth ...

Members: Oh!

Mr. Lowey: Can I just refer to what again is called by Mr. Brown some of the doubts that he has? What would happen if the United Kingdom Government was to change and British Telecom was to be re-nationalised? If that was so, if our decisions are to be based on the considerations that another Government may change in another country, we would not get very far and, if I may say so, that argument can be equally applied to Cable and Wireless because that too could be re-nationalised if it was the wish of an adjacent island. So I do not think the argument swings the balance in favour of Cable and Wireless. In case I am accused of being anti-Cable and Wireless, I am not; I believe, like the Chairman of Executive Council has said, it is a company, it is a thriving commercial company and I wish it well. When you have a choice of two, somebody has got to lose and I think all the signs indicate that the Isle of Man has got a good deal, and I believe myself that when you have a good deal, what we then have got to re-establish — and I regret, Your Excellency, that we have to re-establish, because it should not have been unestablished in the first place — but what we have got to do is, whoever gets this franchise goes forward with the full confidence and backing of this Court and the Island as a whole — the business community and the private subscribers — with a confidence, and I believe that when the decision is taken today we ought to put all the things of the past week behind us and make sure that whoever gets it is given that vote of confidence.

I would urge this Court to think very, very hard before changing the recom­ mendation that has been made to you by Executive Council. The reasons are quite clear: they are all there in the books before you. I know all members have read it. I cannot conceive of anyone coming to a different conclusion because I do believe, although Mr. Brown did try valliantly before lunch, he was gathering in twigs that were pretty thin on the ground to make a case up for not accepting the recom­ mendation. I say that in all deference to Mr. Brown, but the case is pretty thin.

I notice, Your Excellency, that we may have some recommendations before us later in the debate. I would again urge every member to resist the temptation of sending it to another committee for further consideration. I think hon. members have had adequate time, really, to make their decision and to get this decision, in the interest of whoever it is, the successful applicant, to give them a chance to get their ship and their show on the road.

Mr. Callin: Your Excellency, I believe that we are very fortunate indeed in having two such very good companies so interested in competing for the licence to run the public telecommunications system in the Isle of Man for tfie next 20 years. Most hon. members attended the two excellent seminars which were held last year. I know

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence to British Telecom — Motion Approved TI 158 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 that I personally was very impressed with both and at that particular time it was impossible for me to differentiate between the two companies.

I do not intend in this debate to get involved in either the financial or the technical detail contained in the two submissions, but as a member of Executive Council I want to pay compliment to the members of the telecommunications service, and not only to the members of the committee but I also want to pay compliment to their secretary. I do know that he has had a very, very difficult task indeed and I want to say also that I am absolutely confident that that committee played it straight down the middle from beginning to end and I do not think that could be spelt out too loudly.

I think it is very sad indeed and it is also very wrong when we hear the false allegations which have been made in public. The Telecommunications Committee took, as the hon. member of Council who has just sat down said, independent professional advice and quite properly they took notice of that advice. I, too, can confirm that the committee did not report to Executive Council until the latter half of January and until that time we, who are not members of the committee, had not the slightest idea what the submissions contained or what was to be recom­ mended. As I have already stated, the whole proceedings were conducted in such a way as to reflect credit on all those concerned. That is my candid opinion and I make it without qualification.

A great deal has been argued over the technical detail contained in the two sub­ missions but at the end of the day I doubt very much if the ordinary telephone user would experience any real difference whichever company operated the service, and I am certain that both would do a good job. I certainly have no criticism as a telephone user, both private and business, to make against British Telecom for the service that they have provided in the past and I feel sure that this would apply to the vast majority of telephone users on the Island, as I have received no single complaint against British Telecom except, perhaps, from those who either had a political or a financial interest.

To refer back to the two submissions, we have been advised that from an engineering point of view the licence should be awarded to British Telecom. We are also advised, and I am certain with good reason, that in financial terms the British Telecom offer is far superior. If any further convincing in favour of British Telecom is necessary, I would like to quote from a programme transmitted on Border Television on 11th February when it was stated that a spokesman for the company — that is, Cable and Wireless — pointed to items which were in their submission but were not in British Telecom’s original. They were the ground satellite link and the optical fibre cable. He said that the Isle of Man Government should make sure that they are within that contract that they signed with British Telecom. But he then continued that if they are, and if the £7,500,000 licence fee stands, then he is led to believe that the Isle of Man Government has had a very good deal from British Telecom. I am sure that the committee, Your Excellency, will ensure that these are within the contract, in which case the Isle of Man would have a very good deal.

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence to British Telecom — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 T1159

Your Excellency, I am sure that the amendment to be moved by the hon. member for Michael is well intentioned but I would urge hon. members to reject it for two main reasons. Firstly, I do not think that deferment . . .

The Governor: Mr. Callin, the motion has not yet been seconded; therefore, you cannot really debate it.

Mr. Callin: Thank you, sir.

Mr. Cannan: I have not moved it, Your Excellency.

Mr. Callin: I will stand to be corrected.

The Governor: Moved or seconded.

Mr. Callin: I will content myself then, Your Excellency, by saying that Tynwald has expressed itself in favour of a strong Executive Council who should give a lead in political decisions. Here we have a recommendation which is good for the Island and which is unanimously supported by Executive Council, and I sincerely hope it will now receive the support of Tynwald today. There is a lot of work still to be done and let us get on with it.

Mr. Morrey: Your Excellency, hon. members, we are being asked today, as I see it, to direct Executive Council to negotiate the public telecommunications operations licence. It would seem to me a case of ‘a little dog in keeps a big dog out’, or, in this case, ‘a big dog in keeps an even bigger dog out’ and if we are being asked to direct them to do these negotiations, it is the actual negotiations for the licence that worry me because, as I see it, negotiating in itself is an art or a craft and the first principles of this art or craft are to negotiate yourself into a position of strength; secondly, always to make sure that you leave yourself a second line of defence, and it is on this point that I have to question the recommendations of Executive Council. In doing this I would probably put myself in the position of the negotiator of the British Telecom people. After having given to Government £7,500,000, as it were, on the nail, then I would require my pound of flesh in order to balance the books. In that case I would have to look at the situation that I found myself in.

In the first place it appears there is a certain amount of acrimony or doubt with regard to the opposing company; it would appear they had disappeared from the scene, so that would be advantage number one and Government would really have no alternative and not a leg to stand on, apart from the fact that we could take the operation over oursleves which, of course, has not been mentioned and no details have been gone into. I could further recoup this £7,500,000 because if I literally took these two documents, one of them does not contain, as has been said before, the optical fibre cable, neither does it contain the earth satellite. In the letter of 15th November this communication tells us, ‘We plan to replace existing submarine cable’, not ‘we will’ replace the submarine cable. And the letter on the 12th December says ‘We plan speculative provision of a suitable satellite earth station,’ not ‘we

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence to British Telecom — Motion Approved TI 160 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 will provide’. So consequently we may or may not get those two services and I am quite sure those two services could in turn balance the £7,500,000.

I have not always been particularly satisfied with the attitude of British Telecommunications to the Isle of Man. I can give you an instance. On 27th September or thereabouts, one Friday my son and I were waiting for telephone communications; we waited all morning and nothing came. We contacted the individuals at lunchtime only to be told ‘Why did you not stay and answer the ’phone?’ It was obvious that the ’phone was on the blink. In the afternoon I contacted Telecom and said that my ’phone was on the blink and would they repair it, whereupon I was told ‘I am sorry, sir, we will not be able to do anything about it until the beginning of next week.’ I thereupon said ‘As a matter of interest I happen to be one of the Members of the House of Keys and from time to time, thinking about the problems that we had last summer, we have various important communications.’ A few moments went by and back came the individual only to tell me ‘I am sorry, sir, but you are not considered priority.’ Well, goodness me, if British Telecom do not consider this hon. House priority, what do they consider? And I would say to Executive Council, if this is negotiated with British Telecom, to make sure this attitude does not prevail.

Now if we look at the point of view of the £7,500,000 if it went into the coffers, I would hope, of course, that it would not go into general revenue or, I believe, it would vanish like butter in the sun and we would not feel the benefit of it anyway, and by putting this £7,500,000 into the budget it could do as much damage to the hon. members of the Treasury as anything else because it can upset the system that he appears to be going along to getting to grips with our financial problems, so it could be as bad as it is good — he probably will not agree with me about th a t. . .

Mr. Maddrell: No!

Mr. Payne: Would anybody?

Mr. Morrey: We also must look, really, as to what the value of the £7,500,000 will be in the year 2007 and if, instead of looking forward, we look backwards, of course, it would be worth a lot less.

Mr. Pardoe says in his report that Cable and Wireless is a Rolls Royce job. Well, I would have thought we want a Rolls Royce job in the Isle of Man. I understand there are two ways of looking at this business: I understand that one company says, ‘Well, as the facility is needed, we will provide it.’ The other company says ‘We will put the facility in to begin with and thereby attract the business’ and it is up to members to decide, of course, which is the best situation. Will one create more business than the other? Mr. Pardoe said the Isle of Man was an island of 65,000 people with a finance industry, but the main industries were agriculture et cetera. He had obviously got that wrong, because I understand that 28 per cent, of our revenue comes from finance so, whether we like it or not, that is our most important industry and this facility that we are discussing today has the most influence on that particular industry. It says that some of the equipment is out of date, that the

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence to British Telecom — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 T1161 new exchange was out of date when it was designed and some of it ought to be in museums, as it may be.

There was one part that I was particularly disturbed with. This, hon. members, was on page 14, item 5 — maintenance: ‘With a large administration next door using, in the main, common equipment, spares, training and support are readily available at advantageous rates’, and I would say to this that they could be too readily available. I have already said on the radio that I was disturbed by the numbers of English engineers that have been employed to put in the fibre optic cables around the Isle of Man. In my opinion, Manxmen should have been trained to do this job and Manxmen should have been putting those fibre optic cables in. I would have thought this was pretty ominous as to what could happen in the future, and I would hope, if Executive Council negotiate with British Telecommunications in the future, that they take due notice of these remarks of mine.

I have said in the past I do not always trust the ideas of experts. We have obviously got a history in the Isle of Man — we have got swimming pools, hydro-electric schemes, turbines, sewers, old people’s homes and there is still one monument, I understand, somewhere in the Mersey, all on the advice of experts. So I say we should use our empirical judgement, not that we should take, of course, note of the experts but what our judgement is is our own affair, and I would have liked to see — and I have no doubt we probably have but we have not been told — whether a similar situation, similar island conditions, have actually been compared with the Isle of Man and as to what has actually happened in their experience.

Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, as a member of Executive Council may just align myself fairly and squarely behind the recommendations that are in front of the Court this afternoon? I had thought that the decision we were going to be asked to make would be a particularly difficult one. I had thought, for non-technical persons, putting our minds to a technical subject like this would be extremely difficult. I did find documents of the proposals that had been put forward by both companies extremely interesting and they were written in a way, I think, that laymen could understand and I would thank them for that. I really have very little comment as far as the technical side goes at all, except to say that I am pleased that proposals . . . and the decisions were, for me anyway, comparatively easy to make, and I think Mr. Pardoe’s report was succinct and I can certainly go along with that on the technical side.

I would say, referring to this morning’s debate, that in no way did I find myself embarrassed by the offers I had from both sides — in no way at all. I do think that what was said by Mr. Speaker was a matter of concern and I think that the House of Keys, in due course, will have to address its mind to the particular question he posed and perhaps the Standing Orders Committee or someone ought to take it a little further. As I see the situation with offers to members, it is very much a matter for each individual to assess what is being offered to him and whether or not in the minds of other people that could be construed to be a bribe, and I think that is the important and salient point.

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence to British Telecom — Motion Approved TI 162 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986

I am concerned, Your Excellency, by British Telecom and the financial proposals, and although I say we should go for British Telecom, I think that when these proposals are being firmed up into a licence we do want to have a look at the shares and the balance of power that the voting shares will have and they say quite clearly that British Telecom would wish to retain at least 51 per cent, of the voting shares, and I would suggest that in the case of a future nationalisation of that company, if those shares were held by the British Government, voting shares in a Manx company, that would be unacceptable and I would look to the Telecom­ munications Committee, when they come to interpret these proposals into a form of licence, that that particular aspect is looked at very closely indeed. I do think that this is an opportunity for members to state where they think these proposals need firming up when it comes to a licence and I am taking the opportunity of making that particular point.

As far as the £7,500,000 goes, Your Excellency, I look on that as a bonus because it was not the £7,500,000 that swayed my opinion. I think that the technical grounds were there, the £7,500,000 was a bonus and I do think that in some way, again, the committee have to be careful that that £7,500,000 in some way cannot be set off as a charge against future profits, because I would not like to think at the end of the day that because income tax was being set off against this, we were paying ourselves £7,500,000 and I think that that is a point that has to be taken into account.

The hon. member for Castletown, when he was making his case — and I think he made a good job out of poor amunition — did us a favour in bringing to the floor of this Court the alternatives and I think that is important, but he did say ‘Ah, well, the £7,500,000, of course — there is a question mark against that and some of it, perhaps, would be set off against the equity that Government might purchase’. Well, whether Government purchases an equity in either company it would have to be paid for and I do not think that that was something that was particular about British Telecom.

So, Your Excellency, I will certainly support these recommendations. I think it is right and I think hon. members of this Court ought to align themselves behind their Executive Council on this occasion.

Mrs. Hanson: Your Excellency, there are two points which I need to be reassured about before I can make my decision. The first has been briefly touched on by two or three previous speakers and I make no apologly for bringing it forward again, because I think this ought to be highlighted — that is, the re-nationalisation of British Telecom if there is a change of Government in the United Kingdom and, by opinion polls that we see, this is a very strong possibility for the future.

British Telecom have stated — and as you are all aware it has been mentioned by the previous speaker — that they wish to keep at least 51 per cent, of the shares of the Manx company. It is possible that if there was a re-nationalisation, our Government could take over the Manx company if the need arose, and of this I have no doubt, but our only contact, apart from the United Kingdom, with the outside world in this eventuality would be through the United Kingdom British

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence to British Telecom — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 T1163

Telecom network. We would have no control over whatever charges or conditions could be laid down, and that is one point that I need to be reassured about.

The second is this: where is it shown in the British Telecom written proposals that they have given an unconditional commitment to build an earth station by a specific date? Will these items be particularly laid down in the licence negotiations? These are two points which I need to be reassured on, Your Excellency. Mr. Cain: Your Excellency, I have a number of points that I wish to make which I consider of great importance before I make up my mind finally but, before I do so, I would just like to comment on the way in which I believe the public relations aspects of this matter have been handled. The fact is that where inadequate or incomplete information is given to the public by a Government it is not surprising that rumours and gossip abound. I feel it is a great tragedy that at the outset last week, when this was made public, the Government did not handle the media in a professional manner, and if they had done so the charade of yesterday afternoon and this morning could have been avoided. But, going on, the points that I am most concerned with relate to the financing arrangements, and I would be very grateful if the Chairman of Executive Council could in due course give me some answers on these. In the British Telecom submission, British Telecom will pay £7,500,000 to the Isle of Man Government on 1st January 1987. What I would like to know is whether that is going in any way whatsoever to be a charge on the Manx Telecom profits because, if that is so, then it will necessarily mean that people will be paying, through their telephone bills, a sum of money higher than they would necessarily pay and it is a form of disguised taxation. I think it is important that that £7,500,000 should under no circumstances be a charge either as to capital or interest against the profit and loss accounts of Manx Telecom. If it is a charge, then it will cause me to think again.

Looking at the annual licence fee proposals by British Telecom, they are suggesting £250,000 each year indexed to telecommunications prices. That I do not find very convincing because their proposals are that with modern technology prices will come down, and we could well find ourselves in a situation where inflation gathers and the real value of that declines year by year. Fifteen per cent, of past years’ operating profit also does not thrill me. Profits are a variable factor and can be altered and affected by many different circumstances. Their third option is £100,000 plus five per cent, of the previous years operating profit. I note that there is no inflation factor built in and again, after a period of years, the value of that could decline appreciably. In comparison, Cable and Wireless have suggested £50,000 per annum inflation-linked. It could well be that if inflation were to break out again, in a few years’ time if we were to accept one of the British Telecom offers, we would be regretting it and regretting it a great deal. We do have a habit in this Island of ignoring inflation altogether, the result of which is disaster when it comes to accounting.

Another matter I would wish to be raised is security. At the moment we are linked into the British Telecom system and it is possible for British security forces, whether

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence to British Telecom — Motion Approved TI 164 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 they be genuine security operatives or the Inland Revenue, to engage in ‘phone- tapping activities into the Manx telephone system without any permission whatsoever — or even knowledge on our part. I would need to be totally satisfied that the Manx Telecom system was set up in such a way that under no circumstances whatsoever could British Telecom or any organisation in the United Kingdom have access to our telephone system. From that point of view, of course, the Cable and Wireless proposal that international calls would be routed direct from the Isle of Man to their international destinations is much more satisfactory. The fourth matter that I would like to be raised is largely one of cosmetic, but it is nonetheless important. At the moment the Isle of Man has no separate inter­ national direct dialling code. If one is overseas and one wishes to ring the Isle of Man one has to ask to ring the United Kingdom. This does not give a very good impression overseas to clients or people whom one has been trying to convince that the Isle of Man is genuinely self-governing. I think it is therefore important that if Monaco, for example, can have its own international code, so can we. Mr. May: Your Excellency, I feel there are three major points to consider in the course of this debate this afternoon and, before doing so, I would like to personally congratulate and thank the hon. member, the Chairman of Executive Council, for the way in which he has laid the recommendation before the Court today because he has spelt it out very clearly, and I feel quite sure he has, in the procedure of spelling it out, cleared a lot of doubts and answered a lot of questions that have been in members’ minds. As I say, I feel there are three major points to look at in the course of the debate. The first is that we have here a situation where two major international companies are vying for the franchise of the Isle of Man. One of those companies is the sitting tenant, the person who is already here; the other one is trying to come in and take over somebody else’s territory. This creates a situation where, if the Cable and Wireless franchise were to be accepted, they then would be placed in the situation whereby they would have to, of necessity, take over the existing Telecom assets which would amount to many millions of pounds, they would also, of necessity, have to directly link into the British Telecom network for the United Kingdom networks. This, I feel, is a point that must be looked at. The existing operator, British Telecom or Manx Telecom, as the company is to be renamed, would not face any problem of this sort; their links with the British network are already firmly secured, there is no problem in the event of any fault occurring on the Isle of Man end, and there would be no hesitance in co-operation from the British Telecom end, which there may well be between companies that are in opposition. Although the OFTEL agree­ ment does say that B.T. must make access available to Mercury or any other company, it is a question of point as to whether, when it came to actually counting the cost and when it came to putting the cards on the table, the service was there and backed up as fully as it could be. British Telecom sit here as the resident; they have no initial major outlay of capital expenditure that Cable and Wireless would have. They are therefore financially in a somewhat better position, a position to come along and offer this Government the £7,500,000 cash outlay which they have done. This is, as the hon. mover pointed out, by no means beyond precedent; a similar situation happened on the other side of the scale in Bermuda.

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence to British Telecom — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 T1165

I think the second point to look at is the technological aspect, and here again we look at the report of Mr. Pardoe, which was a very concise and very clear report, and it spells out quite clearly that in all but one of the points examined British Telecom are the front runners. I do not profess to be a technological expert as, I am sure, neither does any member of this hon. Court and I am prepared to accept evidence that is laid before me by a person who is a technological expert.

The third point I feel that should be considered — and this, for the local employee, I feel, is one of the prime considerations — is the relationship of the staff and the security and long-term future of the 165 employees of Manx Telecom. They have, for a long time prior to privatisation and post privatisation, enjoyed satisfactory working relationships, good conditions, job security and the ability to sit down and negotiate with their employers. But the question has to be asked and I must pose this question — would that same security and that same ability to negotiate be present were the operation to change? There has been no guarantee from Cable and Wireless as such, and it is right that employees of Manx Telecom feel insecurity and doubt over the future. 1 think every member of this hon. Court should bear that in mind when making their ultimate decision.

Finally, there were a number of points made by the hon. member of Castletown in his very eloquent speech which he had obviously put a lot of thought into and gone into very deeply when he moved his amendment, which I see has not at this point in time been seconded. He made reference to the telex situation. The telex in the Isle of Man communicates with the United Kingdom telex. For Cable and Wireless to set up, their telex would communicate with London via a satellite net­ work — Effectively the result at the end of the day — that could not be faulted; there would be no argument on that.

The tariffs - Mr. Brown pointed out and said that he questioned whether under British Telecom the tariff structure would be advantageous to the Manx population. On page 20 of the submission, the paragraph that the hon. member did quote from, I would suggest that it is a matter of how you interpret this actual paragraph as to what reading you put on it, because it does say, ‘Within the controls agreed, Manx Telecom would be at liberty to set its own tariff structure free from any precedent set in the United Kingdom’. That, to me, does mean that it would be possible that Manx tariffs could be structurally different from tariffs in the United Kingdom.

Also within the proposals contained in the Telecom submission, there is the opportunity to have two locally based directors on the board, who would be there with the opportunity and with the object of looking after and securing the interests of the subscribers here on the Isle of Man. The hon. member also mentioned tele­ vision linkage, the opportunity to beam television direct. I aririnformed that a direct link does exist in Douglas telephone exchange at present, and all it needs to make use of this link is purely and simply to make an application.

I feel, having studied the report in depth — I know some members have said that we have not had a great deal of time to study the report, I have managed to read

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence to British Telecom — Approved TI 166 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 both of them a couple of times, and I am sure most hon. members have done that — having weighed up the arguments on both sides, I will come firmly on the side of British Telecom. Mr. Payne: Your Excellency, I thoroughly enjoyed the meals provided and the conversation provided by both of these companies and, you know, my conscience does not trouble me at all because I made my mind up when going there and I told both companies that I would choose the submission that provided the best deal for the Isle of Man Government. That is what I have attempted to do after receiving the documents. I have read through them a number of times, I have questioned them, on the technical side I have a sneaking suspicion that probably Cable and Wireless came out a little bit on top on the proposals — and I stress, the proposals, because the proposals change when you come into the experts’ reports that we received. What I refer to specifically is that in the British Telecom proposal it does not mention an optical fibre cable link to the United Kingdom, and in their proposal it does not mention a satellite earth station, and in their proposal it does not mention the fact that a 15 per cent, reduction will be given to consumers and maintained for four years, but it does mention it in the other reports and there is no doubt about that; in the questions that have been put by the experts, by the Chief Financial Officer of this Government, these facts come out. After his meeting with Mr. Howard Klein the Chairman of Executive Council issued a statement which stated that the Government had not considered the additional proposals, only those proposals contained in the submissions, and had come to their conclusions on those grounds. I fully accept that — quite an honourable thing to say; it is true. But I believe that at least one of the consultants — that is, the main report by Mr. Pardoe — has taken into consideration the fact that a satellite earth station will be provided. On item 6.2 it states that British Telecom’s view of this, in commercial terms, is more attractive and the international traffic proposals more definite whilst also being flexible; that is in relation to the satellite earth station. On looking at all these proposals I have come to the conclusion that they are very close, but the financial aspects of it tipped the balance for me, and if British Telecom do decide that they will do a satellite earth station, an optical fibre cable and provide those reductions, the balance to me is tipped in their favour.

Some members have mentioned that British Telecom own the assets. I question that; I am not too sure that that is the case. They do own the assets, of course they do, but when Manx Telecom is set up I presume for their 51 per cent, share of Manx Telecom that will be their contribution — the existing system. So Manx Telecom are buying the system. There is no doubt about that; the system is being bought as the opposition would have to do.

I too, like the hon. member for Rushen, feel that we should be absolutely certain in times of re-nationalisation in the United Kingdom, something should be written into the licence that we would have an opportunity to take a majority control of it. That to me is an essential and I hope those concerned are listening strongly to that point of view th^t has been expressed by many members.

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence to British Telecom — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 T1167

The £7,500,000 that has been suggested in the British Telecom offer — I look at another report and I presume I can quote parts from it. In the assessment by the Chief Financial Officer on both companies, it says, ‘revenue profit before interest and tax’, so I questioned the ‘before interest and tax’ and I was informed by the Chief Financial Officer that the interest obviously — it says so here — has not been taken into consideration, and the interest on that £7,500,000 as forecast by British Telecom was £740,000 a year, but it has been taken into account when it comes to the financial forecast. So that amount has been removed and the figures, on the last page on the financial forecast of profits, have been taken into account. So I am now satisfied that it is a sound offer from British Telecom. There is no way we can ignore it and on balance we have to go for the British Telecom offer, and I have come to that conclusion after fairly, in my view, looking at both proposals.

But why I have had an amendment circulated to hon. members is not that I do not trust the Telecommunications Committee — I think they have done a wonderful job; I think everything they have done has been above board and has been fine, but we are being asked today to state that Tynwald is of the opinion that the licence to run the telecommunication system for the Isle of Man should be granted to Manx Telecom. I fully accept that when the terms and conditions come in front of Tynwald we will have to approve it, but we will have then already stated that it will go to Telecom. As I have already explained, my view is that Telecom do win, but only because of the extra things that they have said that they will do that were not contained in their original proposals. In order to make sure and in order that I can vote for this proposal, I have proposed an amendment that at the end of resolution as moved by the Chairman of Executive Council, which follows on ‘subject to an agreement being reached between the Governor in Council and British Telecommunications on the terms and conditions to be incorporated in the proposed licence’, we should add, ‘such agree­ ment to be based upon original submissions together with clarifications given to the consultants and contained in their reports’. In other words, if they are going to provide a 15 per cent, reduction, a satellite earth station and the fibre optic cable, then I will vote for this resolution. I will have a hard decision to make if this amendment is not accepted. M r. Bell: Your Excellency, I had originally intended to speak at some length today on this issue, but in view of what has already happened in the last couple of days and what has already been said, I intend this afternoon to limit myself to seeking clarification, really, on three or four points, though to begin with, I again want to reiterate what I said yesterday — that in spite of what has been said here in the Court this afternoon, I am still of the firm opinion that this Court is being rushed into making a decision which it needs more time to consider. I say this now, more sure than ever after having experienced the events of yesterday afternoon and this morning; I think we badly need a period now to calm down and step back from this whole situation and look at it coolly and calmly away from the emotion of the last couple of days. I am still firmly of the opinion that the inept handling of the presentation of this whole matter has led to the situation we have arrived at at the moment. I think

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence to British Telecom — Motion Approved TI 168 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986

Executive Council’s approach to this whole matter has been very unfortunate, to say the least, and, as I say, I am quite convinced that a great majority of the unpleasantness we have had over the last few days could have been avoided with a more rational approach from Executive Council right from the very beginning, and 1 would still seek from the Chairman of Executive Council some explanation as to why either Executive Council itself or the Telecommunications Committee of Executive Council decided against giving any sort of political report to this hon. Court along with the other documents which we received last week.

From there, I would just like to again ask for further clarification from the hon. chairman. Yesterday, I mentioned in this hon. Court that it had been brought to my attention that two pages were missing from the Cable and Wireless evidence which appeared in the consultant’s report. This was clarified later on with a state­ ment which was given to all hon. members, I think, which reads at the very end: ‘As the consultant did not ask the particular questions he did not include, or make reference to, either the questions or the answers in his final report’, and Dr. Mann has confirmed this this morning.

This being the case — or indeed if this is the case — could the hon. chairman explain to me, if the replies from Cable and Wireless were deliberately omitted from the evidence, why then were the replies from British Telecom actually included? If what is stated in this particular document is absolutely true, then there is no logic for the inclusion of British Telecom’s responses. I initially only brought this to the attention of the Court in passing. I am quite prepared to accept it was purely a clerical error when the report was put together, but this is another example of inept response from Executive Council in trying to explain what I believe initially was just a very simple oversight. What has been stated by Dr. Mann, what has been stated by the clerk involved in this, is inconsistent and illogical and I would like an explanation as to why that position has been arrived at.

Dr. Mann: 1 thought I have explained, Your Excellency, this morning during my speech that some questions were asked by the officials, and they were questions that have arisen as we have been talking to each party. It just happens that those were the only ones that were not asked by the technical consultant. I thought I spelt that out this morning.

Mr. Bell: With respect, Your Excellency, is it not a fact that a similar situation arose with British Telecom?

Dr. Mann: No, it did not.

Mr. Bell: These were represented in exactly the same way in the report, with a covering letter and four questions.

Dr. Mann: The consultant himself could have put those in, but he was at liberty to put them in or leave them out depending on what he felt. They were not directly asked by him at the time.

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence to British Telecom — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 T1169

Mr. Bell: 1 am sorry, Your Excellency; 1 will accept the hon. chairman’s reply.

Dr. Mann: There was no attempt to mislead the Court if that is the . . .

Mr. Bell: No. As I am saying, I am sorry, I am not alleging any attempt to mislead the Court; I am just saying there is an inconsistency in the presentation of this to us, which I believe at this stage but it is something I am not very happy about.

The main reason, it would seem to me, or one of the main areas of concern expressed by the hon. Court today obviously seems to centre round the £7,500,000 payment which we have been offered by British Telecom. It seems to me again that there has been no clear indication from British Telecom how this money is going to be paid to us, where it is going to come from — whether it is going to be a direct payment from British Telecom or whether it is going to raised either through a share issue or through a loan within the Isle of Man itself. This, I think — or the ascertaining of this information — is absolutely crucial to the effectiveness and the benefit that the Island is going to get from this supposed payment. If this money is going to be raised locally on open market, the annual interest on £7,500,000 at the moment is going to be something in the region of £1,000,000 that they are going to have to pay back.

If I can, from there, move on to one other financial aspect — and again with the presentation of all this, I am not sure whether I am supposed to be revealing these figures or not but I will do anyway — one of the questions which has been asked of British Telecom is, what are the current arrangements that British Telecom have with the local organisation regarding the charges for the handling of traffic? This is for calls terminating in the Isle of Man and Manx calls terminating in the United Kingdom. It says on this that Manx Telecom pay British Telecom 5p per minute for each call to a United Kingdom destination from the Isle of Man, and British Telecom public tariff, less 5p per minute, for each international call from the Isle of Man. The reverse is also true for calls coming into the Isle of Man. Now the financial consequences of this transaction are quite crucial, it would seem to me, to the financial success of this operation. The figures we are given here is that the income derived from this exercise this year is £880,000. Under the new arrange­ ment in 1987/88 Manx Telecom, it is estimated, shall receive £2,649,000. That is fair enough, but the one figure out of this whole equation which seems to be missing is how much Manx Telecom is going to be paying to British Telecom for the services received at the other end. I cannot, anywhere on these documents, find this figure. It would strike me that it is more likely that a greater number of calls will be routed off the Island by Manx residents to people in England than incoming calls from England or international calls. Therefore, under this financing arrangement, it would seem to me that it would be likely that the amount paid out to British Telecom under this arrangement would be roughly equivalent to the amount Manx Telecom would receive in return, which would be somewhere near £2,500,000.

We are also told — and very welcome news at that — that British Telecom intend investing £34 million in the Isle of Man over the next 20 years, and again there are

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence to British Telecom — Motion Approved TI 170 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 obviously ways of financing this. But being very simplistic about the whole thing, this works out at roughly £1,750,000 a year British Telecom is going to have to find for their investment programme. These three items alone tot up to £5,250,000. This is long before the general operation costs of British Telecom are brought into consideration. On top of that we have a licence fee of at least £250,000 a year. These four items alone are going to be in the region of £5,500,000. On the other side of that — and again perhaps I am stepping out of line, I do not know — the figure that has been given to us for British Telecom’s profits in the Isle of Man for this year is £1,400,000 — that is a net profit for this year. After reaching this point, British Telecom are now offering to reduce charges next year by 15 per cent., freeze charges for the next four years, they are projecting minimal or low growth over these next few years as well, so they are not projecting any great turn­ over which is going to increase their profitability. So at the end of the day I am just wondering how the sums of this whole exercise are going to add up. To me as a non-expert in accountancy, I have to admit, I cannot make any sense of these figures in front of me at the moment. There are a lot of questions which come out of this equation which beg many answers. Again I go back to my point originally — we have not had the opportunity to ask these questions. If the figures I have in front of me are correct, the only source of income that I can see — or there are only two ways really that British Telecom or Manx Telecom will have of financing these figures — is either through increased charges to the consumer or reduced services to the consumer. I do not see that they have any option, and this has not been clearly spelt out in any way by British Telecom, by our consultant, most certainly not by our own Treasury who have picked up the point about the charges for interconnection of incoming and outgoing calls — totally without question. One has to say that the Treasury’s report, with the greatest respect, is an extremely naive report insofar that it accepted every single statement that has been made to it. It appears to have made very little deep investigations into exactly what the real financial background to this whole exercise is. So I would be very grateful at this stage if the hon. chairman in his reply could clarify exactly what the financial implications of this exercise in the long-term are going to be for the Island. I would then go on to two other points, perhaps not so important; one has already been touched on, and that is the position of the earth satellite station. Again, it indicates to me a willingness on the part of our consultant, as on the part of our Treasurer, to accept statements at face value. The consultant has recommended that in relation to the earth satellite station proposal, British Telecom’s view of this in commercial terms is more attractive. The hon. member for Middle has already, I think, made reference to this point. British Telecom’s submission says that an earth satellite station would be available as business develops. In the appendix it says ‘as soon as practicable’. Now, to me, Your Excellency, these are extremely vague terms which are open to very wide interpretation and they certainly in no way indicate to me any urgency or immediacy on the part of British Telecom to install earth satellite links with the Isle of Man, whereas in Cable and Wireless’ presentation it says links with the international community are to be strengthened with an earth satellite station. It is quite a definite declaration by Cable and Wireless and yet our consultant says that British Telecom’s view is more attractive.

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence to British Telecom — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 T1171

On a lesser matter, but again one which I find very strange to understand and it is something which is important to many people on the Isle of Man, and that is the position of the public call boxes — quite an amazing statement made by the consultant in his report that public call boxes is an issue which has not been directly explored with British Telecom. That is fair enough; they have not spoken to British Telecom about it and British Telecom have made no reference to it, as far as I can tell, in their presentation. The consultant goes on to say ‘However, they will undoubtedly be prepared to replace them in some dis'tinctive Manx style.’ First of all, perhaps someone could tell me what a distinctive Manx style telephone box is . . .

Mr. Delaney: Three walls!

Mr. Bell: But secondly, what possible grounds are there for our consultant to make such a sweeping statement relating to what undoubtedly British Telecom will do when they have not in fact spoken to British Telecom about it? I know it is not a matter of vital importance to the overall context of the document, but it is another example to me where sweeping statements and assumptions have been made by our various advisers which need further questioning.

I will accept that probably this afternoon we will be making a decision and it is quite clear now from the tenor of this debate how things are going. But, Your Excellency, with all these points in mind, I am still not convinced that the decision that we are being asked to make this afternoon is the right one. I have considerable reservations about it. I think, given more time, access to the experts that the Telecommunications Committee themselves have had access to might help to clarify a few of the positions but, as things are at the moment, I cannot support the granting of the franchise to British Telecom. Although I also have some reservations about Cable and Wireless as well, I will at this stage, Your Excellency, if only to get it on to the floor for further argument, second the proposal by the hon. member for Castletown in that the franchise be granted to Cable and Wireless.

One final point, not perhaps directly connected with this resolution itself but certainly touching on something that the Speaker himself raised this morning and the hon. member for Rushen has this afternoon, and that is the Government’s attitude to the acceptance of inducements or bribes or matters of that nature. Hon. members will remember that I did raise this myself, I think, in November when the Corruption Bill was being discussed in the House of Keys. At that time I wanted it to go to a committee to have it clarified once and for all, not only in relation to this; this was just purely peripheral issue, but in broader terms 1 wanted to be absolutely sure that hon. members knew exactly where they stood where the matter of inducements and lobbying were concerned. Your Excellency, I was promised at that time, though my proposal for it to go to a committee was actually turned down, that the Standing Orders Committee would take up the issue and would be looking into it. Now it surprises me to hear this afternoon another proposal that the Standing Orders Committee should look into it. That would indicate to me that the promise which was made in November has not been followed through and the

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence to British Telecom — Motion Approved TI 172 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986

Standing Orders Committee at this stage are not looking into it. So perhaps, Your Excellency, the hon. chairman could clarify that for me as well.

Mr. Cretney: Your Excellency, from a position several days ago where public opinion appeared to be manoeuvred against British Telecom being granted the licence to operate the Island’s telecommunications set-up, I feel that although the situation yesterday and this morning was distasteful in many respects, the situation has, as a result, been greatly clarified. Members who were unaware of the existence of any alternative consultant’s report but were hearing that one favouring Cable and Wireless existed were concerned greatly about these allegations. Today this situation is much clearer and no doubts exist in my mind at least.

The correct choice for the Isle of Man is British Telecom. There is nothing in the field of telecommunications today that Cable and Wireless can do that British Telecom cannot, in my opinion, and it would appear that the consultant engaged to adjudicate on technical merits of the two proposals feels that five out of six major technical features come down in favour of British Telecom. That person was the expert engaged by the Telecommunications Committee of Executive Government to look at the technical expertise of both applicants and what they proposed for the Island. He has made his conclusions and recommendations and we should support him on these.

If also I could make some reference to those employed by British Telecom, the Union of Communication Workers as late as December 1985 were unaware of any assurances or guarantees being given to British Telecom’s staff by Cable and Wireless. That situation may have changed, but do the staff have clear and precise evidence of that? I think not. British Telecom and its preceding managements are, and have been, good employers and, having no experience of the other organisation, the staff are a little wary as to their futures — and who can blame them for that?

If British Telecom are successful today the story does not end there. There must, and I trust there will be, an on-going relationship between Government, Manx Telecom and those who are most important — the consumers. In fact, that is guaranteed by British Telecom. The Government and community would have the opportunity to become involved directly in policy decisions affecting the Island’s telecommunications operations, including the investment programme, tariff structures — and that is most important — commercial and marketing strategies, management and organisation within the company and, most importantly again, consumer affairs. Therefore, we would all have the chance to have our represen­ tative at management level with a finger on the button.

If I could finish, Your Excellency, by stating I was a little concerned by the short period of time we had to make our minds up but I have sat up a couple of nights and burned the midnight oil studying the two proposals in front of us. It reminds me of the days when I competed in the Grand Prix several years ago and then had to burn the midnight oil fixing my machine. The only difference, I believe, Your Excellency, is that I feel, instead of being and also ran as I was, we have the

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence to British Telecom — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 T1173 opportunity today to back a winner and I consider that the winner who will greatly benefit those who live and work in the Isle of Man should be British Telecom.

Dr. Moore: Very briefly, Your Excellency, if I may comment on a couple of points. The suggestion that the Telecommunications Sub-Committee of Executive Council should have produced its own report — I find it a little bit hard to follow the reasoning. Members did have the two original submissions from the companies which I think have been commented on as being pretty clear and well explained. In addition, they had the reports from our two consultants giving their views, and I think that if the sub-committee had wished to say to members ‘We urge you to reject the unanimous opinion of our consultants’, it would have been necessary to make a very full and reasoned report, but since the recommendation was in line with all the advice we had had and all the documents were available to members, it would have been redundant, I think, to have produced yet another report for people to wade through. I think, incidentally, it was entirely right for the consultants’ reports to be withheld from general publication. I think, if a precedent had been set that this type of expert advice would regularly be made public — and I think the Chairman of Executive Council has already made this»point - there would be considerable inhibitions in the future on experts being asked to give confid­ ential and full advice.

The question of nationalisation, I think, is perhaps worrying us too much. We should remember that for most of this century we have had a nationalised company controlling our telecommunications, theoretically under the control of United Kingdom Governments of all shades of political opinion and it has not been a disaster. I would hope that if there was re-nationalisation there would be a con­ tinuation of a good working relationship between the companies, but certainly there would be no reason in my view to have some clause in the detailed licence which required an option for the Manx Government to take 51 per cent, of the Manx company shares in the event of re-nationalisation. I see no reason at all why some such arrangement could not be negotiated.

The great concern that perhaps £7,500,000 will make the profitability of a Manx company less again I find difficult to understand. We do not control the profitability of other Manx companies. We have never in the past gained tax revenue from British Telecom until they went private. There was never any tax revenue to the Isle of Man, so whatever we do is an improvement on the past and I think that there is a bit of a red herring in being so concerned about the profitability of the new company if they pay a large front end loading.

In conclusion, Your Excellency, may I too support the recommendations of the committee in spite, if I may so, of the rather ridiculous publicity campaigns we have had over the last month, which I do not think have added one iota to the status of either company, but one thing I do feel is that whatever company we recommend, whichever company gets the licence, there will be many occasions in the coming years when we will say, ‘My word, we should have chosen the other one!’ (Laughter)

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence to British Telecom — Motion Approved TI 174 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986

The Speaker: Your Excellency, I rise to support the resolution. I welcome it and I would congratulate both the committee and Executive Council on their presentation to us of the information on which we are asked to base our conclusions.

Now, Your Excellency, in this place the mills grind exceedingly slowly; some 26 years, I think, have elapsed since some members here, myself included, first sought the control and the benefits of telecommunications for the Manx people. It has been a chequered pattern since then but today I welcome this resolution as one of the last moves to effect the control which, as the hon. member for Peel has illustrated,, will be beneficial to the Manx people.

There are just one or two points I would like cleared up in my own mind. The first is akin to that posed by the hon. member for Ramsey, Mr. Cain: security of this service. Can we be assured that this service is secure in Isle of Man terms and is subject to Manx law in respect to that security?

My next point would be to ask the learned Chairman of Executive Council, will British Telecom, in the form it will take in the Isle of Man of a Manx company, enjoy Crown immunity to any degree at all? My understanding is that British Telecom in the United Kingdom, when they were privatised, took with that privatisation a considerable degree of Crown immunity. Is that the case and, if so, how will it affect the Isle of Man operation? I would not wish to see any Crown immunity here in respect of the operation of a commercial service.

The other and final point relates to a concern which I share, expressed by hon. members, that at the end of the day we may find ourselves — and I say ‘ourselves’ in the sense of customers — being asked to fund — and inevitably we will be, but perhaps the thought is to fund unreasonably — the provisions of the contract. My understanding is that in the United Kingdom again British Telecom are responsible, when putting up their charges, to Oftel; now who will they be responsible to in the Isle of Man? Will there be created a body which will be consulted and have to approve increases and charges in the same was as the Oftel pattern does in the United Kingdom? If I can have these assurances, sir, I will be happier with the agreement that is proposed than I am at the moment. I am quite happy with it, but I would like to have these final assurances on points which I think are of great concern to the Manx people generally.

Mr. Quirk: Your Excellency, I will not take up too much of your time. I, too, just want to congratulate the committee on the amount of information and the work that they have put in front of us in this respect. I do feel that it has been difficult to get through and, while I very much regret the situation that happened yesterday and today, I think this has in a way sharpened our attitude and sharpened our need to make sure that we have made the right decision in this respect because, after all, this is one of the most important decisions that we will make for a long time. It takes us into the next century and we have got to be right in this respect. I just want to make it very clear, sir, that I have no connections with the people that were here this morning. I want to make that very clear on my own behalf.

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence to British Telecom — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 T1175

I do feel that there are many points in here which we have discussed — and I too, when 1 got home last night, found there was a committee waiting for me, and I will not divulge any names but at the same time I do feel that everybody has gone through these documents almost with a fine tooth comb realising what it does mean to them. To me, sir, the few points that I have in disagreement — and I take it and I hope the hon. chairman will clarify this decision that while we may agree with the decision made today, this will have to be clarified by the terms of the licence which will come in front of Tynwald at the next sitting. That will be subject to scrutiny as well and it will be, I think, open to criticism again in that respect. 1 take it that that is what he said, that the terms of the licence will be drawn up and will be placed in front of Tynwald and Tynwald will have the opportunity then to discuss them. That, I think, is very fair.

The only points 1 have to raise, Your Excellency, concern, oddly enough, the mundane points in this, and that relates to the community part of it, telephone boxes. I did gather in my perusal of these documents that Cable and Wireless did say, in looking at this, they would consider the economic aspect of it, and that to me may mean that a lot of country telephone boxes would have to be closed. That is the way 1 look at that and 1 would take it very much indeed, sir, if you would look at this and have an agreement that those boxes in the country which we believe are very important should remain there.

The other situation I want to put forward is the fact that while there may be control of the economics of the charges that are in respect after the document has been signed and the terms of the licence been arranged, I hope that the committee will monitor the situation as it is at present, because I have had representations made to me recently that charges are in some respect going up already and I would hate to have a situation where charges have gone up and this 15 per cent, which we are offered is really a red herring. That is all I have to say, Your Excellency. 1 do feel that the committee should be congratulated and I fully support them in this resolution.

Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: Your Excellency, there has been so much rubbish spoken and written about this subject since the decision of Executive Council was conveyed to the other members of Tynwald on 10th February that I wonder what documents some people have been reading! It is cjuite obvious that some people have been unable to comprehend what is :n the various documents that they were supplied with, whether officially or unofficially, and some of the remarks that have been made on Manx Radio border on the slanderous.

Four members of Executive Council — namely Dr. Mann, Dr. Moore, Mr. Cringle and myself — were giv.'n the job of considering the applications for the licence. On receipt of the submissions from British Telecom and Cable and Wireless, we individually and then collectively studied all the documents included in the submissions. As none of us had any technical knowledge, we decided to engage an expert consultant o advise us on the engineering side and that is where we ran into difficulties, because it was very difficult to find a consultant who was not involved in some wa/ or other with one or other of the applicants, and we were

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence to British Telecom — Motion Approved TI 176 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986

therefore very fortunate to obtain the services of Dr. Pardoe of Salford University and his report, I am sure everybody will agree, is a very good one.

It is the distortions of his report that have been on Manx Radio, especially by Mr. David Turner of I.T.E.L. which I wish to refer to now. On 13th February, in an interview with Charles Guard, David Turner quotes from Dr. Pardoe’s report thus: ‘An inspection of the telecommunications system in the Isle of Man would give the impression of precisely what it is — a service industry which has been running for decades. Some equipment is old enough to be sold as antiques’ — and that is where he stopped, which is disgraceful, because if he had carried on with the sentence, it continued like this: ‘whilst other equipment is modern giving a wide range of services.’ This was a quote from page 5 of Dr. Pardoe’s report and was in a section dealing with the past and present systems. Quite conveniently, Turner had omitted the previous paragraph to the one he had distorted, which reads as follows: ‘The exchange practices and provision by British Telecom has been dogged by poor decisions made in the early fifties. However, the provision of STD and international direct dialling has led the world. The quality of service available to the most remote residence is better than countries where the services are run at lower charges to the urban subscribers’. David Turner’s further quotations about the exchanges are equally misleading. He has taken a few words out of context and then finishes up by saying ‘It is obvious from the report that everything wants replacing.’ Judging by these comments, I would say that the only things that need replacing are Mr. Turner’s glasses! (Laughter)

Great play was made by him and others about a secret report to the Telecommunications Committee from a second consultant which recommended that Cable and Wireless should have the franchise. We all know that this is a complete frabrication, that no such report exists, and I doubt very much whether any M.H.K. gave the information to Mr. Turner that such a report did exist. I am curious about a telephone call from Mr. Klein of Cable and Wireless to David Turner which was made whilst Charles Guard was interviewing him. Mr. Klein was telling David Turner that he would be coming to the Island the following day. I am curious why he should ring David Turner — was it because Mr. Turner had passed on the falsehood about the second report to Mr. Klein or is there a closer connection? Why has he been going out of his way so much to distort what is in the British Telecom’s applica­ tion? As it happens, Mr. Klein and a colleague met Dr. Mann, Mr. Cringle and myself last Thursday afternoon and they did not mention the fictitious report at all. They only referred to a statement issued by British Telecom which purports to be a summary of their application for the licence to operate the Isle of Man’s public telecommunications systems and pointed out that it had, as part of its £34 million investment programme, included an optical fibre submarine cable to the United Kingdom to be laid by British Telecom cable ships in 1987, which had not been mentioned specifically in their application.

Reference was made on Manx Radio to both submarine cables and satellite earth stations not having been included in British Telecom’s original application. If hon. members will turn to page of 12 of British Telecom’s application, they will see a section headed ‘Development of International Services’ which reads as follows:

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence to British Telecom — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 T1177 ‘British Telecom offers to the Isle of Man an unmatched capacity to provide the international services the Island needs now and to develop new and specialised services in pace with the Island’s business growth and requirements. We offer access to the full range, variety and security of British Telecom’s extensive international services. In addition, as business develops, British Telecom would expect to provide direct satellite communication services, small dish services__ conveniently serving major business customers and an Isle of Man teleport. As the operator of the world’s first international teleport and founder member of the world’s teleport association, British Telecom International will be in an unrivalled position to develop links with the growing number of teleports in major centres overseas. British Telecom is keen to review these ideas in detail with the Island’s authorities’. If you turn to pages 25 and 27 of their application, British Telecom give details of their submarine cable interests, including the optical fibre cable system. But if we look at page 11 of Dr. Pardoe’s report, we see in Section 5.3 that he expresses doubt as to the need of a submarine cable if the microwave link to England and Northern Ireland was retained, and he considers it important that the microwave link should be continued.

I am quite satisfied that from an engineering point of view the recommendation to give the licence to British Telecom is a correct one. On the financial side, as far as I am concerned, it is a one-horse race. The annual licence fee offered by Cable and Wireless is so low that I have asked myself whether they really were interested in getting this licence — or was this simply a prestige exercise? It has been suggested by some that the £7,500.000 offered by British Telecom as an initial payment was a bribe. I consider this to be absolute nonsense. It is an obvious business move by a sitting tenant anxious to keep his franchise and is one that Cable and Wireless is fully aware of as they have recently made a similar agreement with the Bermuda Government. Cable and Wireless have provided Bermuda’s overseas communication links for almost a century but have never had to pay for the privilege. Now they have agreed to pay about $8 million — and that is £5,750,000 — over the next five years, the fee to be renegotiated after 1991 so as to guarantee that they are the sole international telecommunications carrier for at least the next decade. They have acted in exactly the same way as British Telecom have done here and I am sure they are going to accept graciously that they have lost fairly. It is unfortunate that they have such irresponsible supporters in the Isle of Man.

There can be no doubt about it; we should not delay making a decision. The matter is clear-cut from an engineering and a financial point of view. British Telecom, in my opinion, should be given the licence. If both submissions had been equal, I would have applied the view ‘better the devil you know than the devil you do not know’ but both submissions are not equal, so both from an engineering point of view and on financial grounds the experts have recommended British Telecom. What knowledge has anyone in this Court to dispute the views of the experts? Who will stand and say that we should not accept them?

Mr. Cringle: Your Excellency, quite briefly, I would like to say that I think this hon. Court would be wise this afternoon to fully accept the recommendations. I do so because we must all be aware that if for no other reason, 31st December

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence to British Telecom — Motion Approved TI 178 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986

1986 sees the end of the interim licence and we have between now and then to draw up the nuts and bolts of a licence which is going to be in existence for 20 years serving the communication system of the Isle of Man. Those negotiations are important and very necessary and might even be, at times, very delicate. It will be naturally based on the interim licence as we have currently operated within the last 12 months but, nevertheless, there are negotiations to take place on that licence.

I was very pleased this afternoon that Mr. Speaker rose to his feet to support the resolution in front of this hon. Court. I say that, sir, because I am very well aware, as Mr. Speaker has said many times in this hon. place, that he has been seeking the introduction of a telecommunications system for the Isle of Man, by the Isle of Man and under our own control — a theme which he issued again today, and I have concurred with Mr. Speaker previously on the floor of this hon. Court that that may very well be an aim which we should be attempting to achieve.

And so there was a third option, and I am surprised, really, that this third option has had little comment to what I thought it may very well have had. The third option is that the Isle of Man Government should take it entirely on board itself. That was, or is, a third option, but I would say to this hon. Court, that was never far from the back of my mind as something which we should always be prepared to consider, allying myself to Mr. Speaker’s view, which has been a long-time-held view, that we should be moving to having things in our own control. But, acknowledging that thought in my mind and acknowleding the recommendations which are in front of us, Your Excellency, and which Executive Council have aced in front of this hon. Court, there can be no doubt that by accepting Manx Telecom’s submission, the Isle of Man for the next 20 years will frankly, sir, have the best of both worlds. We will have an element of secured income and we will have a service which in engineering terms we are told is, and will be, second to none.

My colleague immediately preceding me has talked about the questions which have been raised outside in the Isle of Man. Can I suggest to this hon. „Court that sometimes we bring about questions upon ourselves because, as I tried to tell this hon. Court last month, what we need to have is confidence in ourselves, confidence in our own Government so that the public of the Isle of Man can have confidence in us and, gentlemen, if you do not have confidence in yourselves to make decisions, you will never ever establish confidence in the Government of the Isle of Man, and that will be to the detriment of the Isle of Man in the future. You must be prepared to make decisions.

If we talk about the doubts which have been expressed outside as to whether an earth satellite which members have referred to and an optical fibre cable are in or not in the Telecom documentation, my hon. colleague who spoke immediately before me, Mr. Kneale, has dismissed that. It is there on page 12 without any question.

I think the hon. member for Middle, Mr. Payne, must realise that you should read the whole of the document as one and not take bits out of it, but if you take the teleport which is relative to page 12, which has been referred to by my colleague, that specifically talks about teleport. Very early in the documentations, very early

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence to British Telecom — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 T1179 in the general strategy part of British Telecom business, they are talking about satellite and optical fibre, though not actually writing those words. If you turn backwards to page 27, getting almost to the end of their report where they are talking about development plans, they again go over the same issue. In other words, they are encompassing it completely within their documentation, and their final line on development plans is simply that this strategy embraces both local and trunk exchanges and will produce fully modernised systems.

We need to look at what is there; we need to accept what is there. We also need to look because the implication has been made this afternoon that Cable and Wireless have said that they will definitely provide, no holds barred, these things and we really need to read Cable and Wireless documentation carefully to see have they said that categorically and undeniably, as the hon. member may very well be' thinking. So look at page 20, look at ‘2, international access,’ and consider what they say in relation to satellite: ‘Satellite technology has evolved rapidly over the last two decades such that international telecommunications including television traffic’ which I personally consider, sir, to be the next major thing which faces this Government, ‘carried by satellite is a standard requirement of any independent operation. The most highly developed satellite communication system is operated and maintained by Intelsat. Cable and Wireless propose to request access to this system.’ If hon. members have read this document and they have read the British Telecom document, they will realise that Intelsat is actually 50 per cent, owned by British Telecom, and Cable and Wireless are proposing that they ask for access to it. I have no doubt that they would get it but, nevertheless, there is the implication made that they would automatically do these things.

So you go on further in their documentation into the next section and read on page 38, the final paragraph, ‘If for any reason the prices and rates mentioned above were out of line with the market, a consequent effect on the installation programme could be anticipated.’ They are acknowledging that if the market is not there, they might not. A delay could be anticipated. I only point that out in trying to be fair to both sides. Neither side in either document has said categorically, ‘That is it, that and nothing more.’ That is a proposal which was asked for as a result of a letter sent to companies to seek their proposals of how they would see the licence for the next 20 years. We now, Your Excellency, have to deal with that licence and I would say to this hon. Court, the right decision to make this afternoon without any doubt at all is to go for the Telecom option.

Mr. Karran: Your Excellency, I have listened to the debate this afternoon and this morning and I would like to say that I think any sensible hon. member will not support any amendments but will support the recommendations from the Telecommunications Committee. I would fully support what my hon. colleague for Peel has said about red herrings. The one about the nationalisation is a red herring. The situation is, I would think, we are in more of a danger if Cable and Wireless were to take over and Telecom was to be re-nationalised. I could see us having more problems with Oftel. I would say that we hear this thing about the prices and about the £7,500,000 like some members are actually upset that we are being offered it. Some members seem to be happier giving us miserable news than giving us something

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence to British Telecom — Motion Approved TI 180 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986

to cheer about! I would like to say that under the licence these things will be able to be reviewed from time to time. There will be control over the pricing, I am led to believe, in the new licence and we will more likely be invited to have a director on the board, hopefully; maybe we can see that. We have heard so many red herrings about ‘why take notice of consultants’ fees?’ Well, it is not so long ago we were told ‘Take no notice of the Harbour Board’s professional people, how they do not know what they are talking about . . .’ Mr. Irving: You will soon find out they do. (Laughter)

Mr. Karran: I know, I know! I would say that now they have had independent consultants’, fees, they have actually found out now that they might end up with their seat belts on collapsing over the harbour wall! So I would say that the situation is that we have had so many red herrings here over nationalisation and things like that that I would say there is no choice — it has to be British Telecom in my opinion. Mr. Cannan: Your Excellency, I first of all would like to say I am delighted that we have arrived at a decision where we are going to control our own telephones and I am very sorry that during the last few days the issue of the submissions has been so clouded with rumour, innuendo, and I feel that perhaps, especially with the events of yesterday afternoon and this morning, we have maybe permitted our judgement to be clouded, maybe not, but I would ask hon. members to put aside all that we have heard. We have been told that the submission we have got is a good deal for the Isle of Man. I do not doubt that it is a good deal. I ask myself, is it the best system that the Isle of Man can obtain? And I would like time to reflect upon all the issues, and that is the basis of my few words this afternoon. It is only nine days ago, on Monday afternoon, the 10th, that we were provided with all the information during a session that lasted 40 minutes, and what I regret is that while Mr. Pardoe was available at that session, perhaps if we had had Mr. Pardoe available a few days later or perhaps even on Monday of this week, we could have had time for a question- and-answer session because quite obviously it served no useful purpose, his'presence, that afternoon because, as members said, the documentation was comprehensive and would require time to study. However, what we must reflect upon — and none of us here are experts in telecom­ munications — is the recommendations. We are invited on an issue of some magnitude to decide upon British Telecom or Cable and Wireless. The hon. member for Castletown and the hon. member for Ramsey, Mr. Bell, put forward their doubts, put forward those matters that are perhaps woolly or perhaps not clear-cut. There is first of all the issue of the £7,500,000. I wonder did one of the parties even know that they were expected to put forward a substantial monetary bid, because I understood that they were required to submit proposals for modernising and running the Isle of Man telecommunications system under franchise — those are the very words in the submissions — and it may be that one of the parties misunderstood or maybe they were not interested in putting forward a monetary bid.

Then we come, after considering that, to consider the £7,500,000; there have been doubts expressed this afternoon by many people as to whether this is to be in actual Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence to British Telecom — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 T1181 cash, whether the option remains with the telecommunications to give it in the form of equity or whether it is the option of the Isle of Man. There are several imponderables in that financial gift, shall we say, for the franchise.

Then we can look through the experts’ recommendations and, while this Court, as has been said, receives experts’ recommendations on so many things we have had in the past, we have had to come back some time later and find that perhaps they were not all that we were led to believe, and this has been highlighted by the woolly example quoted by the hon. member for Ramsey. We are asked to accept that the satellite earth station was in both parties’ original submissions. We are asked to consider the optic fibre, undersea cable. One of the recommendations is that perhaps Cable and Wireless’ submission in one of the conclusions was two ‘Rolls Royce’ for the Isle of Man — I wonder what that meant. I, without going on too deeply into all this, have several things to wonder: in the submission there about the optical fibre cable being already laid in the Isle of Man, but again that was being laid after the submission dates and I sometimes wonder whether the tenders were considered when they were handed in, as at the date 30th October, because in the report there are many items that are in the recommendations that have taken place since that date. However, I am not leaning either to one side or to the other, but I do believe that perhaps we could have a little time to reflect a little longer upon what we are being asked to decide. Is it so vital that we should make a decision today? Will the companies run away? If we make the decision today and finalise it subject to the conditions of the licence, what happens if the conditions on the licence and no agreement has been made? I do not suggest that agreement cannot be made but hon. members this afternoon have raised queries on the finance sector, on the other sectors and, if no agreement can be reached on the licence, what happens if the other party has gone? Do we start again? I have an amendment, an adjournment motion, that we postpone for one month the decision. It gives us more time to reflect upon what has happened, not so much what has happened but what are the papers we have got before us. I believe it will do no harm to anybody to think it over again. I have asked that the motion be voted on in two parts: one part is for adjournment for a month and the other part is that there is a committee to look into the whole aspect of it, that if necessary we have another meeting with Mr. Pardoe to ask to clear our minds. I think it would be possibly wrong for members to rush into a decision that perhaps some are not entirely clear in their minds on, a decision that is going to affect this Island for the next 20 years. Your Excellency, I beg to move the amendment: That consideration o f the motion be deferred until the March sitting.

Mr. Martin: Your Excellency, I beg to second that amendment. Hon. members, the decision which faces us all today is one which affects the future of every man, woman and child on our Island. It is one that cannot be taken lightly and one that cannot be taken for monetary gain for Government. In my opinion, we have to look at two professional firms offering their expertise to do a job of work for 20 years to the benefit and satisfaction of our people.

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence to British Telecom — Motion Approved TI 182 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986

Setting aside the Treasurer’s report for a moment and looking purely at the two submissions from British Telecom and Cable and Wireless and the independent report from Mr. Pardoe, it is quite clear from all three reports that the existing plant is old and outdated and must be replaced. This is in paragraph 3.11, page 6, and paragraph 6.3, page 14, of Mr. Pardoe’s report and this brings into question — if it had not been because of this licence, how long would we have had to struggle on with old and outdated equipment? For too long we have had the tail wagging the dog and this could be one of the reasons for the antique design in five exchanges on our island, for the more modern 1960s equipment in five more exchanges or even the obsolete exchange in Douglas which, according to Mr. Pardoe, should be used as spares in the United Kingdom as soon as possible. Looking to the future, we should demand a modern, up-to-date communications system run by a Manx registered company which will have the Isle of Man and its people as its main concern and not being responsible for its actions to any outside body. We have an opportunity to stand on our own feet for once and we, hon. members, would be failing in our duty as representatives of the people of this island if we did not demand an independent company to look after their interests.

Both British Telecom and Cable and Wireless offer us a Manx registered company. British Telecom, in their report under Section 4, ‘Commercial Proposals,’ state ‘British Telecom would wish to retain 51 per cent, of the voting shares.’ Cable and Wireless, in their report, item 2 on page 2, state that ‘The Manx company will be autonomous and fully accountable locally to the Government and the people of the Isle of Man.’ The financial statement by Mr. Dawson, Chief Financial Officer to the Treasury, is quite correct in his conclusions. On page 4, item 12, ‘The British Telecom offer in financial terms is far superior to that of Cable and Wireless’ . . .

The Governor: Mr. Martin may I interrupt you for a moment? You will know under Standing Orders that we are now debating the adjournment of this item, and therefore ... Mr. Martin: I am putting points forward I hope, sir . . .

The Governor: Indeed, but . . .

Mr. Martin: But there will be questions . . .

The Governor: Mr. Martin, I am speaking. May I remind you, since I did not formally remind you at the start, though I am sure you know and it is automatic, that you only have five minutes. Please continue — you have had four.

Mr. Martin: I hope I have sufficient time, sir, and if I do not I am sure you will stop me.

The Governor: Mr. Martin, you have had four minutes; you have one minute left.

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence to British Telecom — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 T1183

Mr. Martin: Thank you, sir. Mr. Dawson, Chief Financial Officer of the Treasury is quite correct in the conclusions on page 4, item 12, ‘the offer of the financial terms by British Telecom are far superior’, but what disturbs me in the last two lines of the item is what he says — ‘It is essential to talk to both applicants regarding finance implications in their proposals. I recommend that such discussions take place as soon as possible.’ The point that I am trying to get over, Your Excellency, seeing as I am limited to time, is that I believe there are a lot of questions to be asked and answered and I believe that deferment for one month is the correct way to go about this, to look into the matter further for one month and to come back with the right answers. Hon. members, it appears to me that there are still quite a lot of unanswered questions and I believe we should support the amend­ ment. Thank you, Your Excellency.

Mr. Morrey: Your Excellency, there is just one small fhing that I would like to say. I feel that if the voting on this particular issue should be a push-over for British Telecom, it will in my opinion seriously weaken the elbow of the negotiations for the Government.

The Governor: Hon. members, Mr. Cannan has indicated that he would like to take these two separately and we are now considering merely the first part of his motion, which is that consideration of the motion be deferred to the March sitting. That is what we have been debating and that is what I am now going to ask you to decide. May I offer Mr. Cannan the right to reply before I ask you?

Mr. Cannan: I will be brief, Your Excellency, I thank Mr. Martin for his support. I would like to say that I understand under Standing Orders that Mr. Martin will, after this vote, be able to speak again to the main motion and that his five minutes was restricted purely as in the capacity of seconding the amendment.

The Governor: That is quite correct.

Mr. Cannan: The points he raised are extremely relevant: that much of the plant that we have at the moment in our telecommunications system is old and outdated, that what we need is a modern up-to-date company and equipment and, as he so rightly says, there are many unanswered questions.

I thank Mr. Morrey for his support, that such an overwhelming vote for Cable and Wireless might weaken the position — I hope not. I am confident that Executive Council would not permit in their negotiations any relaxation in obtaining the very best terms but, nevertheless, I do ask members to consider carefully whether it is not in the best interests just to pause, let the dust settle and reflect upon it for another month.

The Governor: Hon. members, I put to you the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Michael that consideration of the motion be deferred until the March sitting. Will all those hon. members in favour say aye; against, no.

A division was called for and voting resulted as follows:

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence to British Telecom — Motion Approved TI 184 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986

In the Keys—

For: Messrs. Cannan, Morrey, Duggan, Martin and Bell — 5

Against: Messrs. Quirk, Gilbey, Mrs. Christian, Messrs. J.H. Kneale, Maddrell, Payne, Karran, Walker, Cringle, Brown, May, Cretney, G.V.H. Kneale, Irving, Dr. Moore, Mr. Cain and the Speaker — 17

The Speaker: Your Excellency, the resolution fails to carry in the House of Keys, five votes being cast in favour and 17 votes against.

In the Council—

For: Nil

Against: The Lord Bishop, Messrs. Lowey, Ward, Dr. Mann, Messrs. Radcliffe, Anderson, Mrs. Hanson and Mr. Callin — 8

The Governor: Hon. members, in the Council, eight votes are cast against; the motion, therefore, fails to carry. Mr. Cannan, do you wish now to proceed with your amendment which is the second part or ...

Mr. Cannan: No, I withdraw that, Your Excellency.

The Governor: You withdraw it. Then, hon. members, may I now call upon the chairman to reply?

Dr. Mann: Your Excellency, I think it was the Rt. Hon. Jim Callaghan who said that ‘a week is a long time in politics’. Unfortunately, it extended to nine days. Members have raised a lot of issues here this afternoon and I obviously would be here all night if we referred to all of them individually, and so I hope you will excuse me not referring individually to each of the questions raised but I will try and deal with them in groups.

I think first and foremost there was complaint that Executive Council had failed to present its recommendations correctly and fully and, worst of all, that we did not give a political commentary and recommendation. Quite honestly, hon. members, I am appalled at this suggestion, coming as it does from what until now I had assumed were some of the brighter members of our Court. Is it really true that nobody has the ability to read two reports and individually reach their own consideration? Is it impossible in nine days to read two books? Is it impossible to vote before you get told what to do? What would have happened if we had told you what to do? You would have said ‘We wanted to decide this ourselves’ and the hon. member for Michael, who has been so keen — to his credit — that in fact every member be provided with the submissions — the whole idea of providing the submissions was that you could be given the responsibility and the maturity to reach your own decision and here you are . . .

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence to British Telecom — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 T1185

Mr. Cannan: I did not ask for a guidance.

Dr. Mann: No, you did not ask for a guidance but there are those who are, and this is very worrying when we are looking to a more mature Tynwald, a more mature Manx Government capable of dealing with more complex financial arrangements. We are looking forward to a Tynwald that ultimately can look at its own indirect taxation and deal with it without hearing all kinds of pressure from outside and all kinds of false allegations about what is going on. I would suggest that we acted entirely correctly, that we gave you the information which a mature person elected to this assembly should be capable of assimilating.

Those who have read the submissions have themselves said and congratulated both companies on the presentation, because the presentation of both companies was very clear indeed. It was very well set out, it was set out in common language, it did not confuse the issue with a whole lot of technical data. Admittedly, there may be ways in which the wording has been perhaps smudged in certain issues, but if you were writing a similar thing you would do precisely the same thing.

I would say first of all that a lot of the points that have been raised, particularly the case of those raised by Mr. Brown, for instance, are truly related to the next stage, not to this stage at all, and we have got to get on to the next stage as quickly as possible because the licence is a thing that will take several months to negotiate and I do not want to give the impression that we are coming back next month, because that is not going to be possible. The last licence took several months to negotiate and I am sure the next one will as well and a lot of these points have got to be tied up and tied up very tightly, and if people think that it is a fallacy, that it is a cosmetic exercise in tying something up into a licence, you are very much mistaken, because the ultimate thing is, if a licensee does not honour his licence, it is removed and we start the whole process all over again. So do not think that we are indulging in a cosmetic exercise.

Within that licence will be the provision of services. It will be the agreements on tariffs; it will be the agreements on payments to Government. These are all the things — the provision of public call boxes and so on. The tariffs are very closely related to the licence, and these are things that we will be coming back to you in detail for you to then agree, and let us hope this time you can decide yourselves, without going out into the outside world, what you want, and having said what you want, we will vote on it, and we will see that you will get it and I am sure the company who we negotiate with will be very keen indeed to reach a suitable and satisfactory arrangement. This is a two-way traffic in getting a final agreement.

We are insisting that it is a local company with local control. We are insisting and will be insisting that at some point, if that point arose where re-nationalisation occurred in the United Kingdom, that certain things should happen and that the control would fall to the Isle of Man Government if that was needed. But apart from that, there is no means in the current convention between ourselves and the United Kingdom under which any form of re-nationalisation of an asset in the Isle of Man can possibly take place. It cannot take place without consent to an Order

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence to British Telecom — Motion Approved TI 186 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986

in Council and we would certainly not be giving that consent, so the idea of suddenly somebody re-nationalising in the United Kingdom and taking back the control in the Isle of Man is not going to be legally possible. If we can arrive at a financial arrangement with the company such as to ensure that the majority shareholding passed to the Isle of Man company under certain circumstances, I think that will cover the situation.

The additional facilities, such as the satellite earth station and other connecting links, will also, of course, have to form part of the licence negotiation. As far as the control of shares and taxation, we argue as to whether there is going to be any taxation — that is, whether there is going to be a profit — and it is hinted darkly that somehow everybody will shift their profits in some mysterious way so that we do not get taxation. Of course, that will not be possible — I mean, it might be if there was no true profit but, for the first time ever, these companies will actually pay Manx tax. At the moment they pay tax in the United Kingdom.

Now we come, I think, to one of the most important issues and that is this business of the £7,500,000; let us face it, probably when all of us first saw that proposal, we asked where was the catch but, of course, it comes back to the point that I brought up this morning that there is a massive advantage to those people who hold the present licence. They are owning a system that is working and working efficiently. They have got that enormous advantage. We do not know the exact value of that. We know what it has been assessed at and any company coming in would have to buy it. Not only would they have to buy it, they would also then have to raise the money for future capital investment. We know, for instance, that if Cable and Wireless came in, they would have borrowed and raised somewhere about £20 million to put forward their new system. Over and above that, they would have to have borrowed from somewhere — and they suggested the local banks — another £7 or £8 million because they would then have had to have bought the assets. The chances are the assets would have been much more than £7 or £8 million when they really came to paying it but, just assuming that it was £7 or £8 million, they would have to have borrowed that as well. So we are starting on their acknowledged liability of a borrowing of £27 million, which would have had to be repaid within the 20-year period. Now, where is the £7,500,000 coming from? It is estimated on the amount of investment that has already been put into the Isle of Man by British Telecom in the last three years which roughly comes to £7,500,000 so we will raise a loan against that which will, of course, be then written down over the period of the 20-year cycle, so really the actual repayments of borrowings will be minute under the British Telecom proposals compared with the Cable and Wireless ones.

What worries me still further is that some hon. members who raised these fears and sudden questions have not themselves read the proposals. The hon. member for Ramsey, who I thought was a financial expert — I am referring to the financial expert . . . (Laughter)

Mr. Lowey: Mr. Bell!

Dr. Mann: He said ‘What happens to £250,000 during 20 years?’ But here, in

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence to British Telecom — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 T1187 the book that we had given to you, it tells you. The £250,000 is indexed to telecom­ munication prices during that period of time.

Mr. Cain: But not inflation.

Dr. Mann: Not to inflation, but it does mean that that £250,000 will appreciate with the income of the company. So rather than raise the question, why not read the book? That is where the answer is. (Laughter) I am sorry, but you did raise the question.

Mr. Cain: You have to understand it as well as read it!

Dr. Mann: Yes. Now, let us deal with some of the comments that have been made in regard to ’phone-tapping and I know there is a considerable amount of concern over this. Now we tied this up, I thought very tightly indeed in the Telecom­ munications Act 1984; no access is allowable and certainly no access must be made or allowed to be made to any telephone system without the prior consent of the Governor and the Chairman of Executive Council acting in consultation. The security of the system legally is certainly very tight and we are assured by British Telecom that it is not possible to break into the system in any other way and they certainly respect that situation which currently applies because it is already applying.

The cost of calls and separation of revenues is very interesting because this also gives a clue to how British Telecom have succeeded in giving a better financial return. The separation of call revenues will alter under the new system because under the existing system, it is true, there is no real costing out from one part of the system to the other. Under the new company there will be a negotiated agreement on costing out of revenues from calls which, although it is not set out very clearly, I under­ stand will also form part of the ultimate agreement which will give the local company a much greater share of the actual costing of the calls. This is a matter that is of great importance because in many island communities they only cost out or only get a revenue for local calls and do not get any share of the international calls, and I believe that situation is certainly not going to apply to the new Manx company.

But a further source of revenue is very significant, and that is that there is at the moment a total separation of the cost traffic between the United Kingdom and Ireland which passes through the Isle of Man. Now the Cable and Wireless proposals are to completely ignore the microwave link which crosses this island. In the proposals of British Telecom we will get a share of the revenues of the traffic passing across the Island and that will significantly increase the revenues of the company, and this is yet another difference which enables the proposed new company and the proposed increase of revenue. There is no Crown immunity — there can possibly be no Crown immunity; it will be a private Manx company in no different status from that of another company such as Manx Airlines — I was careful not to say the Steam Packet! (Laughter) The Oftel functions will be performed by the Telecom­ munications Commission, which is an independent body set up within the Home Affairs Board in which the hon. member Mr. Cringle is chairman and we have several

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence to British Telecom — Motion Approved TI 188 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 very skilled experts to advise him. Some of the immediate negotiations will be carried out by Governor in Council but they will subsequently form part of the telecom­ munications position.

There was one matter which I know has caused some worry to some members, and that is one mentioned by the hon. member for Michael: did the two companies misunderstand the invitation? I am certain they did not misunderstand the invitation; it could well be that they did not want to respond to the invitation in the same way. The reason I say that is because we have been negotiating with these companies for many, many years, we have papers here and reports, going right back to 1981, 1982, and even as far back as that, the first stage that was recognised by Cable and Wireless is that there had to be a competitive bid or tender for the franchise as the first step, and I cannot see how they could legitimately claim that they did not understand what we were asking them to do.

Now there was a matter raised by Mrs. Hanson, the hon. member for Council, about the true independence of the system. I think she was possibly thinking back to the original proposals of Cable and Wireless some years ago before Mercury Communications got established in the United Kingdom. At that point I think they could quite adequately claim to have suggested an independent system very similar to, say, the Cable and Wireless system in the Falklands, for instance, inasmuch as they were having a totally self-contained system with an earth satellite going straight out into the international system, but now of course the Mercury Communications is well established in the United Kingdom. They already have two stations, I think, if not three down their system; their first move would be to have made their fibre optic cable link into the Mercury system, so almost overnight you would have the equivalent of the two systems side by side and to say then that the Isle of Man would have an independent system I think would not be quite as correct as it would have been some years ago when the systems would have been adequately separated.

If I could just conclude finally that in spite of all the allegations, in spite of all the unpleasantness, this unpleasantness and these allegations have not come from any of the companies themselves; all of these allegations, all of these statements that have been bandied around have been made by people outside the companies. I have met both companies on several occasions with the other members of the committee; on each occasion and certainly in the latter meeting of which one was only a few days ago, the company officials were at pains to point out that they felt the committee had dealt with the company with the utmost courtesy and fairness, and they had no complaint, either individually or together, of the Telecom­ munications Committee itself. Their queries were being raised by allegations that were being made outside the companies and I must wholeheartedly say that at no point have we had any unpleasantness with either company. We have had the best possible relationships with both, and all I can say is that if the decision, as I hope it will be, is one to support the recommendation of Executive Council I look forward to an era of co-operation from British Telecom which I am sure they would wish of us as we would wish of them and I look forward to a very successful and profitable

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence to British Telecom — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 T1189 time ahead. I hope, hon. members, you will support wholeheartedly the recom­ mendation contained in the resolution.

Mr. Cretney: Your Excellency, could I ask another question? Could Your Excellency indicate — I see at least one hon. member has left the Court — what hon. members have requested leave of absence from the Court as 1 understand this is an important decision?

The Governor: As I announced at the beginning of the session, hon. members, the only person with leave of absence is Mr. Charles Faragher.

Mr. Member: And Mr. President.

The Governor: And Mr. President — I beg his pardon. Hon. members, may I now put to you the amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for Castletown. Will those in favour of that amendment say aye; against, no.

A division was called for and voting resulted as follows:

In the Keys— **•

For: Messrs. Brown and Bell — 2

Against: Messrs. Quirk, Cannan, Mrs. Christian, Messrs. Morrey, J.H.Kneale, Maddrell, Payne, Karran, Walker, Cringle, May, Duggan, Cretney, Martin, G.V.H. Kneale, Irving, Dr.Moore, Mr. Cain and the Speaker — 19

The Speaker: Your Excellency, the amendment fails to carry in the House of Keys, two votes being cast in favour and 19 votes against.

In the Council—

For: Nil — 0

Against: The Lord Bishop, Messrs. Lowey, Ward, Dr. Mann, Messrs. Radcliffe, Anderson, Mrs. Hanson and Mr. Callin — 8

The Governor: Hon. members, in the Council eight members against, none in favour; the amendment fails to carry.

I will now put to you the motion standing as item 2 in the Supplementary Agenda in the name of the Chairman of Executive Council. Will hon. members in favour say aye; against, no.

A division was called for and voting resulted as follows:

In the Keys—

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence to British Telecom — Motion Approved TI 190 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986

For: Messrs. Quirk, Cannan, Mrs. Christian, Messrs. Morrey, J.H. Kneale, Maddrell, Payne, Karran, Walker, Cringle, Brown, May, Duggan, Cretney, Martin, G.V.H.Kneale, Irving, Dr. Moore, Messrs. Cain, Bell and the Speaker — 21

Against: Nil , — 0

The Speaker: Your Excellency, the resolution carries in the House of Keys, 21 votes being cast in favour and no votes against.

In the Council—

For: The Lord Bishop, Messrs. Lowey, Ward, Dr.Mann, Messrs. Radcliffe, Anderson, Mrs. Hanson and Mr. Callin — 8

The Governor: Hon. members, in the Council eight members in favour, none against; the motion therefore carries. Hon. members, the Chairman of Executive Council has commented that seven days in politics is a long time; I am bound to say as a novice at the political game that I have found the past seven hours more of a stretch than I had expected (Laughter) and I would like to propose we break for tea but I just want to give Mr. Speaker . . .

The Speaker: Your Excellency, the stretch you referred to Your Excellency, I think is one that hon. members of the Court would also agree has been a tedious one and may I suggest, Your Excellency, that the Court adjourn at this stage until the next sitting which might well be a week on Wednesday.

The Governor: Is that agreed, hon. members? (It was agreed.) Hon. members, I put to you formally the motion that has just been made in the name of the hon. Mr. Speaker, that the Court now adjourn until the next sitting. I think, if you will just allow a moment, we must have our usual debate about whether that should be on Tuesday of next week or Wednesday of next week. I always find us at our weakest in this area. Let us just have a motion, Mr. Speaker, may we from you?

The Speaker: I beg to move Your Excellency:

That Tynwald adjourn till Wednesday 26th February at 10.30 a.m.

The Governor: Hon. members, that the motion is that Tynwald adjourn until Wednesday 26th February 1986 at 10.30 a.m . Is that seconded?

Mr. Duggan: I second that, Your Excellency.

The Governor: Hon. members, I put the motion to you. Will those hon. members in favour say aye; against, no.

A division was called for and voting resulted as follows:

Public Telecommunications System — Grant of Licence to British Telecom — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 T1191

In the Keys —

For: Messrs. Quirk, J.H.Kneale, May, Duggan, Cretney, Martin, G.V.H. Kneale, Irving and the Speaker — 9

Against: Mr.Cannan, Mrs. Christian, Messrs. Morrey, Maddrell, Payne, Karran, Walker, Cringle, Brown, Dr. Moore, Messrs. Cain and Bell — 12

The Speaker: Your Excellency, the resolution fails to carry in the House of Keys, nine votes being cast in favour and 12 votes against.

In the Council —

For: Messrs. Ward and Anderson — 2

Against: The Lord Bishop, Mr. Lowey, Dr. Mann, Mr. Radcliffe, Mrs. Hanson, Mr. Callin — 6

The Governor: Hon. members, in the Council two votes cast in favour and six votes against; the motion therefore fails to carry. I propose that we now adjourn for twenty minutes for tea.

The court adjourned at 5.06 p.m.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF BOARDS OF TYNWALD ECT. — THIRD REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE RECEIVED IN PART

The Governor: Hon. members, we now return to the Agenda and item 33, boards’ responsibilities. I call on the Chairman of the Boards’ Responsibilities Committee to move.

Dr. Mann: Your Excellency, I beg to move:

That the Third Report of the Select Committee of Tynwald on the Responsibilities of Boards of Tynwald etc. be received and the recom­ mendations contained therein adopted.

This report is a very short one. It does, however, try to get the core of a problem that has not arisen during the last nine days but has arisen over many years and first of all I must set the scene as to why we have produced this report.

In the full report on ministerial government and departmental structure we quite deliberately left the Board of Education alone and suggested that it continued with a number of Tynwald members and was therefore the rogue one out of the new departmental structure. We did appreciate, in making that original recommendation, that we could not reduce the Tynwald members without causing a total breakdown

Responsibilities of Boards of Tynwald Etc. — Third Report of the Select Committee Received in Part TI 192 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 in the way in which the present board functions. In that report we also had to accept that the Boards’ Responsibilities Committee in the past had been left with the responsibility of advising on what to do with the present board, so that we as a committee had an outstanding remit. It just happened at the same time that the hon. member Mr. Kneale, Chairman of the Board of Education, himself put forward or was moving a Bill in the Keys concerning the number of members of the Board of Education, and I think this is a suitable time for us to reach some sort of conclusion and some sort of advice on how we go into the future.

There was an argument over the number of members of the Board of Education that would be required for that board to function efficiently. The number necessary to make it function efficiently almost certainly was not or did not fit the number of people who could be elected through an equal representation on terms of voters and so we started with an unsatisfactory and unresolved situation.

There were other reasons for looking very closely at the present structure. There is no doubt that the present structure started on a rate-based system, that is, the Board of Education, the non-Tynwald members, were elected because they represented the ratepayers. The education rate disappeared a long time ago and there have been no significant changes during the last 20 years and so I think we have to recognise that the present system is not going to fit in with the new ministerial system or departmental system.

We had to accept that there were other unsatisfactory aspects. There was a creation or the impression that non-Tynwald members of the board, because they are elected on the same franchise, had equal standing with the Members of the House of Keys. The House of Keys is of course a constituent branch of Tynwald itself and, so far as it concerns the non-Tynwald members, their functions really are more related to a residual all-Island local authority. The cost of the elections to the board were roughly the equivalent of a general election to the House of Keys, which variously has been assessed at about £100,000, although frequently elections to the board were uncontested and in fact in one or two areas nobody actually stood at all. The lack of interest in elections to the board are shown very significantly by the very low turnouts in most areas and so, looking at the election system, it is obvious that the main people who are interested in electing members to the Board of Education are the parents of children attending the schools. Most people who do not have children attending schools in the area tend not to vote in these elections and there would seem to be a closer liaison, a closer relationship with the parents of the school population than within the general population.

So we looked at the future possibilities and, as is seen in the report, we remain convinced that education can most effectively and advantageously be served by its inclusion in the system of departmental Government approved in October 1985. We therefore start with the proposal that with effect from November 1987, which is the time of the next Education Board elections, that a Department of Education, consisting of a minister and two other members of Tynwald, should be established. This will then place the Department of Education upon the same basis as every other department of Government. The department should then exercise the whole of the

Responsibilities of Boards of Tynwald Etc. — Third Report of the Select Committee Received in Part TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 T1193 powers presently vested in the Board of Education, including those of the Finance and Executive Committee.

The process of drafting, consultation et cetera means that a new Education Bill will not be presented to the Legislature until the beginning of the next session. Obviously a new Education Bill will need quite a lot of study and preparation and so we do not anticipate the new Bill coming forward, certainly, until the new session of the House of Keys.

We would not wish to do anything which would end grass roots participation in the education system. It appears to us that it must be recognised that, as there is no longer an education rate, the general public has no greater interest in this than any other field of Government. Indeed, the majority of the population could easily be said to have a much greater day-to-day involvement in health or social security. But we do recognise that the parents of school children have a very real and important interest in education and other matters falling within the remit of the Board of Education and to some extent this can be recognised by allowing parents and other interested parties, youth groups and the disabled et cetera to elect governors and managers of schools or groups of schools, and the arrangements for these elections will be determined by regulations made by the department and subject to the approval of Tynwald.

So we accordingly recommend that with effect from the date on which the Depart­ ment of Education comes into being there also be created an Education Advisory Council, the membership of which should consist of representatives of the governing bodies of schools. This may appear to be a radical way of dealing with the problems of the current Board of Education. It may immediately arouse aggression and immediate reaction against it. I think people ought to study this quite coolly and, as the timetable of this situation has, of necessity, to be quite long, I think we can stand back and coolly look at the details. I think, firstly, it is important that we do have a Department of Education which is the equivalent of a department of every other function of Government. It is important that there should be the same type of representation by members on that Department of Education. In every other function of Government, in setting up the departmental structure, we have insisted that the Tynwald members, the minister and the two Tynwald members, exert the executive power or executive direction of that board. We accept in every other function of Government that the interested parties then have an input into the administration of that board by advisory councils. We have an advisory council for health. We have advisory groups to the Treasury. We have banking advisory groups, insurance advisory groups and so on, so that in each major department where there are interested and particularly interested groups in the administration of that department we do set up professional advisory groups or, in this case, advisory groups made up of the interested parties, and we would say that the members elected to those or represented on those bodies should, in the case of the Department of Education, come from that group of the population which has the immediate interest at heart and that is the parents of the school children, those who have an interest in education and those who are on the periphery of the mainstream of the education process.

Responsibilities of Boards of Tynwald Etc. — Third Report of the Select Committee Received in Part TI 194 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986

We are bringing forward other small reports dealing with other issues but I thought it was rather necessary at this stage to present our forward thinking on this depart­ ment as soon as possible so that members we will have the opportunity to debate them and reach a conclusion. I am sure that we have certainly put forward a working and practical proposition. 1 beg to move that the Third Interim Report on Boards’ Responsibilities be approved by this Court.

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

Mr. Bell: Your Excellency, just on a point of clarification at this stage. Could the hon. chairman just explain to us again how he sees this report developing into reality? If we vote today, this, presumably, is only the first step towards getting the final shape because, quite honestly, for me at the moment this is an extremely vague outline and I am just trying to project forward what we commit ourselves to by voting for this today.

Dr. Mann: Yes, I accept that it may not be easily understood. At the moment we do not propose any immediate change to the structure of the board as it is at this moment. It goes forward into the next House. At that point we will be introducing, if this is approved, an Education Bill which would re-structure the Board of Education and would probably cover most of the functions of the Board of Education because there are several areas of legislation at the moment that are quite confusing and in one or two issues are actually contradictory, and it is important in any case that we achieve an up-dating of the Education Act so that a new Education Bill will be put into the new House.

The structure of the Tynwald Board of Education during that period of time will remain the same as it is now; instead of every other department we will have five in the Board of Education. We will not disturb or terminate the term of office of the present members, the non-Tynwald members of the Board of Education. They will serve their full term, which will be in November 1987. So in November 1987, after the present members of the Board of Education come to the end of their term of office, instead of having a new non-Tynwald Board of Education we will have a consultative committee established to advise the new department which will then be the minister and two members of Tynwald.

Mr. Bell: Your Excellency, just to clarify finally. So you are saying, Mr. Chairman, that there will not be another report from the Boards’ Responsibilities Committee, this is the final one as far as you are concerned, the next step will be a Bill for the House of Keys?

Dr. Mann: The next step would be a Bill in the next House of Keys which will be a full Education Bill which will not only set up the structure but also update the total legislation dealing with education.

The Attorney-General: Yes, Your Excellency, it is likely, if this report is approved that a new Education Bill will be almost the first item of importance in the new House of Keys because it will have to be introduced early in 1987 so that

Responsibilities of Boards of Tynwald Etc. — Third Report of the Select Committee Received in Part TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 T1195 it can come into force by the end of 1987 when the present Board of Education term of office ends. So it is likely that the Bill will be introduced right at'the beginning of the new session. That is why it is important, of course, that a decision in principle should be taken now so that work can start on the consultations and drafting and so forth so that the Bill is ready for introduction at the beginning of next year.

The Speaker: A clarification, Your Excellency. Is not the learned Attorney pre-empting the situation? Will that not be a matter for decision for the new executive?

The Governor: The hon. member for North Douglas was next, followed by Mr. Anderson.

Mr. May: I would just like to say from the outset I am in favour of the general concept of this and I think it is advantageous to streamline the Board of Education, but there are one or two points in this report, as it is laid down, that do disturb me and I think we should be very careful as we go down this road and we should appreciate the work that has been done over many years by the non-Tynwald members of the Board of Education. A lot of these members have served for a long period of time. (Mr. Duggan: Hear, hear.) They have devoted their time and worked conscientiously for the good of the schoolchildren and the community of this island. With this report I feel the danger, as it is laid down in paragraph 5.3, that the new non-Tynwald participation will be by election from interested bodies. That concerns me. There are no laid down numbers'; it is just an airy-fairy statement. It could mean that we could lose the benefit of a lot of knowledge and a lot of wisdom that has been accrued over those many years by present members of the Board of Education and that particular aspect does concern me. I would be much happier if, in the final conclusions, in paragraph 6.1(c), it laid down specific pro­ posals as to how the non-Tynwald representation on the new board would be placed.

With those points in mind I would just like to ask, Your Excellency, for your guidance because I do not want to vote against this report in its entirety. As I say, I do support the general concept of it. I think it is a step in the right lines and I do not think anyone will disagree that the non-Tynwald participation of the Board of Education does need reducing and streamlining but, as regards the final recom­ mendation, 6.1(c), I am afraid that, to me personally, I cannot accept as it is and I would ask is it possible that the recommendations, when you do put this item to the vote, can be put individually?

The Governor: It would be possible to do it if you moved an amendment, Mr. May, but otherwise I am afraid the motion is clearly there on the order paper.

Mr. May: Well could I, in that case, Your Excellency, formally move an amend­ ment to that effect, that the recommendations be put before this hon. Court separately.

Mrs. Hanson: I would second that.

Responsibilities of Boards of Tynwald Etc. — Third Report of the Select Committee Received in Part TI 196 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986

The Governor: Hon. members, we have just a very short consultation between our legal advisers. Hon. members, are you happy that when we come to vote we take those items separately? (It was agreed.) Mr. Anderson.

Mr. Anderson: Your Excellency, I agree entirely that with the new set-up you will need new legislation; I accept that entirely, and that legislation will have to spell out, I believe, that any future non-Tynwald members will have a very different status from those elected Members of the House of Keys. I believe that 15 will be enough but I am not too happy about them being non-elected. I think is one of the difficulties that arises. I appreciate that it costs money but I do not see any substitute for election, albeit, as the hon. chairman has pointed out, that there are those who do not turn out to vote for that. I think there has got to be a new system and a new regime. I think that regime has got to be streamlined so that the control, especially the appointment of senior people, should be at least chaired by a political person or an elected Member of the House of Keys.

Dr. Mann: It does say that election.

Mr. Anderson: It does say election? I am sorry if I missed that out but I understood that they were just going to be chosen at random throughout the thing. If they are going to be elected and there would only be 15 I would go along with that, but I think the political control will have to come into the Members of the House of Keys. I am sorry if I did not do my homework on that.

Mr. Payne: Your Excellency, I as a member of the committee do not wish to repeat all that has been said by the chairman, Dr. Mann. I only want to say that I agree with everything that he said. I do accept that this report really is a little bit airy-fairy as somebody has said. It is really put before you today to accept the principle and I wonder whether the chairman would be averse to a further report after the principle has been accepted and the detail worked out. The change in principle is that the governors of schools shall be elected by the parents on a system to be worked out. That system will be worked out after consultation and I have no doubt whatsoever that the present members of the Board of Education will have a lot to do with it. They will be consulted on a possible Bill if it is done in that way.

However, I would like to point out to members 3.4 of our report which states: “ However, if the present method of election is continued (which we do not consider desirable)” , so if we stay with the present method, “the number of members representing each constituency should reflect the numbers of electors in that constituency.” . In other words we want the right proportion if this Court decides to continue with the present method of election and that is not contained in the Bill in front of the Keys at the moment.

Your Excellency, I will not waste any further time, other than to say that this report is put in front of the Court today purely to accept the principle that a different system is required in the light of the changing form of Government in the ministerial system which will be coming.

Responsibilities of Boards of Tynwald Etc. — Third Report of the Select Committee Received in Part TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 T1197

Mrs. Hanson: Your Excellency, speaking from experience as a non-Tynwald member and then Chairman of the Board of Education for five years, I do realise that there should be a streamlining because the present Education Act, there are anomalies in that Act where it was not certain where the actual responsibilities lay. So it is time that this was really sorted out and I would welcome a new Education Act. But I also realise from my experience that three members — and I agree that they should make the policy because they have to be the same as every other depart­ ment of Government, they should not be any different — three members cannot carry out, not the administration but the policy that will be laid down by the minister and the other two members of the department.

So therefore we are going to have to have 15 or less or whatever, certainly not more than 15, I would suggest, non-Tynwald members. The big question mark is, I feel, how are they going to be elected? Are they going to be elected on a constituency basis or are they going to be elected by organisations? This is the big stumbling block and I feel this is the area where a lot of people are a bit uncertain. I have canvassed for five elections, two for the Board of Education, three for this hon. Court, and in my experience I have found out it is parents who are interested in education because they are on the receiving end of education, let us be honest. It is the parents who are interested. If we are going to have governors of schools, which I hope we do eventually, I do hope that we will have parent representation elected by the parents of that school and that the parent governors would only be eligible for election whilst their children were actually attending the school. Now I do feel this is very essential but I would hate to see and I do not want to see the grassroots participation to go, because I do feel the non-Tynwald members are essential because people can come to them. If we are only going to have three Tynwald members of the department people are not going to be able to come to those three members from all over this island and I would like to see non-Tynwald members spread round the Island. I do not know how it is going to be done; that could be done by regulation or whatever this Court decides today. But I do feel there should be members in each area of the Island where parents or people who are concerned about education can have direct contact.

Mr. Brown: Your Excellency, I find that in talking to people since this report has come out, who have made comment to me as a member of the committee, that there is a misunderstanding of the basis of the recommendations and what we are projecting, and that misunderstanding is being very much echoed here in this hon. Court today. We made it very clear in 5.3 of our report — and I had this thrown at me, that we were contradicting, and we are not — it is very clear: “ We would not wish to do anything which would end grass roots participation in the education system.” . That is a statement and we stick by it because we were quite adamant on that. But what we are saying is that the present system is not working in the best interests of the education system. What we have said and where people seem to have got it wrong, and I hope people will listen very carefully because this is important. It says in our report: “To some extent this can be recognised” , this is the election to the Board of Education, ‘this can be recognised by allowing parents and other interested parties, (e.g. youth clubs, disabled etc)” , other interested parties, “to elect Governors and managers of schools or groups of schools.” et cetera. Our

Responsibilities of Boards of Tynwald Etc. — Third Report of the Select Committee Received in Part TI 198 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 point is that anybody in an area could stand to be a governor. They do not have to be a parent. They have to just be interested in the education system of the Isle of Man. But the election will be carried out and the only voting power will be with the parents and that is the major difference. So therefore anybody who can stand for the Board of Education now can stand to be a governor in their own area and therefore look after the interests in their own area.

At present we have a system where people are elected in a general election to the Board of Education and what happens is that they are then elected to a major body and may stand, because of interests within their own area, specifically to education — they might have a broader interest but lots of them stand for their own area — and they find when they get onto the Board of Education they actually have nothing to do with their own area and will be at schools or whatever that have no direct interest in their own school. They may still take an interest in their own school but they are not actually on the governing body or helping whatever within their own school.

We have Government, whether we like it or not, changing. Government itself is changing totally in its whole basis. We cannot leave one arm of Government with a system that was created, really, to do with an older style of Government, because that will create problems. If we do not make this move now it will mean there will be a general election in 1987 for the Board of Education. If it is then felt after that time, because of the Government system, to try and resolve these problems, then moves will either have to made to dissolve the Board of Education or to extend some period of time or whatever and that could create far greater difficulties.

I know from my small involvement, which is only small, through a youth club, of the difficulties that the members of our youth club have in trying to get back to getting things through the Board of Education. Things that have been fought for for many years, and for financial reasons, I accept that, have been delayed or have caused a problem and, with respect to those people in my time there, there is only once that we have had a southside person on our youth club. I know, and I am not throwing any aspersion on those people who have been there before; they have taken a great interest in our youth club, but it has been difficult trying to fight on behalf of the youth club to get things that the youth service require and I am not alone in that view. I know other members in this hon. Court have had that same difficulty.

The thing we have to remember is that governors will be elected to look after the schools, youth clubs et cetera and from within that number a representative or representatives, relating to the amount of population will be elected by the governors, one of their own people will be elected to represent them on the Advisory Council which will meet with the ministry or the Department of Education. They can then take up matters of educational interest in their area, fight for anything, as they can now, and, hopefully, get what is required and before anybody says ‘Ah, but the power will be within the hands of the Tynwald members’ I would firstly say one thing, that that is wrong when Tynwald is responsible for the financing of the education service? I would also say in my time being in here I have constantly

Responsibilities of Boards of Tynwald Etc. — Third Report of the Select Committee Received in Part TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 T1199

heard of the argument that the Board of Education has a built-in majority in the Finance and Executive anyway and that is always thrown back at us, so that they are controlling the finance anyway. So why not be honest about it and say to these non-Tynwald members ‘We feel you have a job to do. We feel that the people who have children going to schools, youth clubs et cetera have a proper say in what happens in the education system and they can do that through having governors which are elected by those parents’ and I think that that is important and, remember, you do not have to be a parent to stand to be a governor. You can just be somebody interested in that area who wants to take part in the education system of the Isle of Man and that is important; I think that is important and should be remembered. This report is vague and deliberately so. We have not rushed anything. What we have done is brought forward a principle and a principle does not take long to sort out. What takes a long time to sort out is the detail and we are saying that will take into 1987 and once the principle has passed, the same as has happened with our own principle of setting up departments of Government, we have gone away, as a Boards’ Responsibilities Committee, sat down, worked out detail, called in different people, altered the basis of some of the departments and recommendations have come back to this hon. Court. This will happen with the Board of Education system, the department. We will then have an Act which will have to go through the Keys and the Council and be signed by Tynwald and therefore you will then end up, hopefully, with something that is right or as near as right as we can get, and I would just add a caution. Do not think just by altering the numbers, and that and nothing else, that we are going to resolve the problem because we will not resolve the problem. All we will do is delay the problem which will have to be resolved in the next House. If we pass this it is not the end of the road, it is the start of the road, which means we can start talking to all the different groups that we need to, get down to, to detail, to get legislation brought in, to do what we need to do with the Education Bill, to get it right for modern-day changes that have happened. I do not believe that will be detrimental to the education system. I do not believe it will be detrimental to anybody who is interested in education. In fact it could give them an absolute opportunity to put in their views to actually try and change the system how they may have seen the problems over the years. It is very important if we are to get this problem,which is nothing new, it is quoted in the letter from the Board of Education members, going back I know it was quoted in another place, how many reports there have been on the education system and it has always been put off. We cannot put it off any more because Government is changing. The old system that it worked under will not be there any more. There are things that we need to get right, the child welfare, all these things. They are not being ignored. They are not being forgotten. They are the detail that needs to be done to get it right but what is important is that we get the principle right to get onto the road, to start getting the rest of it right and then, if members do not agree with what is being put forward, then they can throw it out, then they can refuse to pass a Bill and then time will prove whether we are right or wrong. But if we do not at least start investigating it in detail and seeing if we can get a system built up that will actually, hopefully, work, we will make a major mistake. So I would just say to hon. members this does allow for people to be elected to the Board of Education Advisory Council. It does allow for people to be elected

Responsibilities of Boards of Tynwald Etc. — Third Report of the Select Committee Received in Part TI200 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 as governors and they will be elected, the major difference, by the parents, the people who really have a direct involvement, and anybody can stand to be a governor in that area and 1 hope that members will support this and I am sure there is no question we will be back with further reports outlining detail as it comes along, as we see the legislation will need to be progressed so that Tynwald Court then is sure that it is making the right decision because, quite honestly, by rejecting any of this there is very little you are rejecting. You are just rejecting the principle to go down the road to start looking at it, and we need to try and get this resolved. There is the basis to work from. I hope the Court will support it.

Mr. Maddrell: Your Excellency, can I clear a point, sir, that my daughter is a member of the Board of Education, a non-Tynwald member, and have I the right to speak or have I a vested interest? (Interruptions)

The Governor: Have you a pecuniary interest, Mr. Maddrell?

Mr. Maddrell: No.

The Governor: No, then you are free to speak.

Mr. Maddrell: I just wanted to make sure, sir, because I am sure someone might be coming back. I am wary these days.

Dr. Mann: Are you a shareholder? (Laughter)

Mr. Maddrell: I am not going to support this. I am not going to support the Douglas 6.1(c) I do not support that. Now Mr. Brown has just sat down and he said ‘The board is changing; all the world is changing in the Board of Education’ and all we are doing, as far as I see it at the moment, is that the Responsibilities Committee is changing it from five people down to three people. But before that the Responsibilities Board want to get their finger in the action in everything.

Mr. Brown: No, we do not.

Mr. Maddrell: They are meddling, in my estimation. If the Responsibilities Board get their remit out and read it, their job as far as I am concerned is to tell the members of this Government where they will be seated, the minister and his assistants. It is not up to them to go down the road making enquiries about all other things. If it is two boards you are joining together, then decide on the minister, the number of people that are going to be with him and set the two boards head on into each other to get on with the job. That is not the Responsibilities Board. If they cannot get together, then someone else ought to help them, the legislators. That is not the responsibility, I do not think.

Another thing that was assumed is that when we were in another place in the House the argument was by the Chairman of the Board of Education that he was willing to have 15 members, and we had an amendment in my name where I wanted 18. That was the only argument that existed between us, the 15 and the 18. An

Responsibilities of Boards of Tynwald Etc. — Third Report of the Select Committee Received in Part TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 T1201 amendment took that out of our hands in that House and brought it here. But the way that we have to correct this is to take it back to that place again with a Bill and I said at the time ‘You will come up here. You will debate it. You will do something about it and you will take it back there’ and this is wrong. This is wasting everybody’s time.

All I want the Board of Responsibilities to do is say how many people are going to be with the minister, tell them where they are going, tell which boards are going together and get on with the job and stop interfering. I have heard of one member of the Board of Responsibilities who went into an office and said ‘Well, if you move that table and these chairs and that we can get the other board in here.’. It is nothing to do with them. I am astounded at the way that they are going about their business.

Mr. Brown: Hang on! Name names.

Mr. Maddrell: I am astounded, never mind ‘Hang on’. I am hearing lots of ‘Yeses’ and ‘Noes’, Your Excellency, from both sides of me here. This is the power group (Laughter) that is trying to get what they want.

Mr. Brown: Name names.

Mr. Maddrell: Well, they have spoken and I have waited for them to speak and that is why I am here now so they can just shut up. (Laughter) I am concerned that we have to decide in some way or other to put something together to go back to another place to argue the whole system out again, and so for this afternoon and because it is late at night — I think I have made my point that I am against it — I think that the Select Committee ought to have a look at their remit and see where they are going. When they have decided where they are going maybe we will get some sense out of them as well. I think that what we need to do for tonight, is if members will turn away 6.1(c) and no doubt the Select Committee will gather themselves together very quickly in a little room somewhere and come up with a stronger answer as to how many people they want, of non-Tynwald members.

Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Quirk: Your Excellency, I too follow on the line of the hon. member who has just sat down. Mr. Brown, when he spoke here, he said everything was deliberately vague. What sort of a statement to make when we are talking about the Board of Education. There is really nothing vague about the Board of Education. It is a board, a very positive board, a board which has worked hard and worked well throughout so many years and now we come to a situation when this is going to be dissipated by vague suggestions and ifs and buts and that is something, sir, that I cannot accept at all. The Board of Education are a board who have looked after the interests of education exceedingly well. In fact I can go as far as to say that the standard of education in the Isle of Man today, through their efforts and through the efforts of Tynwald, is as good if not better than anywhere else in the United Kingdom and I do not want that sort of situation dissipated, if it is possible.

Responsibilities of Boards of Tynwald Etc. — Third Report of the Select Committee Received in Part TI202 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986

I do accept, sir, that there have to be changes; there will be changes, but I regret very much this ‘if and but’ attitude and I feel I cannot accept that all these changes can be made in legislation and allow the board to continue in a certain way by 1987. I do not accept that at all. Anybody who has got any knowledge of legislation in this hon. House will probably find that this Bill will go to a Select Committee. It can be delayed if something can happen that will delay it, and in consequence you have a Board of Tynwald which may not be operating at that particular time, except for the three members who sit there in isolation and three members of Tynwald cannot operate this board without the support of those in the community. I accept there have to be changes but I do feel that this has been debated in another place. We then, as the hon. member Mr. Maddrell said, debated and the issue came down to 15 and 18. I feel that there can be an agreement made that will be acceptable to all and I believe too that members should be elected as they are at the present time.

Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, can I suggest to Mr. Maddrell that the committee know exactly where they are going. I would also tell him, as far as I am concerned, somebody has got to meddle otherwise this Government will just rumble on and I do not think that this Government can afford to rumble on.

Dr. Mann: Stand still!

Mr. Walker: I think changes are being made as far as the departmentalisation of Government is concerned, changes which are acceptable by every member in this hon. Court, and I am delighted they are progressing like they are.

The Board of Education was recognised by the Boards’ Responsibilities Committee that is was different and it had to be looked at on its own merits. That look was brought forward by the House of Keys being asked to consider a Bill brought forward by Mr. Kneale and that Bill was adjourned until this hon.Court had time to consider the principle. In the light of the decision this Court is going to come to shortly I am sure that Mr. Kneale then has to assess the future of his Bill and what he decides to do with it and that has to take its own course.

I think that members must think very hard about voting against the third recom­ mendation and that really is the nub of this report, that we should get away from having a Board of Tynwald and non-Tynwald representatives elected on a general franchise and I think the time has come to recognise that that is a situation that should be changed. The hon. member Mr. Maddrell said that his daughter was a member of the Board of Education and I know the way that she attends to her duties. Can I also say that members of the family that I married into have been associated with the Education Authority and the Board of Education for probably thirty years —

Mr. Anderson: You will be excommunicated! (Laughter and interrruptions)

Mr. Walker: — and I am going to get into trouble. (Laughter and interruptions) I probably will not get any tea.

Responsibilities of Boards of Tynwald Etc. — Third Report of the Select Committee Received in Part TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 T1203

Mr. Cringle: Or breakfast!

Mr. Walker: I would not criticise him, though, for more proper reason than not getting any tea. I think the way that they have carried out their duties, the way they have attended their duties is commendable and I would not criticise them one iota. The problem, as I see it, is that, and we all accept there is a difference between the Tynwald members of the Board of Education and the non-Tynwald members — and when I read in the Press, and I assume the Press coverage is correct, comments like ‘Why should we make savings? Tynwald should get its priorities right’ coming from non-Tynwald members of the Board of Education it suggests to me that there is something wrong and as members of Tynwald we have wide responsibilities and we have to ensure that the different departments of Government are able to continue. Those are our responsibilities. The responsibilities of the members, the non-Tynwald members of the Board of Education are purely and simply education and it seems to me that there is bound to be a clash from time to time and that we should set about construing a system where that clash is avoided. It was also reported in the Press and again I assume that the Press, coverage was correct, the statement was made a number of times that the parents know best. Now, accepting that, who better to elect and we have said clearly in our report that it should be election for governors and managers rather than nomination, and there are a number of different ways in which those elections can take place; there is a great deal of thought got to be given to the details. As my colleagues on the committee have said, we have come forward with this report which is vague in one way because it is a principle that we want to get accepted by this hon. Court because we must remember, I think it was in 1978, that the principle we are putting forward today was rejected in favour of the status quo, so I do think that members should really think about this. I am firmly convinced in my own mind that the time has come for a change with the Board of Education. I hope that the Court recognise that. I also believe and hope that before a new green Bill emerges there will be a long period of consultation, particularly with the members of the Board of Education who know the system backwards and I would look to them to make a contribution, a sensible contribution in order to get it right. It is important that it is got right. There is going to be a long consultation process. I hope the Board of Education *vvill be involved in that and I would hope that this committee will take the opportunity, as has been suggested, of coming back with a further report outlining the detail.

Mr. Bell: Your Excellency, I really will be very brief this afternoon, almost as brief as the report itself. I would really like to congratulate the members of the committee, actually, to begin with. I would never have dreamt for one moment that such a vague proposal, as we have got before us today, could produce such eloquence from the members.

To be honest I find it very difficult even to know where to start with this because there is so little in it. What little could be said probably already has been said at

Responsibilities of Boards of Tynwald Etc. — Third Report of the Select Committee Received in Part TI204 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 the moment. There is no question, and I think even the non-Tynwald members themselves are well aware now, that the time of change is upon us. The Board of Education in its present form has outlived its usefulness although its usefulness has been very effective indeed over the years. The Education Bill which was before the House of Keys itself generated a lot of disagreement, I think, amongst the present Board of Education, the non-elected members as much as the Tynwald members themselves and, indeed, within Tynwald itself but, as I say, at the end of all this I think there is still an acceptance that the Board of Education itself has to change.

We have a proposal here from the Boards’ Responsibilities Committee. We have also in an appendix had another proposal of Mr. Kneale. We have had a further proposal from the Director, all pointing us in very different directions, I think. What worries me is if the hon. Court here today accepts the proposal that is put before us, in spite of the hon. member for Rushen’s proposal of a long period of consultation with the Board of Education, the final shape of the new Board of Education will not be known to anyone until it appears in the House of Keys, possibly January/February next year. This will be the first time that anyone will have the opportunity to discuss it from this moment in legislative terms. Now what is one hundred per cent, certain is once we reach that stage that Bill is going to be sent to a Select Committee for further investigation. There is no question about that at all. Whatever the new shape that is going to be it is going to be so controversial there is not any chance of getting it through the House of Keys without a committee inspection first. If we are facing a Board of Education election next November, then I cannot see how a Select Committee can report, and it is going to take it some time to report, I am sure, on the ramifications of a new Bill, then for the Bill to complete its passage through the House and for whatever the new structure it may be proposing to be set up in time to replace the existing Board of Education the following November, I think it is a hopelessly unrealistic timetable that we will be setting ourselves.

Therefore this afternoon I have no intention of getting very deeply into this debate at all. I accept that change has got to be made. The principle of what is being proposed today I am also prepared to accept at this stage. What I am concerned is, as I say, that there will be no further report before the House of Keys. So I would like to move this afternoon an amendment:

That the words after “received” be deleted and the following words substituted

“and that whilst accepting the principles contained in the Report, Tynwald requests a further report containing fuller details of the Committee’s proposals. ”

I think this is a realistic way forward. It will give us all a chance to consider in real terms what the committee are proposing, rather than the vague theoretical proposals they have got in front of us now. Before that report comes back to this hon. Court I would urge the Boards’ Responsibilities Committee to carry out the long period of consultation with the Board of Education members, as I say, before

Responsibilities of Boards of Tynwald Etc. — Third Report of the Select Committee Received in Part TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 T1205 coming back rather than waiting for the period before the new Bill is drawn up, because I do not believe at this stage enough consultation with the Board of Education has taken place. Even looking on the evidence that we have before us now, we have seven non-Tynwald members, two Tynwald members and the Director are the only contributors to this discussion which has taken place. I wonder if members are fully conversant with what goes on in the Board of Education, the workload that is Carried by various members and exactly what their responsibilities are. I suspect, from reading through this, that they have not done their homework in depth and I would hope, if they will accept my amendment this afternoon, they will go away and do their work in a more detailed fashion and come back with more firm proposals than they have put before us this afternoon.

Mr. Cain: Your Excellency, I beg to second my colleague. I believe that if the amendment is adopted and a further report is brought back with more detailed considerations that far from hindering the work of the committee it will help, because by bringing a further report back with more details it will be possible to iron out any possible causes of dissension or disagreement at an early stage and that should therefore speed the Bill on its way through the House of Keys because by that time it should be non-controversial.

Mrs. Christian: Your Excellency, I would not denigrate the report because its recommendations are embodied in three short paragraphs. The theory of relativity can be expressed in a very short equation but it has amazing-consequences. I think that the consequences of this Bill, this particular report too, are what we have to do in the present situation and I would not support that we delay any further the adoption or consideration of these particular proposals. If it is felt that the Court wishes to have further information about how it is anticipated that the third recom­ mendation be developed that can be brought to the Court in a further report. That is not to say that we should not at this stage adopt the principles which are contained within this.

It has been said that the Board of Education is rather different from other boards. It is certainly true that in the past this has been so and it is also true that we have in the past tinkered with the structure of that board without looking at the fundamental reasons as to why it should be different. We are now in a situation where we are looking fundamentally at the structure of Government and there is no reason why the Department of Education should be treated in any different way from any other department, in my view.

The hon. member for Ramsey, Mr. Bell, has indicated that he is not clear about how the new board shall look. I think it is quite clear in this particular report. The new board will be the department, three people. That will be the board. We have precedents in other departments, such as the Health Services Board as it is currently structured, that is, a limited number of Tynwald members who have the advice and assistance of many non-Tynwald members in exercising their function, either through the management committees of the hospitals or advisory councils and so on, so that it is not a completely new area we are moving into; there are precedents which have been set.

Responsibilities of Boards of Tynwald Etc. — Third Report of the Select Committee Received in Part TI206 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986

I think we also at this stage, whilst, I hope, supporting these proposals, will fully acknowledge the contribution which has been made by non-Tynwald members of the Board of Education. No-one would deny, and we have heard many times in the past few weeks when we have been discussing amendments to Education Bills and so on, the very valuable contribution they have made. I do not believe that in changing the structure of Government we are in any way seeking to minimise the contribution that people outside of this Court can make to our education service. But there has to be an ultimate responsibility when we are dealing with policy and finance and I support this particular recommendation as being an entirely suitable one.

Mr. Martin: Your Excellency, I, like some of the other members, feel that this report is a bit vague and I will support the amendment because I believe we should just receive the report and go away and come back with some further information.

I am rather amazed to hear today that so many people have applauded the work of the Board of Education, the non-Tynwald members, as much as they have and yet here in this report they want to do away with them. We discussed in another place whether to reduce the number from 24 to 18 or 15 and then that was sent along for this committee to consider and they have reduced it to none. I at that time took the stance and I still do that the Board of Education have done in the past an excellent job and at this moment in time they are doing equally as well an excellent job. I see no reason whatever for change. Are we changing for change’s sake? Are we changing because we here have decided we will have a ministerial Government, so therefore there will be three people on that board? Is that what we are doing it for? I would say we have a winner here with the board that we have. They are doing an excellent job. They need a lot of people on that board to secure the future education of our children on this island and I do not believe that three people can do it and I do believe that the 24 that are there, not the 18 or the 15, the 24 is the right number to do it with.

So I will support the amendment in the name of Mr. Bell, the hon. member for Ramsey, because I would like to have further information. I accept it will be received and look for further information when it comes forward and, if that fails, I will be voting again 6.1(c). Thank you, Your Excellency.

Mr. Brown: A point of clarification, Your Excellency. Can I clarify the position from the comments of Mr. Maddrell who indicated that the Boards’ Responsibilities committee were interfering and could I read out, to clarify that situation, sir, the House of Keys amendment which actually sent it to the Boards’ Responsibilities on 10th December 1985; that amendment was moved by Mr. Payne, carried by the House of Keys and read as follows: “That further consideration of the Bill be deferred until such time as the Select Committee of Boards’ Responsibilities appointed by Tynwald has reported on the constitution of the Board of Education and the matter has been debated in Tynwald” and his inference, sir, was that we had picked this up ourselves and were interfering and I think that should.be clarified. We were carrying out the House of Keys recommendation.

Responsibilities of Boards of Tynwald Etc. — Third Report of the Select Committee Received in Part TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 T1207

Mr. Kneale: Your Excellency, although I persistently supported that the non- Tynwald members of the Board of Education should be elected, if anyone asked me to justify this I would find great difficulty in giving adequate reasons, other than the democratic process, why we should carry on with elections as at present. On the other hand I would make it quite clear that the administration of education cannot be operated by only the Tynwald members and I acknowledge fully the dedicated work that has been done by the non-Tynwald members over a large number of years going back well before the 1968 Education Act. Nevertheless, I cannot accept that we need so many of them and I am quite certain that the proposals put forward in the present Education Bill which is before the Keys, whereby the number of non- Tynwald members would have been reduced to 15, is quite adequate and the evidence I have given to the Select Committee is in support of that Bill and is contained in appendix 1, and I would refer hon. members to that appendix and if they look at the fourth page, where I have detailed the present set-up of the board and then to my suggestion for the future set-up, you will see I recommend three Tynwald members and 15 non-Tynwald members and it is because of that that I can go along very clearly with the first two recommendations of the Select Committee’s report.

Now the 15 membership was based on one member for each of the 15 new House of Keys constituencies, as this gives us an adequate number, in my opinion, and I would say my opinion is based on very long experience, going back to 1951, and it is not so important to have members based on population, as we have for the Keys. What is important to have is fair representation from each area of the Island, North, South, East, and West, and a 15-person membership provides for a reasonable allocation capable of dealing with schools and youth clubs in each area, and again referring to the appendix 1 where I have shown how the allocation of 15 members can be spread out to provide adequate cover in all the areas that are covered now by the designated committees and the childrens’ committees, also an allocation again based on area representation on each committee and you come to the allocation of visiting governors and you will see there a suggested allocation of members. There is no significance in the North Douglas, West Douglas, Peel, Ramsey, Rushen and Malew except to indicate the areas of the Island from which they come.

Again, turning over the page, there I have given an allocation of how I believe that the non-Tynwald members can be the visiting managers of all the schools in the Island. Again I have made a suggestion how the composition of management committees should be set up for the primary schools, and again I have given an allocation how I believe that the Welfare Committee can be set up and again with representatives on all the management committees. In fact I have gone into detail of how the administration can be broken down.

The Select Committee, in paragraph 3.3 of their report, are satisfied that the board could be adequately serviced by 15 members and possibly fewer but they do feel, however, that if elections were to continue the number of members representing each constituency should reflect the number of electors in that constituency. I cannot accept that and, as I have shown in the table in appendix 1 which shows the number of voters in each area, if we accept 17 or 18, which are alternatives that have been put forward, we are disturbing the balance in other areas from those in a 15-seat

Responsibilities of Boards of Tynwald Etc. — Third Report of the Select Committee Received in Part TI208 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986

body and creating anomalies again. To try and get a fair balance by these means pushes the number of seats up again until we have made no real reduction at all, and again 1 would say that we have far too many non-Tynwald members on the Board of Education. I am quite satisfied that the department can be run with three members of Tynwald I am quite satisfied that can be done. But the back-up, I believe, needs 15.

The Director of Education submitted his observations which have been put in the supplement to appendix 2, which have hardly been mentioned today, and these have been printed in this way because they were received after the main report had been printed and they had not been taken into consideration by the Select Committee. As this is his own personal document I was not involved in any way with its compilation and, although accepting that with a ministerial system there must be big changes from the present set-up, I cannot support several of his recommendations. I do not like his composition of the governing bodies for secondary schools. They are too large and have too much outside representation. I do not like his ideas for the managers of primary schools and his linking up of non-Tynwald members into discussion forums makes no sense at all to me. To carry out his ideas will mean that instead of having 29 members administering education we will have hundreds. I do not know what the effect will be on parent-teachers’ associations but I can foresee conflict. I also believe the Director is wrong in his opening remarks about the role of the non-Tynwald members. He says, and this is the present body, that meeting as a full board they make policy. This is wrong and is one of the problems of the present system because the non-Tynwald members, having been elected on the same franchise as the House of Keys, have been allowed to imagine that they make policy. During the four years I have been back with the board I have tried to correct this wrong belief. (Laughter) But the situation is clear: the Finance and Executive Committee of the board are the policy-making body and also have financial control. The hon. member for Castletown, Mr. Brown, did say that Tynwald has a built-in majority on the Finance and Executive Committee at present. This is so when all five members are present but the minute one of them is away that majority has gone, and we have not had a full attendance of Tynwald members during the past two months.

Dr. Mann: Where, were they, on holiday? (Laughter)

Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: Of course Tynwald is responsible for the basic policy of education, as it is for every other department of Government. The 20 non-Tynwald members who are not on the Finance and Executive Committee are responsible for administering the policy laid down by Tynwald and the Finance and Executive Committee. Hon. members have had a letter circulated to them by the non-Tynwald members and it has the approval of 23 out of the 24, the other member being off the Island when this letter was compiled. Well, it is nice to see that now they have finally accepted that their role is administering the service and not deciding the policy. It is also nice to know that they are now happy to support the Bill that I put forward which reduced their membership to 15. (Interruption) It is a pity, and I say this with no disrespect to them, it is a pity they had not taken my advice three months

Responsibilities of Boards of Tynwald Etc. — Third Report of the Select Committee Received in Part TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 T1209 ago (Laughter) and adopted and supported the move we made for the 15-seat Bill because I am quite certain that would have gone through without any delay at all.

As regards the Select Committee’s report I can go along with some but not all of its recommendations. I believe my recommendations, based on a 15 non-Tynwald membership, are the best of those submitted, as I cannot reconcile myself to this Education Advisory Council suggested by the committee. As regards the election of non-Tynwald members, I am not too sure. We must ensure that people of the right calibre are chosen, whether by direct election or some other means of selection. We want a balanced body, not one that consists of all ex-teachers or all parents. I would like the three recommendations, sir, voted on separately. I can accept the first two recommendations because that deals simply with the Tynwald representation, but I have reservations about the third. Quite obviously we need to look more closley at the situation before a final decision is made.

Mr. Cringle: Your Excellency, I wish to propose a further amendment to the resolution on the Agenda Paper. I accept the hon. member for Ramsey’s thoughts in saying that he is looking for the Boards’ Responsibilities Committee to come back, but I think he is watering the resolution down far too much. Again we are getting back to the business, and he is envisaging it, going in and out of Select Committees and all sorts of things. I would hope that the next House of Keys will revert to former practice and do the committee work on the Floor of the Keys. But, nevertheless, this amendment which he has proposed has considerable merit but it does take away the words which are written in the original resolution “ and the recommendations contained therein adopted” . I would propose an amendment to read “that, the following words be added to the resolution” and then I would pick up his words “and that whilst accepting the principles contained in this report Tynwald requests a further report containing fuller details of the proposals” . In that way we would not be watering down the resolution quite as much as what he is intent on doing. I beg to move:

That the following words be added to the resolution —

“and that whilst accepting the principles contained in the report, Tynwald requests a further report containing fuller details of the committee’s proposals. ”

Dr. Moore: I beg to second, Your Excellency.

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

Dr. Mann: Your Excellency, it is obvious that nobody is going to produce an ideal report on education in any way and I think first and foremost we need to establish, what are the functions of this committee? Because it is totally incorrect for anybody to suggest that we are meddling in departments. With great respect to my friend, the hon. member for Middle, who unfortunately has spent the day in peace, (Laughter) tied to his chair in case somebody thought he might be connected somewhere and so he has suddenly erupted into an attack On this committee, that

Responsibilities of Boards of Tynwald Etc. — Third Report of the Select Committee Received in Part T1210 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 we are meddling. This committee has only one main function to do and that is to propose to this hon. Court a political structure for the departments of Government. It also has to take into account an item that I think most people have ignored and have yet forgotten, that we also propose an alteration in the functions of the individual members of a department and if we are recommending a departmental structure, in which we have a minister and two members, that minister and those two members will be expected to spend most of their time devoted to that depart­ ment and that is completely different to the present structure of the Board of Education where we have five members who are involved in multiple boards and going away elsewhere, as it seems there does not seem to be a full complement in the last few months. So are the present members of the Board of Education or the present non-Tynwald members or the officials of the present Board of Education really the ultimate people who we should ask to re-structure the Board of Education? Ever since I have been in this hon. Court there have been attempts to, in some way, improve the structure of the Board of Education. Each one has failed and I think it is high time that people outside the Board of Education said and started by setting out the structure of the proposed department and then telling the Board of Education in its widest sense, both the Tynwald and non-Tynwald members, that they should then look to ways in which that general structure can be achieved. What we are setting out in this report is a general idea in principle as to how we think that should happen, firstly, that we have the departmental structure right. We accept the absolute necessity of grassroots involvement. We accept that there has to be a strong advisory council in education and we set out clearly that it is the departmental members who will be the executive of that board who will decide the policy. So if we have set that structure up surely whatever the advisory body is called, whether it is ‘the non- Tynwald Board of Education’ or a new ‘advisory council’, it matters very little what the name is as long as we ensure that the membership of that committee represents the people who are most interested in the education of their children. We have laid down the principle. We would look then to the Attorney-General’s Department and the political heads of the Board of Education to find a way of coming to terms with that structure. It will take time. It has to take time because the education legislation is one of the biggest minefields one could enter at the moment; I think the Attorney-General would confirm that. It is high time that we had a new Education Act. As far as what would happen to that Act, whether it would be introduced because there would be a different executive, well, that is down to the new executive when it comes and how it will be dealt with in a new House of Keys is a supposition that I do not think we ought to go into. All I hope is that we have a new House of Keys that has a grip on the policies of Government and are prepared to advance in the structure of the administration. So I do not think we have been meddling. I do not think we have been too vague. I think we have fulfilled the function that we have and that is to set out in simple terms the principles of the re-structuring. As usual there appears to be a cloud of something lying over Ramsey. I do not know from whence it came.

The Speaker: The harbour. (Laughter)

Responsibilities of Boards of Tynwald Etc. — Third Report of the Select Committee Received in Part TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 T1211

Mr. Lowey: They have read the report!

Dr. Mann: I hope that, given time, it will clear. I can only recommend to members that they adopt this report as it is printed without any of the runaway clauses of escape that will allow nothing to happen to education in the future. Let us once for the first time in ten years do something that is actually positive in education and let us move forward to a departmental structure. I beg to move.

The Governor: Hon. members, we have two amendments. I will put first the amendment in the name of the hon. member for Rushen, Mr. Cringle, because it was the second amendment to be seconded. That amendment, if you remember, took Mr. Bell’s amendment but altered it, such that the word “ received” and the following words were deleted and therefore at the end of the amendment the words “ and that whilst” were added. Are we all quite clear on Mr. Cringle’s amendment? Hon. members, will those in favour of that amendment say aye; those against say no. A division was called for and voting resulted as follows:

In the Keys — For: Messrs. Gilbey, Cringle, Dr. Moore and the Speaker — 4

Against: Messrs. Quirk, Cannan, Mrs. Christian, Messrs. Morrey, Maddrell, Payne, Karran, Walker, Brown, May, Duggan, Cretney, Martin, G.V.H. Kneale, Irving, Cain and Bell — 17

The Speaker: Your Excellency, that amendment fails to carry in the House of Keys, with four votes cast in favour and 17 votes against.

In the Council —

For: Messrs. Anderson and Callin — 2

Against: Messrs. Lowey, Ward, Dr. Mann, Mr. Radcliffe and Mrs. Hanson — 5

The Governor: Hon. members, in the Council two votes in favour and five against, the amendment fails to carry.

We will now consider the amendment standing in the name of Mr. Bell, the hon. member for Ramsey. Will those hon. members in favour say aye; those against say no.

A division was called for and voting resulted as follows:

In the Keys —

For: Messrs. Quirk, Gilbey, Cannan, Duggan, Martin, Cain, Bell and the Speaker — 8

Responsibilities of Boards of Tynwald Etc. — Third Report of the Select Committee Received in Part T1212 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986

Against: Mrs. Christian, Messrs. Morrey, Maddrell, Payne, Karran, Walker, Cringle, Brown, May, Cretney, G.V.H. Kneale, Irving and Dr. Moore — 13

The Speaker: Your Excellency, that amendment fails to carry in the House of Keys, sir, eight votes being cast in favour and 13 votes against.

In the Council —

For: Mr. Anderson — 1

Against: Messrs Lowey, Ward, Dr. Mann, Mr. Radcliffe, Mrs. Hanson and Mr. Callin — 6

The Governor: Hon. members, in the Council one vote in favour and six against, that amendment also fails to carry.

I will now put to you the substantive motion in three parts. First of all I put to you, hon. members, the motion standing in the name of the chairman of this committee, 6.1(a). Will those hon. members say aye; those against say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Recommendation 6.1(b), will hon. members in favour say aye; those against say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Recommendation 6.1(c), will those hon. members in favour say aye; those against say no.

A division was called for and voting resulted as follows:

In the Keys —

For: Mr. Gilbey, Mrs. Christian, Messrs. Morrey, Payne, Walker, Cringle, Brown and Dr. Moore — 8

Against: Messrs. Quirk, Cannan, Maddrell, Karran, May, Duggan, Cretney, Martin, G.V.H. Kneale, Irving, Cain, Bell and the Speaker — 13

The Speaker: Your Excellency, the resolution fails to carry in the House of Keys, sir, eight votes being cast in favour and 13 votes against.

In the Council —

For: Dr. Mann — 1

Against: Messrs. Lowey, Ward, Radcliffe, Anderson, Mrs. Hanson and Mr. Callin — 6

The Governor: Hon. members, in the Council one vote in favour and six against, 6.1(c) fails to carry.

Responsibilities of Boards of Tynwald Etc. — Third Report of the Select Committee Received in Part TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 T1213

PROCEDURAL

Mr. Lowey: Your Excellency, could I ask to move a motion for adjournment? I honestly think that after nearly ten hours in this Court and speaking almost as a shop steward, almost, sir,(Laughter) if I may say so, with no opportunity at all, I would have thought, looking at our Agenda, and some very important subjects to be discussed, I think it would be quite wrong to start to enter discussion at this time. I would therefore move:

That the Court proceed to item 36 and thereafter adjourn to Wednesday next, 26th February.

A Member: I beg to second, sir.

The Governor: Hon. members, I do pray your attention. Before we decide on this there is a counterargument which I believe I should put forward to you. It is, of course, that as a result of signing the Bill yesterday this department which we are about to discuss has only one month in which to prepare for amalgamation. By failing to elect the chairman and members of that board we deprive them of a week in which to prepare. I therefore, having made that caution, put this motion to the Court. Does anyone wish to —

Mr. Anderson: Your Excellency, may I ask if we could adjourn the other items on the Agenda and take that one?

The Governor: Yes.

Mr. Anderson: I would further suggest that we adjourn the others until the next sitting of the Legislative Council in March.

The Governor: Is that agreed, hon. members?

Mrs. Christian: Your Excellency, I wonder if members might consider item 34, in that we are asking someone else to go away and look at something in the same way. I think if there is to be any discussion on that it may well be when the recom­ mendation comes back. I wonder if we could consider that item as well.

The Governor: Hon. members, we have had a motion before the Court which is, I think, modified by consent, that is, so that I may put it to you, which is that we should move straight to item 36 alone and then that we should adjourn. I think that is the strength of Mr. Lowey’s motion. I will therefore put it to you and then if you do not accept that I will put the motion amended by what —

Mr. Brown: Could I ask for clarification, Your Excellency? I am sorry to be awkward. But is it till next Wednesday?

The Governor: That is the motion.

Responsibilities of Boards of Tynwald Etc. — Third Report of the Select Committee Received in Part T1214 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986

Mr. Brown: Thank you, sir.

The Governor: The motion before the Court is that this Court now proceeds to item 36 alone and then adjourns until next Wednesday. That is your motion, Mr. Lowey.

Mr. Lowey: That is, sir.

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY — CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS APPOINTED

The Governor: We move, hon. members, to item 36, appointment of depart­ ments et cetera.

Dr. Mann: Your Excellency, I have to move:

That the provisions of Standing Order 174 be waived to enable the following resolution to be considered.

Can I have the agreement of the Court to that?

The Governor: Is that agreed?

It was agreed.

Dr. Mann: Secondly, I beg to move:

That the undermentioned, recommended by the Selection Committee, be appointed as Chairman o f the Department o f Health and Social Security:— Mr. Callin.

Mr. Anderson: I beg to second.

The Governor: Hon. members, are there other nominations?

Mr. Cretney: Yes, Your Excellency. With great respect to Mr. Callin, I would wish to nominate a Member of the House of Keys because I feel that the chairman of this particular board should be a Member of the House of Keys, and I would nominate Mr. Delaney and substitute Mr. Callin onto the board itself, sir.

The Governor: I look for a seconder. There is no seconder, in which case —

Mr. Karran: I beg to second.

Department of Health and Social Security — Chairman and Members Appointed TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 T1215

The Governor: You will second, Mr. Karran. I think you are very nearly too late but under the circumstances I accept it. Then, hon. members, we need to elect the chairman. There are no further nominations. I call upon the Clerk to read out the names of the candidates.

The Clerk: The candidates are Mr. Callin and Mr. Delaney and you are voting for the chairman only.

The Governor: Hon. members, the result of the voting was Mr. Callin, 22; Mr. Delaney, five. Therefore Mr. Callin is elected as the chairman. I now call upon the Chairman of the Executive Council to move the second part.

Dr. Mann: Your Excellency, we now to have to elect four members of the Department of Health and Social Security. I am aware, before nominating them, that at least two of them will not wish to continue to serve, but I believe under Standing Orders they are nominated and have to be elected upon by this Court. The Selection Committee have recommended Mr. Delaney, Mr. Cannan, Mr. J.H. Kneale and Mr. Norman Radcliffe as members of the department.

Mr. Anderson: Your Excellency, it would appear to me to be a wasted exercise if we are going to nominate people today who are not going to accept those positions. I would think we want to get down to the business and get that committee together and I would like those to be named. (Members: Hear, hear.) (Interruption)

The Governor: I am very sorry, Mr. Anderson, but Standing Orders require that the results of the Select Committee are voted upon by the members of this hon. Court.

Mr. Gilbey: Your Excellency, following on what the hon. member for Council, Mr. Anderson, said, if we knew the two people who were going to resign we could propose two others instead and not vote for those who are going to resign. (Interruptions) Well, perhaps they could tell us who they are. (Interruptions)

The Governor: Hon. members, the chairman does not have the leave of those members who are going to resign if and when they are elected to say so.

Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: I have, sir, one of them. It is the hon. member for Garff, Mr. J.H. Kneale, who has been opposed to the set up of this body right from the word go and he feels very clearly that he does not want to serve on it, and if elected he will resign immediately and I think the Court should know that before they vote. Unfortunately he is absent from the Court because he has had a bereavement in the family.

The Governor: I will just ask the Clerk whether in fact we can get round this by electing five members.

The Clerk: Your Excellency, what I would propose that should be done is that if hon. members like to nominate a further nomination, and bearing in mind that

Department of Health and Social Security — Chairman and Members Appointed T1216 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986

Mr. J.H. Kneale has indicated that he is going to resign if he is elected, members should take that into account when making their votes.

Mr. Anderson : In view of that, Your Excellency, I have great pleasure in nominating Mrs B.Q. Hanson as a member of the new . . .

Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: I beg to second that.

The Governor: Thank you, seconded. Any other nominations, hon. members, please?

Mr. Bell: Your Excellency, I beg to nominate the hon. member for Ramsey, Mr. Cain.

Dr. Mann: I beg to second that.

The Governor: Are there any other nominations, hon. members?

Mr. Maddrell: I propose nominations be closed, Your Excellency.

The Governor: Nominations are closed. I call on the Clerk to distribute voting papers for an election.

Mr. Anderson: Your Excellency, could the names be read out again, please?

The Governor: Yes, I will call on the honorary Clerk, the honourable Clerk to read out the names.

Mr. Anderson: He is not the honorary one!

The Clerk: Your Excellency, the candidates, if my list is correct, are as follows: reading from the top, Mrs. Hanson, Mr. Radcliffe, Mr. Cain, Mr. Cannan, Mr. Delaney and Mr. J.H. Kneale, and you have to vote for four.

A ballot took place

Mr. Gilbey: Your Excellency, to save time might I raise a point now —

The Governor: Yes.

Mr. Gilbey: — rather than after the ballot? It is this: I entirely support the decision of hon. members to postpone these vital items on the Agenda until next week, because I am sure we are all far too tired to go on now. But Wednesday does provide a particular problem for me, as hon. members will understand when they hear it is the A.G.M. of the Steam Packet. (Members: Ah!) (Laughter)

Mr. Brown: It is better here, Walter!

Department of Health and Social Security — Chairman and Members Appointed TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 T1217

Mr. Gilbey: And bearing in mind what has been said by some hon. gentlemen at the Bar of the Court, it will be seen that if I can possibly be there at least for most of it I should be. I wonder, Your Excellency, if I could ask yours and the House’s leave for item 35 to be dealt with last? Because, although all the items are very important, to me this is a particularly important one and I have got a major amendment I would like to propose in respect of it. So if it could be the last item I am sure the learned Clerk could ring me up when we were getting near it and I could hasten down in time for it.

The Governor: Although the tellers are out of the hon. Court at the moment is that in principle agreed, hon members? (Members: Agreed.) I sense that that was not a wholehearted . . . May I ask again? Is that agreed, hon. members?

It was agreed.

Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, I think the hon. member for Council, Mr. Anderson, did suggest Tynwald meeting on a day other than next Wednesday. Perhaps you would just give a little consideration to that.

Mr. Anderson: Yes, I had proposed, Your Excellency, after Mr. Lowey, but I do not know was it seconded, that we postpone the other —

The Governor: Hon. members, the motion was put to the House that the House should meet next Wednesday. That motion was put and duly voted upon and accepted.

Mr. Cain: Your Excellency, I cannot be here next Wednesday either, as I have engagements in London, unhappily. But in those circumstances I also feel very strongly about item 35 and it was my intention to speak strongly in support of the amendment. Since I cannot be here, on the basis that the Agenda can be moved around a bit, if it can be moved I propose it be put off until the next month’s sit­ ting of Tynwald when I can have a chance to participate.

Mr. Payne: Your Excellency, can the Clerk of Tynwald explain the obligations of members in attending Tynwald?

The Governor: Standing Order 20.

The Clerk: Standing Order 20 provides that members of Tynwald must attend sittings of this Court unless given leave of absence for good or sufficient cause from the Governor.

The Governor: Hon. members, I realise how we are always in this trouble when we go for a date which has not been pre-ordained absolutely in our calendars, but I have to say again that this motion was put properly and formally to the House and that the House has voted upon it, and there the matter rests. We wait only now for the results of the election.

Department of Health and Social Security — Chairman and Members Appointed T1218 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986

Mr. Gilbey: Could I have your confirmation, Your Excellency? I should make it quite clear that I regard this item as far more important than anything else that is likely to come up for a very long time and if it meant not being at a particular part or any part of the Steam Packet A.G.M. I shall be here for this item. On the other hand I think certain hon. members might feel, in all the circumstances we have heard, it is quite important that there should be the maximum representation on the Steam Packet board. But I have no doubt that a final duty is to this hon. Court and to the public of the Isle of Man. I merely would ask if it was possible for this item to be moved in the Agenda and whether, for the other items, I could have leave of absence.

Mr. Bell: Your Excellency, I really cannot understand this argument that is going on at the moment. If the hon. member feels so strongly that he should be here, that this is such an important item to be debated, that it is more important than anything else he can think of on that day, then his duty is to be here in this Chamber, not at the Steam Packet.

Mr. Brown: Change the A.G.M.

Mr. Bell: ’ find it very difficult to understand how members can shuffle round the Agenda just to suit their own particular diary for that particular day.

Dr. Moore: Your Excellency, let us be fair. You cannot just shuffle round A.G.M.s and I think that the hon. member for Glenfaba has got a valid point. I think we should accede to his request to put that item last. (Members: Agreed.)

The Governor: Hon. members you have already agreed it, albeit reluctantly. Hon. members, the result of the first round of the ballot is that Mr. Radcliffe received 25 votes; Mr. Cannan received 23 votes and Mr. Cain received 19 votes. Mr. Delaney and Mrs Hanson both received 17 and therefore there is a tie for the fourth place on the board, and we will therefore need another election. Mr. Kneale received seven, I beg your pardon. I call on the hon. Speaker to appoint a teller for the House of Keys and, Mr. Ward, are you still up to it?

The Clerk: Your Excellency, the candidates in this election which is for one place only, one place only, are Mrs. Hanson, Mr. Delaney and Mr. J.H. Kneale.

A second ballot took place.

The Governor: Hon. members, the results of the election were that Mr. Delaney received 18 votes; Mrs. Hanson received ten and Mr. J.H. Kneale received none and therefore Mr. Delaney is the fourth member of the board.

Hon. members, that completes the business of Tynwald Court until 10.30 on 26th. The Council will now withdraw and leave the Keys to transact such business as Mr. Speaker may place before them.

The Council withdrew.

Department of Health and Social Security — Chairman and Members Appointed TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1986 T1219

The Speaker: Hon. members, the House of Keys will adjourn until Tuesday next, 25th, at 10.30 in our own Chamber. Thank you.

The House adjourned at 7.22 p.m.

Department of Health and Social Security — Chairman and Members Appointed