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

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF COURT

Douglas, Wednesday, 21st October 1998 at 10.30 a.m.

Present: in a bid to allow more time for the supplementary agenda The (the Hon Sir Charles regarding the incinerator, which of course also will appear Kerruish OBE LLD (hc) CP). In the Council: The Lord later in this sitting. As it happens, it perhaps is more Bishop (the Rt Rev Noel Debroy Jones), the appropriate to have the item considered today as the United Attorney-General (Mr W J H Corlett), Hon C M Christian, Kingdom Government considers the abolition of hereditary Messrs E A Crowe, D F K Delaney, J R Kniveton, peers. The intervening three months from when this E G Lowey, Hon E J Mann and Mr G H Waft, with resolution was tabled have not in any way reduced my Mr T A Bawden, Clerk of the Council. resolve to press ahead with it. I expect it to be a debate where there will be no grey areas, rather simply ones of In the Keys: The Speaker (the Hon N Q Cringle) black and white, for or against. (Rushen); Mr L I Singer and Hon A R Bell (Ramsey); I am well aware, of course, that a five-member select Hon R E Quine OBE (Ayre); Hon H Hannan (Peel); committee is in being, established on 22nd April 1997, to Mr W A Gilbey (Glenfaba); Mr S C Rodan (Garff); consider the role, constitution and election of the Hon D North (Middle); Mr P Kamran, Hon R K Corkin Legislative Council. The committee presented an interim and Mr G T Cannell (); Messrs J R Houghton and report in February this year containing a number of R W Henderson (Douglas North); Mr A C Duggan provisional conclusions, including a number of interesting (Douglas South); Mr R P Braidwood (Douglas East); observations regarding reform but omitting to satisfy what Messrs J P Shimmin and A F Downie (Douglas West); I view as being one of the primary requirements: Hon J A Brown (Castletown); Hon D J Gelling recommendations on the future method of the election of (Malew and Santon); with Prof T StJ N Bates, Clerk of the Council. Tynwald. With the greatest respect I would suggest that this is the main concern of the public. Recent difficulties experienced with the election of two members to fill positions left vacant by the retirement of His Honour Arthur Luft and the hon. The Lord Bishop took the prayers. Brian Barton saw the hon. member for Onchan fairly easily take the first place, allowing an excellent replacement in Apologies for Absence the , but the other did take a long time to resolve before the hon. member for North Douglas finally The President: Hon. members, to the apologies of agreed to take the seat and was elected. The painful yesterday I have to add that the hon. member of Council experience of filling that second seat focused the public's Mr Radcliffe has leave of absence for this day. attention on the method of election, and there were more than a few ready to then say, 'Enough is enough.' Certainly, to me, the general perception was one of near ridicule, demeaning the status and dignity of the very fine office of Legislative Council — Election by Popular the Legislative Council. The spectacle of the House of Keys Franchise — Debate Adjourned meeting virtually every week trying to fill the second seat was degrading and an embarrassment to some of those The President: Now, hon. members, turning to the order who were proposed along the line, as political factions paper, we come to the long-awaited item 7 and I call upon made their presence felt, but, of course, democracy had to the hon. member for Onchan, Mr Cannell. prevail. But it brought out the folly of continuing to elect Mr Cannell: Thank you, Mr President. I beg to move: members of the Legislative Council by the vote of the House of Keys rather than the vote of the public and that That Tynwald requests the Council of Ministers to was before regard was taken of the need for highly paid introduce legislation to provide for the election of the legislative members having no public franchise or mandate. Legislative Council by popular franchise. It has long been the case that the public sees elevation to the Legislative Council as jobs for the boys, and there is My maiden Tynwald resolution, and of course it comes plenty of justification for that view, in my opinion. Very to the agenda having been held over from the July sitting few outsiders have made it to the Council ranks; the vast

Apologies for Absence Legislative Council — Election by Popular Franchise — Debate Adjourned T70 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 majority have come from the Keys' own numbers or from by a death. At that point all nine seats in the Council would persons who previously had been in the Keys. In certain become vacant but would still be open to be occupied by cases there have even been examples of persons rejected retiring members, new Keys members, or indeed outsiders. by the electorate making a comeback to the legislature The Lord Bishop would retain his seat under my plan through a Council seat. This is in no way intended as a without recourse to election beyond requiring approval by slight on those who occupy Council seats through any of the public of a minimum of 51 per cent within the four the foregoing methods at present but merely illustrates the regional areas I propose the remaining eight Council seats problem the public has in trying to condone it. would come from. The four regions of the Island which, Hon. members, it is time that accountability comes into of course, would be based on east, west, north and south our lives. Two current MLCs have not faced an electorate would elect two seats apiece to the Legislative Council for 17 years and two others for 12 years. No longer can we but would not be limited to persons residing within the have the position of our respected upper House being the area. As we have seen fairly recently, of course, in House subject of ridicule. I am not, at the moment, proposing its of Keys elections, a number of members have been complete abolition, only that membership be the subject successfully elected without living within their of public approval. What we have had is that certain Keys constituencies. members have pledged their support to the electorate and, In theory this, of course, could lead to the House of within a very short period of time, have allowed their names Keys being robbed of eight seats mid-term, leaving the to go forward for elevation to the Legislative Council. This House down at 16, but I see that as being extremely unlikely is simply not acceptable. It costs a lot of money to hold as those who have faced a general election only two-and- by-elections, promises which were made by Keys members a-half years before, in general, are unlikely or unwilling to their electorate are put to one side in the pursuit of to seek Council elevation in their first term, though, as I election to the Legislative Council for whatever reason, have mentioned, we have seen some exceptions to that in and in recent cases there has been disenfranchisement of recent times. In the case of House of Keys members having constituencies for considerable periods of time while new been re-elected at general elections, their route may well members are elected. What I am proposing here is not in be up to the Council. After they have served one term of the form of a private member's Bill of course, though five years they would then be at a minimum seven-and-a- perhaps that might become necessary if this move does half years into their service, but either way they would not not come off today, but I respectfully suggest that the select lose their Keys seats by standing for the Council under my committee have so far failed to take notice of the public's plan. You could retain your Keys seat if you are very real concern and address the subject of public election unsuccessful; you go back to the Keys if you are of the Legislative Council. unsuccessful for the Council, as indeed now is the case The committee will, of course, say they have every and would remain. intention of doing so in the future in their next report and But even if the general election to the Legislative that may very well be the case. I certainly hope so, but in Council did result in the Keys providing all eight members, my desire to advance the matter I have taken the liberty of as is unlikely, this would lead the experienced people still putting it to this Court today. The call is for the Court to involved but they would be in another place, but we would request the Council of Ministers to introduce legislation not lose their expertise. It might, of course, mean eight and that, of course, is a big step to take. The select vacant Keys seats which would then have to be filled by committee numbers ministers among its members, so no by-elections, which would be quite costly, I agree. It is doubt they will feel slighted by this motion. They need unlikely we would have eight but, if it did, probably it not be; no malice is intended by this. All I seek is that by would come on the first election of the Council where this whatever method, no future Legislative Council elections scheme would come in, and it would at least ensure that take place without the public's input. the people had a further opportunity of electing those who So how could that be achieved? By a variety of methods, they feel would rather represent them than as now, just as no doubt Mr Victor Kneale would tell us. Firstly, the having to sit and wait to see important decisions and law term of office of all the present members I propose running capable of being swayed by Council members who have - and this is not a Victor Kneale script this is Geoff Cannell's not been directly mandated or who have in fact occupied script here - to its full conclusion. The full complement seats for almost two decades, as I have illustrated. would then continue on in office until April 2004 - if they The whole plan sounds probably, without reading it off wish to do so, of course. That date is significant because it the paper here, a little messy but it need not be so. It can will be the half-way point of the life of the next House of be fine tuned. The first Council election would probably Keys, which will be elected in November 2001. It is be the one which would prove the most difficult to deliberately set to that date, 2004, to permit an alternate administer; after that the public might regard the Council cycle of Keys and Council elections, thus providing members as being competent enough to be re-elected at a continuity. The election of Keys members who would be future date, at least in similar numbers as they presently still eligible to stand for the Legislative Council, of course, re-elect Keys members at general elections which, in recent could therefore no longer come earlier in their term of office times, has been around 40 per cent. Either way Legislative than two-and-a-half years, in contrast to some who have Council democracy will come to this Court eventually. It been elected after six months, except in the case of is only a matter of time. It is evolution, inevitable evolution. members elected as a result of a Keys vacancy which might The decision will be taken, of course, as it stands at the occur for other reasons such as unforeseen retirement or moment by those who are most likely to be affected, which

Legislative Council — Election by Popular Franchise — Debate Adjourned TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 T71 obviously prejudices its chances of being accepted, but so motion, were it to find favour with hon. members, would be it. It is Delaney's turkeys voting for Christmas - be to commission yet a third body, the Council of Ministers, to conduct an investigation into the future of the Legislative Mr Delaney: Don't worry, I am a turkey! (Laughter) Council. Assuredly an investigation by the Council of Ministers would be needed before a decision could be Mr Cannell: Keys members will be increasingly arrived at concerning amending legislation. I think that is implored by the electorate of the Isle of Man to cease this transparently clear. It would be wholly impractical, I would archaic practice and make all members of the legislature suggest, for the Council of Ministers to promote legislation publicly accountable, eventually if not now. which simply changed the election procedure from that So why not now? Please support me in this and know involving an electoral college to one of popular election. that you are recognising the very real concern expressed A prerequisite, I would suggest, is to determine the role of by the public. It is not imaginary. It is as recently as my the Legislative Council, and from that foundation we can canvassing days in Onchan five months ago. Let us show then address the electoral process because that will flow the public we do not condone undemocracy, rather that we from the role which the Council would be required to have no qualms whatever about standing up to be counted, perform. But simply to change the election procedure all of us every five years, and thus have a direct mandate without examining the role of the Council, I would suggest, to allow the Legislative Council to have nomination to the is the wrong way round. So assuredly there would be a Council of Ministers without the need for their conscience need for a third investigation if this motion were to go or to feel fettered. In this motion we are establishing a through, because we would not be dealing with the House principle. No-one should be in a position of enjoying a of Keys investigation, we would not be dealing with the Tynwald vote without direct mandate of the public. Thank Legislative Council investigation, this motion requires the you, Mr President. I beg to move. Council of Ministers to take action, and that would give rise to yet a third investigation. Mr Delaney: Mr President. I will second the resolution. I recognise the hon. member for Onchan's worthy intentions and I have no problem with that at all and, as I Mr Quine: Mr President, I can readily identify with said, I am enthusiastic to any member of this hon. Court the hon. mover in that there is a need to address the matter taking such initiatives. However, I do feel that in the of reforming the Legislative Council. The need for a circumstances it would be better for me to move the definitive position to be arrived at by this hon. Court at an amendment in my name, which I trust hon. members have early date, I think, is broadly recognised within this hon. before them, the impact of which is to adjourn for further Court. However, I would suggest that it is not timely to do consideration Mr Cannell's motion until April 1999. By so today, and for that reason, at this juncture, I will not that time I have no doubt in my own mind that assuredly offer comment on the proposal which has been put before the product of the Keys select committee will be before us today by the hon. member for Onchan. that particular branch. In April 1997, the House of Keys resolved that a I would trust that Mr Cannell will see the logic behind committee of the House be appointed to consider the role, my move today for an adjournment and feel able to support constitution and election of the Legislative Council and this motion for adjournment, as I would stress I am in no the implications for the remuneration of members of any way taking issue with him. I have a considerable amount proposed changes to the Council. I serve as chairman of of common ground with him as to what he is seeking to that select committee. That committee placed an interim achieve, but we must move forward in a logical and report before the Keys on 24th March 1998. The Keys are structured fashion. continuing with their investigation and it is their intention Mr Cannell did refer to the fact that the select committee to place a final report before the Keys early in the New of the Keys had failed to find a solution. I think that is a Year. Evidence has been called for; indeed, evidence has little unfair. The select committee of the Keys has produced been submitted and no doubt, if the hon. member Mr an interim report and it is proceeding to produce a final Cannell wishes to submit evidence, he will do so and, report. We are doing that in a structured fashion; we are having heard what he has had to say today, I would look doing that pursuing lines which take us along a path that forward to getting further and better particulars as to his are based objectively, and I would suggest to the hon. proposal, as I am sure would all members of the Keys member that one of the problems that we have had in the committee. And I am not in any way slighted by the fact past, having several times sought to reform the Legislative that the hon. member has brought this motion before this Council or to address the need for reform, is that we had hon. Court today. Such initiative in this or any other area I not taken a structured and objective approach to it and welcome and, being the sensitive soul that I am, I take no simply jumped in and said, 'This is the answer'. That umbrage at that whatsoever. (Laughter) sounds great, it is a wonderful soundbite, but when you Now, additionally the Legislative Council, in March get that onto the floor, when you get that before this hon. 1998, determined to conduct an investigation into their Court without proper recognition of the political balances future role, and this exercise has yet to be finalised, as I that have to be struck within this Court, then that what I understand the position. would call somewhat impetuous approach is not likely to Hon. members, I would suggest that against this produce the product that we are looking for, and so I believe backdrop it would not be appropriate to consider this that it is proper for us, and certainly for the Keys select motion at this point in time. The practical effect of this committee because that is our intention, to pursue this

Legislative Council — Election by Popular Franchise — Debate Adjourned T72 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 objectively and in a structured fashion and hopefully So changing the constitution does need to have careful produce the information that is necessary for a definitive thought put into it. If you want to elect I am quite happy to decision to be taken on this matter. So I would, sir, beg to have an elected upper House but there will be changes and move the motion for adjournment and ask hon. members they have got to be thought through, and I know that the to lend their support. Thank you, sir. I beg to move: House of Keys and the Legislative Council are thinking these things through. As I said, another phrase of the hon. That the debate be adjourned to the April 1999 member which I would take issue with was when he said, sitting. we are an anachronism, in effect - I cannot say the first word but I can get anachronism out! Well, anachronism to Mr Rodan: Mr President, I rise to second the motion some is history to others. Whether you like it or not, this of the hon. member for Ayre to adjourn to the April 1999 Council has played an important part over the years. Does sitting. Early on in the hon. member for Onchan's speech it have a part to play today and in the future? I believe it one of the first things he said was that there are no grey has had an important part to play and I think it will continue areas in this issue. As a member of the committee of the to play in some form or another. Nothing stays the same House of Keys which is looking at this subject, I can assure for ever. him that there most assuredly are grey areas, and it is But that is not the issue today. The issue today is, can precisely because there are grey areas that the report is this form of inquiry help that already set up, or both that taking the time that it is taking to produce, and one one of have been set up? I do not think it will. At the end of the the grey areas is, if we accept the basic premise for election day the decision will be made one way or another and, of the Legislative Council, then there are all sorts of come that day, I will be quite willing to stand up and be implications flowing from that which may or may not counted. So I will be supporting the amendment on this create fresh problems in the operation of this Court. So it occasion, not because I do not appreciate the effort of the is precisely for that reason, not to decry the principle of hon. member and bringing it forward to this Court. That is what the hon. member Mr Cannell may wish to do, because his job and I have no difficulty at all in accepting that. it is certainly an option and not only an option but it is part of the remit of this committee to consider the situation Mr Brown: Mr President, can I just say many of the where the Legislative Council is elected, but there is an sentiments expressed by the mover of the motion I agree awful lot in the hidden undergrowth of this matter which with in terms that something has got to be resolved over requires careful exploration before we can come to a this issue and, as the mover in another place of the motion seemingly attractive option such as has been suggested. I to set up the select committee to investigate this issue, I beg to second, sir. think my views are clearly known. I do support, however, the adjournment debate, not because I disagree with the The President: Now, hon. members, we have a hon. mover of this motion, but because I think it is very adjournment resolution before the Court. The five-minute important we do not have too many issues of the same rule will apply. The member of Council, Mr Lowey. issue being considered by different parties at one time. It is very important for the Isle of Man that if we make a Mr Lowey: Yes, Mr President, I have no difficulty in change, whatever that change may be in relation to the either dealing with it today or supporting the amendment Legislative Council, it is carefully thought out and carefully to adjourn, but of course the amendment to adjourn has put together. If we do not do it right then we could create a got logic to it: there are two reports actually dealing with real difficulty for the legislature of the Isle of Man and the this specific; what does a third one add to the overall? I do parliamentary structure of the Island. not think it does. I have to say I am one who is not a great supporter, at I am on my feet really to say that I welcome the vigorous the moment - because nothing has been produced to show way in which it was presented, the original resolution, but me - that the Legislative Council should be elected on its just to make sure that the media do not take everything as own, and the reason I say that is because it actually will a token that we accept everything that was said. First of weaken the base of the House of Keys, because the all, let me say quite clearly to the hon. member, I am the Members of the Legislative Council would have a bigger longest serving member in the Legislative Council, so if franchise and therefore would quite rightly say, as they do, for example, in the United States, that we have been there is a hereditary one it is me! I do not feel hereditary in elected by a greater number of people, therefore we must any way, shape or form, I can assure you. If you want the be the power base. And of course, if you look at our history truth, if you thought that I would prefer to face the electors over the last 30,40 years, the Isle of Man, through Tynwald, of Rushen or the electoral college I know where I would has changed that power base from the Legislative Council prefer to be, I can assure you, and where I had more to the Keys. enjoyment, I will tell you! So I am happy to support the adjournment. I think we Having said that, let me say to the hon. member: he do need to take care on this one; I do not disagree with the talked about the ridicule of the Council - on the contrary, sentiments expressed, or many of them, by the mover of sir, the ridicule of the Council was not the Council being this motion and I hope he will acknowledge and accept ridiculed at the time from the people that I spoke to outside, that really we are looking at it, we have a select committee it was the electoral college's inability to elect that was being doing it. It is a difficult job; because if it was an easy job it ridiculed. would have been done before. He did mention the hon.

Legislative Council — Election by Popular Franchise — Debate Adjourned

TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 T73

member Mr Kneale, who used to be a member here for wanted to put somebody up on this level who had not been West Douglas, and he tried on many occasions to deal with elected by anybody either, and I decided then that I would this issue as many others did. It is not an easy issue but it rather fill that with someone who was elected, and he is an important one and rightly, I think, has to be sorted knows that. out at some stage because the present situation really is The member for Onchan who moved this timely untenable in a democracy, but I do think we have to be resolution is aware, as I am aware, that the people certainly careful how we achieve that. For that reason I support the in Onchan, and in North Douglas when I had the pleasure adjournment. of canvassing up there, are very strong on this issue. There is no doubt about that. He knows, Mr Cannell, that on Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I neither support the election day, although I did not have a chance to canvass adjournment or the proposal that is in front of us today. I in Onchan, otherwise the 46 votes might have been believe that this House should debate the issue. As I said different, but the fact of it is that standing outside that to the hon. member, if he did not get a seconder I would polling booth - have seconded it to get the opportunity to debate the issue. I believe the adjournment is wrong because I think we Mr Downie: It could have been more! need to know where we are going because we have almost an art form of how to go round in circles: we have one lot Mr Delaney: - I was aware, and he knows I was, of up there going clockwise and one lot down here going what the people were saying who were coming to the anti-clockwise and never the two meet, and then we end polling booth. One of the great things about being a up with a situation where the whole issue is blurred out of representative in the Isle of Man is the closeness between all proportion. So I actually will not support the the members and the constituents. That is one thing nobody, adjournment because I believe that this House should be regardless of size, can say does not happen on this Island. telling the ones that are going clockwise and the ones down The members of the House of Keys are very close to their here who are going anti-clockwise which way they should constituents, and that is right and that is proper, and when be going in the first place. the public are saying to you constantly there has to be a So, if nothing else, I believe that we should allow the change on this subject - maybe it was highlighted by the hon. member the opportunity to debate the principles of elections, it probably was - there has to be a change. And this issue. I understand the member for Castletown's the House of Keys report and our own report - maybe we concern about the fact that it has taken 30-odd years to will come to some sort of arrangement, but the public do take the power away from the upper House to get the power expect change and I certainly would not deny the public down to here, and the danger is, of course, that if we go what they are entitled to, representative elections to the for a mandate, the bigger mandate will be in the upper Legislative Council. I believe that it is right and proper, House, but I believe that these issues need to be debated in coming into this next century, that they should have that this Tynwald Court now so that the two committees can and I do not think that it will do any damage to the Isle of go back and listen to the debate and augment their policies, Man at all. I think it will bring us closer together, not how they feel the situation is. But if we are just to adjourn separate us, regardless that the upper House have more it, I think it is a mistake. I think it will be used as an excuse. power than the lower House. I think everything should be It will be seen outside as a delaying tactic for not making done to try and avoid that, because I would not like to a decision as we appreciate there are only a couple of years see - left in order to get legislation through. Nothing will get through the last year of any House if there is controversy The President: Hon. member, you are speaking to the anyway, so consequently I believe that if nothing else we adjournment debate, so can you contain yourself in that? should support the hon. member. I appreciate what people will say about the principle. I Mr Delaney: In the April sitting, when this particular am prepared to argue the principle why I believe that we issue is debated, I am sure these subjects will be debated should do away with them instead of electing them, but then and I hope the House of Keys come to the right that is an argument that needs to be done when we get the decision. I know they are all fairly minded people, but the debate, but at the moment, if we support the hon. member's public have a right to put this in April, when they are now proposals there, what we will end up with is again two told it is going to come forward; they will get a decision different committees working in opposite directions with then and the public mind will be put at rest. no clear idea, no clear mandate, and we will end up with I am supporting the adjournment and I hope Mr Cannell nothing being done, and that is what the problem will be. will support the adjournment. He has achieved his object. He has brought what he was told to this House. Mr Delaney: Mr President, I seconded the resolution because I have believed for 22, 23 years that everyone The President: May I put the adjournment resolution? should be elected who represents the public and I will never vary from that. I most certainly hope - the last speaker Members: Agreed. said 'Do away with us' - that we are not going to be shot; I would rather be neck-wrung like a turkey! (Interjection) The President: Hon. members, the motion for I certainly came up here I hope for the right reason, up adjournment is in the name of the hon. member for Ayre, to this level, because the hon. member who has just spoken Mr Quine, and reads: 'that debate be adjourned to the April • Legislative Council — Election by Popular Franchise — Debate Adjourned T74 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998

1999 sitting.' Will those in favour of that adjournment The scheme consists of 12 two-bedroomed bungalows resolution please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. of traditional design and materials, and they would be constructed in two blocks. Provision can be made for A division was called for and voting resulted as follows: specific units to be utilised by disabled persons. Each bungalow will include an emergency call provision link In the Keys - with a local control centre. The site is serviced by a communal heating system and should reduce operating, For: Messrs Gilbey, Quine, Rodan, North, Brown, maintenance costs and fuel bills. The properties have been Houghton, Henderson, Duggan, Braidwood, Shimmin, designed to be energy-efficient. Mrs Hannan, Messrs Singer, Bell, Corkill, Gelling and I look forward to hon. members' support for this the Speaker - 16 resolution, which will enable the project to commence on- site in early November. I beg to move. Against: Messrs Karran and Cannell - 2 Mr Brown: I beg to second and reserve my remarks. The Speaker: Mr President, the motion carries with 16 cast for and 2 against, sir. Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I will not be objecting to this proposal today but I am a little bit concerned about the In the Council - hon. minister saying that it is going to be in conjunction with the two local authorities. What I am concerned about For: The Lord Bishop, Messrs Lowey, Waft, Dr Mann, sheltered accommodation is the fact that if we are going to Mr Kniveton, Mrs Christian, Messrs Delane support such sheltered accommodation, we have to accept and Crowe - 8 that sheltered accommodation is different to being just purely in the housing stock of local authorities, and I Against: None believe that there needs to be more of a social services input into sheltered accommodation; it should not be just The President: In the Legislative Council 8 votes have purely based on the individual's need for some sort of been cast in favour and no votes against the resolution. I public sector housing. What I am concerned about is that declare the adjournment resolution carried. while I am delighted to hear that there is some movement as far as the ex-servicemen are concerned, I find it an embarrassment that we have welshed on this section of Elderly Persons' Housing Units at St John's the community - only for their sacrifice we would not be — Expenditure Approved here today - and the fact that their unit has still not come, when it was supposed to be for the 50th anniversary of the The President: Hon. members, we move on to item 15 beginning of the war, then it was the 50th anniversary of on the order paper and I call on the Minister for Local the end of the war, and we still have not actually seen Government and the Environment. anything in black and white yet as far as that is concerned. But what I am concerned about is firstly on the point Mr Quine: Thank you, Mr President. I beg to move: that there has to be a re-examination of what the need is for sheltered accommodation on the Island, and I believe That Tynwald authorises the Department of Local that it is not purely a housing issue; it has to be a social Government and the Environment to expend a sum not services issue. We need to put people in there that cannot exceeding £1,053,340 on the development of 12 elderly cope on their own but do not need to go into permanent persons' housing units on a site at Station Road, St John's. residential accommodation. So I do hope that, if nothing else, the minister will be looking at that point that we need The Department of Local Government and the to change. Environment has recognised the need for some time for Also, really I do take offence when I hear people small scale developments in rural areas of housing for attacking people living in council houses and they talk elderly residents, to enable them to remain in those areas about the terrible deficit of people living in council houses but with the type of support that a sheltered housing scheme - the fact that I get tax relief and until I opened my mouth can provide. The department has therefore developed a I could have got improvement grants, but we managed to scheme for St John's with the assistance of the two adjacent stop that anomaly where rich people were getting housing local authorities - that is, German and Patrick. These grants for improvements in their property and it is now authorities have been consulted at all stages of the design means-tested, which I wanted and which I fought for. But process and will be involved with the allocation of the the point is that sheltered housing should come from a housing units when the scheme is completed. This different vote from local authority housing, because then development will also provide the opportunity for up to you will see the true figure as far as the subsidy is two units to be allocated for use by qualifying ex-services concerned. I hope that the hon. minister, whilst I will personnel. This site was chosen following an exercise support this proposal, will look at both those two points. which analysed other land use opportunities in the village They need to be looked at. One is splitting the deficit as of St John's and represents one of the few sites in Patrick far as sheltered accommodation is concerned and local or German available for such a development. authority; second is, we have got to look at the criteria of

Elderly Persons' Housing Units at St John's - Expenditure Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 T75

people going in these houses, not purely on the housing government in some cases has to play a role, and certainly, need for public housing but on the social need of the even back to my time as Minister for Local Government individual. and the Environment, we were endeavouring to produce a The third thing that I am concerned about here is the scheme in this area and that was carried on and right up to cost. I find the cost phenomenal and I believe that this is date, and the difficulty was always identifying the land one of the problems which my department and other and then, of course, even with the land which is part of the departments have to suffer. I believe that the whole set-up scheme, the cost of producing the scheme. I think we rightly of how we come about to design and develop schemes - should take a conscious decision on this one that, whilst it we need to look at cutting out the 15 or 20 per cent of the is expensive - and it is, if you break down the cost of it per bureaucracy that is there. We need to look at maybe unit - you have to take in then the community aspect. If a changing the system with our quantity surveyors so that community is to survive - and certainly in the Isle of Man they actually get paid when they start saving us money where more and more we are finding communities being instead of getting more fees by losing us money, and that drawn into the centre, into Douglas, into Castletown, into is something that needs to be addressed and that is not an Peel, because that is the nature of it with rural businesses individual that is purely for the hon. minister's department changing - then there are people we must recognise who but it is a problem for my department and every other all their lives have lived in an area and have maybe either department that does capital projects. I do not believe that got private housing or have been in the public sector we can say that we are getting good value for money today housing and get to a stage where they require the additional with this proposal. support that sheltered housing can provide. And I think it I will support this proposal because I want to see is unfortunate, if they then only have an opportunity to do sheltered accommodation throughout the Island but I do that, if they move three or five miles away into another hope that, for a change, people will act, not just listen to area which to them could actually be quite a major shift at what members say in this House. We hear the buzz word their age and they might find it difficult to cope with, and from the Council of Ministers that they listen; I want to in fact you find they do not move and then stay in see some action and I do hope that the minister takes on conditions that maybe are not best for their health and board my points. welfare. So I support it on that basis. I think we do have to recognise the community. We do have to recognise in some Mr Gilbey: Mr President, I do have to agree with the cases that there is additional cost. last remarks of the last hon. speaker. I am sure many hon. I do not know if the minister is going to deal with the members are concerned about the costs but, as the hon. issue about the ex-servicemen's sheltered complex (Mr member for Onchan has said, it is not just the cost of this Quine interjecting), which is fine, because I do think the particular development, it is the cost of so many hon. member for Onchan has distorted the situation which government developments which are so often far above I think needs to be put right and has been on many what any private sector developer would incur and I think occasions. it is a very worrying matter. However, I primarily got up But I would make the other point. The hon. member for to thank the minister, his department and his officers for Glenfaba who supported this - naturally, because it is in this development which will be very valuable for the people his constituency - was making the point about his concern of St John's in two ways: firstly, it will enable elderly about costs, but we should not forget: it is easy to criticise people whose houses are now too big for them or who are government about costs of government projects. We have in houses with staircases to move out into more suitable inflicted those extra costs on government departments, we, accommodation and to stay in the area in which they have Tynwald Court, and we have done it either through lived for a large part or in some cases the whole of their financial regulations which are issued by the Treasury and/ lives; and it will also have a secondary advantage in that or we have done it because of the Public Accounts quite a number of the people who may move to this new Committee investigating problems that have arisen and accommodation do live in local government housing in St have given recommendations which have been endorsed John's, at the Hope or Tynwald Close, and the fact that by this Court and they have had financial implications. some of them will leave those houses will make them We cannot compare what government does with what the available to others. And you have cases where some of the private sector does in how it builds things because the people who leave and move to the new development may private sector is answerable to nobody. If a private company be a single person now living in a three-bedroomed house builds an office block and it is a load of rubbish, it does and that three-bedroomed house will become available for not really matter to them because they will sell it. They younger people with families. There is a considerable make it work, they do something with it and they will patch demand for local government housing in the St John's area it. But government cannot do that, and we hear the criticism and indeed the west of the Island and therefore, for all that goes on here within the Court as soon as there is a these reasons, I on behalf of the area would like to thank slight problem with a government project and, whether the minister and his department for this very valuable you like it or not, hon. members, belt and braces are the initiative. name of the game. Officers of government will not put themselves forward to be ripped to pieces by this hon. Court Mr Brown: Mr President, I support the proposal before if they have made a mistake, and we have introduced, us because I think it is important that we recognise that if because of that, regulations that tie everything down, make we are to retain some of our smaller communities, then it more expensive and they have implications on what we

Elderly Persons' Housing Units at St John's - Expenditure Approved T76 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 want to do, and I think we just have to acknowledge that. work that is put into those houses does prove to be of benefit I do not like it but it is there and therefore that is the change if the local authority will keep up the maintenance in the system. So whilst there is a cost on this one, I think programmes as laid down. Unfortunately, some of those it is an investment worth making because it is a small maintenance programmes are left and left until it becomes community that requires this additional component of the a capital scheme, and that is a dangerous precedent to take. housing market in their area and I hope members will But it is an easy way out and they will reduce some of the support it as well. work to be done in the hope that they will get a large grant every now and again to do those major schemes that really Mr Lowey: I am sorry - am I picking up the wrong need doing. But there needs to be more acceptance of the vibes? - but I just think there is a sour note here and this is fact that housing local authorities have to maintain those good news (Mr Delaney: Hear, hear.) and should be houses and keep them up to date. warmly welcomed by this Court. I am delighted, absolutely I am fully behind this scheme, Mr President. Thank you. delighted, that we are putting 12 sheltered housing units in St John's. I do not see the difficulty at all. I think it is Mr Downie: Mr President, obviously, as the person in good news; it should be proclaimed as good news. Now, the department with responsibility for housing, I am getting the costs. It is expensive. So what? I say, 'So what?' If we up today to support the scheme. But also I am disappointed are going to spend a little bit extra on a section of the that once again, when somebody comes forward with a community, what is wrong with spending it on the senior project that is good for the community, good for the Isle of sector of the community who have invested all their lives? Man, has a social element, we are knocked by a member And I do take the point that it will release other property of the Labour Party. It is just beyond me! I would not mind in the area, which will help to regenerate family units for if the member himself was a bit more progressive in young people to remain in the area et cetera. All of that is progressing issues like this, but all we seem to get is knock, good news and only Tynwald Court could pour cold water knock, knock all the time. on a message of that kind. You will not get it highlighted; Now, as far as I am concerned, the units that have been you will not get into the headlines of the paper. You will built out in St John's will be an absolute boon to the community in that part of the Island. They have been get the niggle. But I believe this is good news; it is good required for a long time. As previous speakers have said, news that should be proclaimed and I am delighted and I they will free up housing units both at Tynwald Close and welcome it without reserve and I wish the minister and his at the Hope, and we know there are quite a number of committee - if they are thinking of putting another one up, houses there which are in single-person occupancy, and Ballasalla will deal with it very nicely! (Laughter) most of those single persons are of an age where they are suitable for some form of sheltered accommodation. I could Mr Waft: Mr President, as a member of the Housing quite easily produce for this Court houses in the community Committee of Onchan for many years, nothing gave me costing between £35,000 and £45,000 - dead simple to more delight than when Springfield Court came along, and build an egg-box construction at St John's, right in the it certainly relieved the housing numbers on the housing middle of what I would consider to be a world heritage list no end and it was very much appreciated by those site. So, what do you want? Do you want to have something people and is appreciated by those people who live in those that you are going to be proud of and, when you visit the flats now. It was thought at the time to be an expensive site in 25 or 30 years from now, you can say, 'Well, scheme, but, as time goes by, you realise it is just an government did a good job of building those houses. They ordinary scheme. It was not all that grand but it certainly were built to last'? I must say that although we are talking relieved the pressure on that housing list. about sheltered accommodation, a lot of our houses that Could I make a mention of the Housing Advisory we are building today have to be built a bit more solidly Committee, which I think the hon. member from the than normal because of the increasing problems that we department is on? I have been on both sides of that Housing are having with bad tenants and the damage they do to the Advisory Committee from the Department of Local structure of some of our houses. This does not apply in Government and the Environment, from the local authority sheltered units but our housing stock is suffering at the side and from the department side, and what happens is moment because of the behaviour and the unsociableness we have a meeting once a year and we decide on the rate of some of our tenants, and I can tell members now, that of the rent for the year and it is quickly done away with the department are about to take some steps to address this and that is the end of it. What I would like the department problem. to take on board is the fact that there are so many I think, in fairness, part of the high cost which was changeable rules around the Island for getting onto a referred to has been absorbed in areas which will not be housing list, and subsequently getting a house, that it really seen. The particular field that the development is on, which needs to be looked at, and I would suggest that a member is called May's Field, was a difficult area to drain, but in from all the local authorities involved in housing get deciding to put the houses there, the department also paved together as a committee and sit and try and iron out some the way and provided additional facilities which will enable of problems that come to me from time to time. There is a the school to be drained in the same area and also any need for a harmonisation of the rules and regulations. additional housing that may come on the back of this With regard to the cost, there have always been historical particular scheme. costs with regards to local authority schemes. They have Mr Waft made reference to the Housing Advisory always been very expensive. But as time goes by, the extra Committee. Well, before the end of this year, there will be

Elderly Persons' Housing Units at St John's - Expenditure Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 177

a meeting of the Housing Advisory Committee. This is a Now, coming back to the question of Mr Karran's very useful vehicle, where all the local authorities who remarks, sheltered accommodation as against public are housing authorities get together and we also invite housing - of course they are two different forms of public people who have an interest in housing, whether they are housing, and we look at them differently in terms of who an authority or not, and we generally have an agenda put qualifies for which form of housing. But there is an inter- together where we discuss all the different housing issues relationship. Clearly there is an inter-relationship. If you and the problems that are shared by us all in the Isle of are, as has been pointed out here today, making available Man. There is a list of rules. We have housing application a sheltered home for a person who may be in public guidance notes. I have a copy in front of me and, following housing, or indeed in private housing, to move into a the debate on this issue, I will arrange for every member sheltered unit, then that is another unit that is on the market to have a copy and he will be able to see the guidelines for another family and represents not just a change in laid down that the department and most of the other local tenancy but better use of these units. I only wish I had at authorities work to when they are deciding who can go this point in time more sheltered units because I could think onto a housing list and in fact how an application is of numerous families - I could think of at least half a dozen progressed. Thank you, Mr President. in my own constituency - who would love to move from a family unit to a sheltered unit, but we do not have them Mr Henderson: Mr President, we have heard various available in the area at this point in time. Of course, at one views about sheltered accommodation this morning, and I point they were family homes. Their husband or wife has must say I think this is good news (Several Members: passed on, their families have moved out and basically the Hear, hear.) and I wholeheartedly support this motion house is too large, but until we get sheltered units in these before us from the hon. member of the department. There localities we cannot offer them reasonable alternative is no question that the Island needs sheltered housing and accommodation. So. I only wish we did have more. We certainly, as we progress on down the road, sheltered certainly look at them differently in terms of occupancy, housing is going to become more and more of a priority in terms of the structural requirements, but there is an and certainly this is one area where I see a project as a interconnection and I think that must be transparent to priority government spend, and there is certainly no everybody. question of that. We have heard all sorts of different items I think the second point that I picked up from Mr discussed in the debates that have gone before, but this is Karran's submission was that he feels we have welshed one area I feel quite strongly about and it will certainly on the ex-servicemen. I think that is a very unfair statement. free up present housing stock and alleviate the pressure on If Mr Karran had taken the trouble, of course, to read our that. It helps people to carry on as independently as possible contribution, this department's contribution on pages 51 and I certainly support that, and it saves them from the and 53 of this policy report, he would see that that is awful position of being 'dumped' in an institution, for want certainly not the case. I might add that we have, to help of a better word, and it shows that this hon. Court does members such as Mr Karran, sought to provide much care for the people of the Isle of Man and is trying to meet greater detail in terms of the housing provision here - over their needs. a page-and-a-half where we have a very impressive housing I will be only too grateful if the hon. minister will programme, and indeed I had occasion to write to Mr progress his generosity to North Douglas as well and I Karran recently where I set out for him various issues will wholeheartedly support any such moves that come to regarding housing, and I do not wish to cover the two- our constituency. The area also sorely needs sheltered page letter I sent to him but simply to say that in the five- housing. Having said that, I think it is only too plain that, year capital programme it makes provision for 230 as time goes on, there will be further pressure for sheltered additional public housing units at a cost of £21.2 million housing. Medical care progresses and so on, people are and that does not include or take into account the provision living longer and people are more dependent, so the old of 255 housing units to replace Lower Pulrose. I think that adage of placing the elderly folks in a home, in an is a remarkable programme. institution, does not hold good any more now and we need to be examining the concept of sheltered housing and other Mr Houghton: Hear, hear. initiatives, and to that end I fully support this motion. Mr Karran: Not enough. The President: Reply, sir? Mr Quine: 'Not enough,' he says. Well, I suppose that Mr Quine: Thank you, Mr President. May I first of all, is true in the sense that we would all like more housing. sir, thank the hon. member for Glenfaba and the hon. Now, I think the next point that he raised is that he feels member for Castletown, Mr Brown, the hon. member of that we need to look afresh at the qualifying criteria for Council, Mr Lowey, Mr Waft, and indeed Mr Henderson, people that go into these homes. Now, Mr Downie has for their very supportive remarks. Of course, Mr Downie dealt with that and he has pointed out, of course, that we has spoken on this matter and I would like to express a have criteria. As with all criteria, I am sure from time to special vote of thanks to him because he has the time there will be scope to look at that afresh and to revise responsibility for handling this very sensitive and difficult it, and that is what we do and, as hon. members, I am sure, issue of housing and he does it remarkably well and devotes are aware, we have a major housing report that is going to many hours to this problem. be produced before the end of this year, certainly very early

Elderly Persons' Housing Units at St John's - Expenditure Approved T78 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 in the next year, which has taken a fundamental look at appropriate when we are talking of sheltered housing for housing. It is going to look at the whole aspect of housing elderly people. Of course we have to recognise that at the from trying to quantify housing need, the type of housing present time tenders are not too competitive. We are all that is required, public/private sector, location, land aware of the extent to which building costs are rising requirements and it is going to move into the area of criteria because of the heat in the economy and the construction for social housing, including sheltered housing. So these industry as a whole, and so quite clearly that is going to matters are not being neglected and I am sure the hon. have some impact on it as well. But from my point of view, member for Onchan is aware of that. given these extraordinary factors, given this backdrop, I I cannot offer any helpful comments on his assertion am convinced we have good value for money and it is on that certain people are attacking people living in council that basis that I am promoting this and recommending this houses. I really do not know where he is coming from to hon. members today. when he makes that assertion. Personally, I find a great Mr Waft made reference to the Housing Advisory sympathy within this hon. Court for people in need of social Committee and the need to look afresh at how it works housing and I cannot really help him with that. and how it interfaces with the department. Mr Downie has responded to that. I would simply wish to say that that is Mr Karran: What a difference it makes being a another matter which is being covered within the housing minister! review report. I thank those members who made a contribution and Mr Quine: One interesting aspect that has been raised for their support of this motion and with that I move the and one that does, I think, warrant some observation is motion. Thank you. this question of cost. This particular development - I can give you the actual figure per unit; I have no objection to The President: Hon. members, I will put the resolution that whatsoever. It works out at £91,000 per unit. Now, set out at item 15 on the order paper. Will those in favour why does it work out at £91,000 per unit? For a number of please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes reasons. Firstly, of course, let us start, as with any building have it. you can either have front-end costs or you can have the rear-end costs. As has been suggested, you could put up a unit costing £30,000 or £40,000 and you are going to have Sport — Regional Synthetic Pitches - the rear-end cost attached to that type of project. Or you can produce a unit that is built to reasonable standards that Expenditure Approved is designed to minimise the cost over the life of that unit, in which case you are going to have certain additional front- The President: Item 16, the hon. member of Council, end costs. From my point of view, from the point of view Mr Lowey. of the best interests of the exchequer over the longer period, I believe to a point - and there must be a balance to be Mr Lowey: Thank you, Mr President. I beg to move: struck - it is better to have the front-end costs and certainly that, I believe, is in the best public interest, but there is a That Tynwald approves of the Department of balance to be struck and we are again looking at this Tourism and Leisure incurring expenditure not exceeding question of standards within this housing report. £1,597,000 on the development of regional synthetic Now, turning to this specific proposal, bungalows are pitches at Castletown, Peel and Ramsey. clearly more expensive than houses, so let us take that as a point. If you are going to build bungalows you are going I am moving this item on behalf of the minister, David to have greater expense than if you are going to build and Cretney, who hon. members will know is absent at the FIM spread the cost over a number of houses. Secondly, because Congress looking after our motorcycling interests. I think of this site and because of the standards which the drainage it is only motorcycling that would have kept him away people have laid down - and very properly; we have no from actually wanting to move this particular one! quarrel with those standards - there have been quite heavy Everyone is aware of the tremendous success of phase drainage infrastructure costs in order to service this site, 1 of the National Sports Centre and, most especially, the both in terms of the foul water and the surface water. The synthetic pitch. The outdoor facilities are currently surface water - we have had to provide drainage that goes enjoying a throughput of over 135,000 users per annum, some considerable distance away from the site to go round which is a level of use almost double that of the early the back of the mart. But I have no quarrel with that; it is a predictions. Usage of the pitch has been so intense that we proper standard that has been set by the drainage people have quite literally worn out the surface and we have and I have no quarrel with it. There are poor ground recently had to complete the installation of a new surface. conditions in part of the site at least and obviously there By 1995 it had become clear that usage of the NSC are costs attached to that. synthetic pitch was at capacity and that the facility had The development has been put forward on the basis of created a level of demand which could not be met. Equally, a communal heating system which obviously is going to we were aware that whilst serious sports people from all add something extra on to the individual unit cost, but that over the Island were benefiting from the facility, youth is going to pay back in terms of the running costs. I think and recreational use was heavily dominated by those living in any case a communal heating system is much more in the east. At the same time, our friends on the Sports Sport — Regional Synthetic Pitches — Expenditure Approved • TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 T79

Council were becoming increasingly concerned about a Now, there are a number of members present today who shortfall in grass pitches to meet increasing numbers of were in Tynwald at that time and I am sure they will football and rugby clubs. remember very clearly the ferocious arguments and battles The regional synthetic pitch strategy was established which took place in the early days to establish support for to address all of these demands and concerns. The three the National Sports Centre, particularly its location with pitches which we are proposing will enable us to provide the arguments as to whether it should be in the east or expanded opportunities to both competitive sport and for whether it should be a more central location, but eventually coaching and training. They will provide us with those arguments were overcome and we saw the opportunities to develop our youth programmes across the development of the National Sports Centre phase 1, which Island and they will also enable all competitive hockey to was the running track and the all-weather synthetic pitch. be played on synthetic surfaces, which will not only be As the hon. mover of this resolution has already stated, good news for the game but will provide scope for existing the use subsequently of that pitch in particular far and away grass hockey pitches to be used for soccer and rugby. outstripped any initial estimates of the usage which would In putting together the strategy, the department and the be generated, more than double, I think, in the first 12 Isle of Man Sports Council recognise the need to achieve months, which was really quite remarkable. It also, quite the new facility in a cost-effective way and to examine the unexpectedly, I think, led to quite a large number of new usage from a relatively small local population base. The people being drawn into sport for the first time who location of facilities such as these on school sites not only previously, because of the lack of facilities, although sports- helps to control costs but also maximises daytime usage, inclined, did not have the wherewithal to actually get and we are delighted to work with our colleagues in the involved at that level. So it acted as a huge catalyst, Department of Education on the programme. I too again particularly in the east of the Island but also, of, course, would like to pay tribute not just to the political spreading throughout the length and breadth of the Island, involvement but to the officer involvement which shows introducing new people and in particular young people to that we can co-operate when we require it. the benefit and joys of sport. We have produced a detailed information document for The strategy as identified by Pickering Torkildsen members and also arranged a lunchtime briefing on the obviously came in a number of phases. That was phase 1. project, so therefore I do not propose to go through the We have had already hugely successful developments details of the project but would be very happy to answer alongside it with the new swimming pool, with recently any query which may arise from either. Today we are the new sports hall, and I hope hot on the heels of this seeking approval to invest a total of £1,597,000 on three resolution today will be the final stage of the National floodlit all-weather synthetic pitches, one at Castletown, Sports Centre, which will be the further indoor hall and one at Peel and one at Ramsey. The estimated cost of the indoor bowling ring. But as part of that strategy was operating the facilities will be a net £75,000 per annum - identified the need and the problems in some ways which that is £25,000 each - which we will be separately seeking would generate from the development of the NSC in so as part of the 1998-99 budget process. We believe that this far as we have all our national facilities located in one part represents a very worthwhile investment. It will provide of the Island so that strategy identified the need to have a much-needed community facilities, it will be providing regional pitch strategy to underpin, I suppose, the success valuable facilities for education, it will be providing of the NSC and to encourage the same level of new valuable sports facilities, it will represent a valuable participation in Ramsey in the north, in Peel and the west investment in our young people. The future is theirs and I and in Castletown and the south, and I think this is how am only very sad that this was not being proposed 45 years we have arrived at this position today. There is no doubt at ago so I could have had a week or two on it! all - and I am sure I speak for Peel and Castletown but I beg to move the resolution standing in my name. particularly I am speaking for Ramsey and the north - it is going to be hugely welcomed by both the schools and the Mr Delaney: I beg to second and reserve my remarks. young people throughout the north of the Island who enjoy their various sports. Mr Bell: Mr President, I am sure this resolution today There is an assumption, I suppose, that a synthetic pitch is very good news for all the regions' sports people right will provide a facility for hockey players primarily, perhaps throughout the Island. Some 10 years ago we had a dream, some football training, but I think the experience we have a dream which was born out of the huge success of the had at the NSC shows that there is a huge range of sports Year of Sport in 1985 for which our present Mr Speaker which can be played and in fact are being played on the deserves multiple thanks because it showed very clearly new synthetic ground and it provides that facility 52 weeks the way forward in not only providing new facilities for of the year as well, so we are no longer subject to the tourists but also the huge deficiencies which existed on vagaries of regular cancellations because of bad weather, the Island in the provision of sports facilities generally. particularly in the winter. So there is a huge benefit to be To take that dream a stage further we commissioned gained from that basis alone. the Pickering Torkildsen Partnership to come to the Island I think another aspect of it which we need to be very and do a general audit of the Island's facilities as they conscious of: comment is made quite frequently in this existed at that time and to identify a strategy for the way hon. chamber about the behaviour of young people on the forward in developing new facilities more appropriate to Island, the anti-social activities that they get involved in the Island's needs at that particular time. and the need to provide something for young people to do.

Sport — Regional Synthetic Pitches — Expenditure Approved T80 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998

I would suggest that there are very few more constructive in the evening to have joint use, perhaps, of indoor and and positive outlets for young people's energies than new outdoor facilities they have got to go to two separate sports facilities to channel them into constructive, perhaps departments of government to get approval. Now, as these competitive situations on the sports field rather than on facilities, or will be standing, side by side of each other the street (Mr Houghton: Hear, hear.) and I think, if for and are both owned by government in a wider sense, it no other reason, this is a positive reason for supporting does seem to me illogical to have two booking facilities this resolution today. running in parallel at the same time, and I just wonder if As far as the Ramsey pitch is concerned - and we did the hon. member could just give us his views on that and touch on the subject yesterday at Question Time - obviously whether any further discussion between his department and it is going to be disruptive for Ramsey Grammar School the Department of Education has taken place to ensure for a 12-month - I hope anyway no longer than a 12-month that this rather silly arrangement is not actually introduced - period, and I have discussed it with the officers at the when this development is finished and we can have a Department of Education and obviously alongside the streamlined booking system for the sports users of both tourism department officers and they are confident that facilities. I am sure it will be greatly appreciated and will the restoration work which will be required once this new iron out a lot of unnecessary niggles, perhaps, when the pitch is constructed, particularly in relation to the development is complete. construction of a new 300-metre running track, the new I would finally just like to congratulate the Department football and rugby pitches and the turning of the cricket of Tourism and the Sports Council for the excellent work square, which were of some concern to the various sports that they have done in bringing these schemes forward, clubs, will be undertaken on the back of the completion of and I would also like to thank the Minister for Education the synthetic pitch, and I would just once again ask the for the supportive way in which he has responded to the hon. member moving this resolution if he could give that particular problems which exist at Ramsey Grammar assurance that there will be no time lag in the completion School and the grass facilities there. So with those of this work. We have in the Northern Athletic Club a comments I would urge hon. members to give their hugely successful club with anything up to 150 youngsters enthusiastic support to this resolution this morning. It is a involved on a regular basis, certainly throughout the very positive one for the community. It is very good news summer, in athletics. We have a very enthusiastic body for all the regions on the Island and deserves our also of parents and coaches organising this club, and it wholehearted support. would be extremely unfortunate if on the one hand we are providing this excellent new facility for the north of the Mr Cannell: Mr President, I also rise to give unqualified Island if participation and support for the Northern Athletic support to item 16, the synthetic pitches at Castletown, Club should be damaged as the price for developing this Peel and Ramsey and, as someone connected with sport new facility. So I would just ask the hon. mover once again for a long time and particularly Chairman of the Island if he could confirm the arrangements for the reconstitution Games and the Commonwealth Games Isle of Man of the grass sports facilities at the Ramsey Grammar School branches at one time I had a direct interest apart from being so that there can be no doubt at all in the minds particularly sports editor on Manx Radio, and I have seen the need for of the doubters who may exist in the Northern Athletic this for quite some long time now. The laying of the Club that their needs are being catered for and that they synthetic pitch at the NSC absolutely revolutionised the will have a facility as good as anywhere when it is game of hockey in the Isle of Man, which was beginning complete. I think it is recognised Ballakermeen itself at to wane because of the lack of availability of the grass the moment has a 300-metre running track which is quite pitches in the wintertime, particularly where you had weeks satisfactory for school needs, and I believe that once the on end with virtually no hockey at all. One thing it did do, new track is constructed in Ramsey we will have a facility though, when it came into being, of course, was in a way which we can be proud of. wreck the social life of hockey because everybody was There is only one other point which I would like to just having to have slots at the NSC and it was not the same as have clarification on, and I know some work has been done when everybody used to meet at the Manor or the on it but I think it is worth putting our marker down on it Quarterbridge afterwards for the apres-hockey gatherings. now. I understand in all three schools where these That ruined that because of course the game was spread developments are to take place we already have sports halls out and people were appearing down there to play hockey and again they are a great asset to the local community at unearthly hours of the morning and they were still there and are widely supported out of school hours by the on a Sunday night at something like twenty to eight in the community. Now, those sports halls are managed by the winter to complete their Saturday and Sunday league school, by the Department of Education, and particularly programme. hinge on the availability of a caretaker as to whether or Now, of course it does have a reverse situation of what not they can function in the evening. That has been the we once in this Court, though I was not on the floor of it, traditional way of doing things and perhaps from an went through with centralisation of government offices. It efficiency point of view that is the best way, but my was all going to be brought into the one routine and that understanding with the development of the synthetic was going to solve the whole problem, and within a couple pitches is that the management of those pitches will be in of years, of course, it all went back out to the Drill Hall the hands of the Department of Tourism, a separate body and everywhere else around, and that is what is happening altogether. So if a sports organisation wishes to go along here really. There was a desire to centralise everything. I

Sport — Regional Synthetic Pitches — Expenditure Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 T81 well remember the debate over whether the NSC should good news in so far as it gives the facility to the people be at St John's. Ultimately it was centralised at the NSC around the Isle of Man, which undoubtedly has been a but for the synthetic pitches, of course, it was not sufficient. major success. Anybody going round the Quarterbridge There is not enough room. It is not a case that the people roundabout who has been unaware of the success of the from Ramsey, Peel and Castletown were unwilling to travel synthetic pitch behind the Quarterbridge Hotel must be to Douglas, though that is the case with athletics, who prefer absolutely blind. It has been a huge boon and it gives me a to stay for their regular summer weekly meetings on their considerable thrill when you can see young people, having own poorer facilities in their own regions rather than come left school, being able to continue with their physical to Douglas, which is a disappointment for certain, but that activity which some might have been driven to while in is not the case with hockey, which is the main use, as we school but now have the facility to be able to continue have heard, of these pitches which are going to be installed afterwards. I can remember very well, when I left school, at the schools, though I was disappointed to hear they would that most of my colleagues and friends at that stage - unless not be playing much role in the Island Games in 2001. I you actually played for a football team it was the last would have thought there would be a role for them certainly physical activity that you did. You would give up your PE in that. when you left school and that was it, and it has taken until So the pitches go back out then to the regions. That the last 15 or 20 years for those same people to become does not mean that the one in Douglas will not be used of involved in physical activity and today we have a spectrum course. There will be four regions because we have got a throughout the Isle of Man from those going to primary relay pitch now at the Quarterbridge and very welcome it school to people even older than myself who are still happy is too - though the colour is a bit peculiar after the last to compete and take part in physical activity - a huge one; you need sunglasses on that. But, yes, great use of success, and the regional synthetic pitches in this particular that. I do not think it is any secret - and I know that the case, I want to tell the hon. colleague, has my wholehearted Executive Chairman of the Sports Council will shake his and full support. head at this one - I think I would have to say the use of the Having said that, as is inevitable, there is always a running track is a disappointment, to me anyway. No doubt wrinkle. I have a little wrinkle in relation to Castle Rushen, figures can be produced which will show that 100,000 not that I do not want it put there, I do, but the hon. member children used it in the last six months, but in general it is a and myself both know Castle Rushen pitch area particularly bit of a sad sight to go down to there fairly frequently and well, I would suggest, and when I look at where it is see no-one around using what is such a marvellous facility, proposed to be sited on the Castle Rushen area my mind immediately tries to take in the topography of the ground and also, of course, contained with that is a very good - and I have been to have a look. I feel it maybe better football pitch. Now, that does not seem to be used either. sited if it was sited away from the houses and towards That is supposed to be for field events. There is not a where the current rugby pitch is. Moved to the right it tremendous interest in field events in the Isle of Man at would serve two purposes: it would allow the area adjacent the present moment, and I would say both those are a little to the boundary where this is suggested as being put to be bit under-utilised. used for such movable things as the cricket nets and those Nevertheless the synthetic pitches which is the sorts of activities - the long jump or whatever could be resolution down here today are bound to take off now. It placed there - whilst the lighting, which may be causing will restore the social side of hockey. It is bound to actually the houses some concern, would be moved away from the be marvelously received, but if I could ask the hon. mover, housing area and it may be practical to allow the same Mr Lowey, if he could enlighten us as to what would be lighting to throw some light onto the athletics track, which his vision of the use of Summerland now, which is of course would then be immediately adjacent to it, thus freeing up associated with the NSC and the synthetic pitches. I would another facility for night-time use. Now, by all means have be grateful to know what he proposes for that, perhaps, it there and build it, but I just raise the little query that because that was once the mainstay of indoor sport of the before you actually start to put the digger there to level the Isle of Man and is still used to a certain extent. ground, look at the practicalities. So, yes, synthetic pitches for all. It will be very, very good indeed. It will keep, as another speaker has already Dr Mann: Mr President, I would just like to say on remarked, many, many people off the streets doing things behalf of the Department of Education we welcome this that they should not ought to, and that is to be welcomed and certainly support it. It is, as the mover has said, a for certain in the Isle of Man. I can never understand how valuable exercise in two departments working closely anybody can say there is nothing to do over here. Get together and I must say that the consultations which have yourself attached to a sports club and you will not have gone on between the Department of Tourism and the enough hours in the week. schools in particular have been a very close relationship. We have had particular difficulties on the site at Ramsey The President: Now, the future of Summerland is not and I think, although it is not entirely satisfactory and involved in this resolution. The hon. Mr Speaker. certainly does not answer every question, it certainly is a reasonable compromise and I am sure will work out very The Speaker: Mr President, I rise to give my beneficially to both the sports clubs in Ramsey and the unequivocal support to the good news that the hon. member school itself. of the Legislative Council brings to us this morning. He Now the hon. member, Mr Bell from Ramsey, has claimed the previous item was good news; so is this. It is mentioned the technical difficulties of booking facilities

Sport — Regional Synthetic Pitches — Expenditure Approved T82 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 and so on. I think at this stage we are concerned with for Education to the legitimate concerns of the member supporting the actual pitches being paid for and for Ramsey. It is no use us spending 11/2 million on these constructed; there are going to be, obviously, difficulties pitches if we are not going to make sure that the right in the facilities that are going to have to be provided by criteria are put down to make sure that these pitches are the schools themselves and access to the buildings and so going to be used to the maximum. on. The booking was mentioned. From the school's point One of the problems we have will be the cost to the of view we have to also realise that those sports halls are Department of Education, the caretaker costs, and I do hope currently being used continuously, and of course if a new that the hon. acting minister can tell this hon. Court that facility comes on and that wants to use the sports halls and there will be none of this situation where we get this pitch showers and so on, it could well damage some of the local put down and then there is a problem that the local cubs use of those halls. So we have got to get a compromise cannot use the pitch because they cannot afford the costs together and as you say, perhaps some sort of central that the Department of Education put on them, and that streamlining of how we book. needs to be sorted out. Now, if that makes me out to be a These are difficulties that we will iron out, I am sure. If bogey-man in this Court like the legitimate concerns of we have managed to iron out the difficulties we have had the previous thing, then I am sorry for you, but I think it is up to now, those things will come quite easy. I fully support important that that issue needs to be addressed. this and I am sure everybody will. The other issue that I would like to ask the member - and I will be supporting this proposal - but as the second Mrs Christian: Mr President, whilst the DHSS has not biggest conurbation in the Isle of Man, Onchan has got a been directly involved in this, I think from our perspective part-time pitch and that is all we have got actually in we have to welcome this resolution as it offers a benefit to Onchan and I do hope that that issue will be addressed; health in the wider perspective. It is generally the young kids in my constituency have not got the facilities acknowledged these days that we are becoming far too of a football pitch in Onchan. I have tried to get something sedentary a society, and certainly in the Island most jobs done behind Government House before all the land is now seem to be in an office where people are confined to gobbled up. I am glad to see that there has been some their desk and facing a computer screen for a good part of movement to sheltered accommodation there, but there the day, so we do welcome this as a fundamental way of needs to be a marker down there for a pitch to start off improving, or giving the opportunity to improve, health in with, if not an all-weather pitch to be put down in that a general sense. Certainly the experience of providing all- location for the second biggest conurbation. weather pitches in Douglas has had an exponential effect, I will support the proposal, but I do say that I think it is as you have indicated, sir, by the numbers of people who wrong for members in this hon. Court to say that this facility have been drawn into active participation in sport, and I will give the impression it will cater for all young people. feel quite sure that that will happen too in the other regions Not all young people are into sports, and I do put a play of the Isle of Man when these pitches become available. It out that I have supported consistently facilities for the is a long while ago now since I played hockey, but it used sportsmen and women of the Island and the young people to be extremely frustrating to find the match was off in sport, but the time has come that we must start supporting because the pitch was water-logged in Ramsey, not an the young people of the Isle of Man that are not into sport infrequent occurrence. So I do welcome it, sir, both from but who are into the likes of music, the arts, with some the point of view of it providing facilities throughout the sort of facilities provided for them. I will support this Island and for the positive add-on it may give us in terms proposal today, but I do hope that we will be seeing some of health. movement as far as helping the other young people in our society that are not into sport. I have no problem, but please Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I welcome this proposal. I make sure - and I hope we have a better response than the voted for the original proposal, I think it is an excellent last one - that there is going to be safeguard access so that proposal, but, as I said with the previous one, there are people can use these facilities. It is all right us getting into things that need to be ironed out, and I am sorry that this a situation of hysteria of how wonderful we are and how seems to be a situation where one gets attacked and we we should not criticise things, but it needs to make sure have got to say everything is rosy in the garden like we that the Department of Education make sure that the sports had with the previous debate, where we talked about the clubs and these facilities are affordable for the sportsmen, £91,000 and it did not include the land costs, and with this especially in areas throughout the Island, because I know proposal there is an important factor and this one again this is a problem. needs somebody not just to listen and attack because somebody brings up a legitimate concern, but actually do Mr Duggan: Mr President, I support the resolution something about it. We have had the Minister for Education before the Court, sir. I do not know what is up with Mr saying about the concerns of the hon. member for Ramsey Karran today; he is pulling everything down from sheltered and he is right. He is right about the one issue that does housing and so forth. concern me about this proposal, and that is to make sure that - we hear people say we want it to be used - there need Mr Karran: I am not pulling it down. to be safeguards to make sure that the very people that we want to use this pitch will be able to afford to use this Mr Duggan: I think it is good that Castletown, Peel pitch, and I did not get any assurance from the Minister and Ramsey have these facilities, sir, because, as Mr Bell

Sport — Regional Synthetic Pitches — Expenditure Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 T83 said for Ramsey, and Mr Cannell, the facilities are well Can I just say also - and I think it is a time for saying used at the National Sports Centre. I think it is great to thank you's - I would like to thank everybody in the have these facilities for the youngsters and to keep them neighbourhood of the schools when we put the planning out of mischief. applications in who have acted in such a responsible and public spirited way, and to that degree I think we in both Mr Shimmin: Mr President, some of the points made the Board of Education and the Department of Tourism by the previous but one speaker, Mr Karran, are legitimate must have a duty of care to repay our good neighbours, and they should not be forgotten at this time. This issue is and that is why with the light, especially if I can keep on a win, win: all society, all areas win. It is not the solution; to Ramsey, because that was a difficult site, the closeness it is part of the solution. It is a good example of departments of the houses - it would have been quite easy for the people working together with the Sports Council to produce a surrounding that development to say 'Hang on, we do not major benefit for the local communities. I speak more as a want the lights blazing' et cetera, et cetera. They have teacher, more as a PE teacher, which was my chosen career chosen not to object at all and I take great pride in that, I for most of my teaching life and, as such, the benefits on a think the people have acted in a responsible way and I cold November morning of actually being able to take your give a clearer assurance to them that we will act in a good students outside to a facility where it is not six inches deep neighbourly way too. Yes, the community will be served. in mud. . . Inevitably, what happens as a PE teacher in I want to say what this development does not have now. inclement weather is, you cannot get out because of the It does not have changing facilities. We will be using the pitch. You can go out because you can wrap up warm, you facilities of the schools, and that brings me on to the point can wrap up against the wind or you can teach according that actually Mr Bell made. Now, I do have a brief which to the temperature, but if the grass is six inches deep you actually contains a full page of management control. Now, are not allowed to go out. Inevitably that means you all it is not a one-stop shop, but it is a two-stop shop, which is get crammed into an unsuitable indoor facility where you already the blueprint for actually putting it into place so have double the numbers that it is designed for and you that people will know exactly where they are going and at play games. You do not teach sport, you do not get a love the certain times that they want. During the term time and for sport. during term time of the schools, during the normal hours This is a major benefit for the schools, for the teaching of school it is the responsibility of the school. After that it in schools, so that we teach sport, not just play games, and will be the responsibility of the department which will be it is by the teaching of sport that those people then continue actually operated from the Sports Development Officer. the sport in their later years. It is a major benefit. It will There is a blueprint clearly laid down so that the users of attract young people to enjoy sporting facilities that they this particular facility will know exactly where to go, so continue afterwards. It is not the solution. It is a major there will be no going here, going there. The very point step forward, but I congratulate those involved. Let us not that has been raised has actually been already addressed forget, though, that this sort of facility is normally for in the blueprint with management and control. So I can organised activity, supervised, organised, belonging to a assure the hon. member, if he cares to look through it I club. Many of the young people who cause the problems think he will see it is simplified and it is clear and it is around the streets do not enjoy that type of facility, and concise. So we have recognised that and it is all ready, the when Mr Karran talks about music and the arts let us start blueprint is there. remembering also - he is correct on that - the bikes, the We will be proposing, as I said in my opening remarks, skateboards, those activities that might be physical spending roughly £25,000 per annum on each of the pitches recreation, but are not done in an organised manner. We for servicing. We are proposing that these pitches will still have not solved the problem, but this is a major step actually be used to engender sports usage that they are not forward. I commend the departments. even taking part in in Ramsey at the moment: volley ball, basket ball - there is a whole variety. Hockey, as has already The President: Reply, sir? Oh, the hon. member, Mr been said, will be a major user and hockey is already in Delaney. being, but there are other sports which we are wanting to promote and excite people of all ages to come in and use, Mr Delaney: No, in deference to my minister.. . and I believe that will be of great benefit to the community. Mr Speaker says. . . and I welcome his support because Mr Lowey: Mr President, can I say first of all I am he is still one of the best sportsmen of any age in this Court. delighted with the response of the Court, and that means I would hate to take him on in the walk to Peel even now, everybody. I think the response has been positive and but can I say on the school, when we were positioning the welcoming. I want to give an assurance to hon. members pitches, obviously the school had the major input because, that this is not just by accident. As the hon. member, Mr after all, it is their property and we were trying to get the Bell, said, he gave the history, we planned it; we brought maximum use. I am assured that the siting of the pitches, it forward quicker because of the usage that it has actually like in the Ramsey case, was to maximise the use of the produced. More than double the throughput on the original whole site for as wide a purpose as we could. The same pitch wore the pitch out in less than two-thirds of the time applied to Castle Rushen, but I do take on board what he that we had to replace it, and that is wonderful for me to says. I know the site, as he says, well. Even within the be able to say we produced something that has actually constraints of planning we will certainly take Mr Speaker's worked, what people want and I am excited. point on board.

Sport — Regional Synthetic Pitches — Expenditure Approved T84 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998

Can I just say I am grateful to Mr Cannell for his support. The department received additional income from I take note of Mr President, but I will have a word with external sources in 1997-98 amounting to £802,579, with him about Sununerland maybe over the lunchtime period. most of the income generated as a result of extra business Mrs Christian's point about public health - I think it is at the ports. During that financial year 1997-98 the important. We may think it is way down the line, but it is department has utilised some of the additional income. The not. I think it is very important. Healthy activity in a main areas where the additional expenditure has been sedentary community is very important, and I am delighted incurred are in relation to the increased operational costs to try and see that these sports facilities are used during due to additional business mainly at the airport and Douglas the dinner breaks and the free period times that they have. Harbour, oil pollution problems on the northern coast, Mr Karran on maximising the use - I take on board what highway emergency works when we had snow and other the hon. member says regarding the ability to pay, but if matters, and marine administration and the meat plant costs, you look at what we have done with the new swimming which included legal fees of which at this stage no specific pool, we have fixed the prices to encourage usage, to make provision has been made in my department's estimates. sure it is there, 'Come on in, enjoy it; try the family ticket.' The Treasury has given concurrence to the motion to We have done everything we can to get a throughput apply some of the extra income received by the department (Interjection) and not seen what we can maximise. This is to cover the payments of the additional expenditure of the difference between a business and a community-based, £560,686. I beg to move the motion standing in my name. government-run facility. This is a community input and costs are very important, but we do not put that as the Mr Kniveton: I beg to second, sir, and reserve my priority of making money as opposed to getting people to remarks. use the facility. We have got the balance right, as I said. I am delighted with Mr Shimmin's input into this debate. The President: I will put the resolution, hon. members, He spells it out from the professional's point of view. It set out at item 17 on the order paper. Will those in favour will be of immense benefit to the educationalists of this please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. the ayes have Island if they can bring all their children out onto this it. facility regardless of the weather. I am certain the benefits will reverberate for a long, long time. Mr President, I am not going to outstay my welcome. I Ronaldsway Airport - believe the Court is in support and I look forward to them using the all-weather pitches early in the spring. The point Terminal Building Construction Works - I was going to say: I want to reassure the hon. member Expenditure Approved finally that we will do everything we can to assist - I know the Sports Council have got this very much in mind - the The President: Item 18, the Minister for Transport. Northern Athletics Club, so I want to reassure, for the second day running, both members of Ramsey that the Mr Brown: Thank you, Mr President. I beg to move: Northern Athletics Club will certainly be catered for if it is humanly possible. Can I equally say that the dateline That Tynwald authorises the Department of for finishing is the spring of 1999. Now I do not know Transport to undertake construction works for the new about laying grass and the seed, the best time et cetera, but entrance and arrivals building at the east end of the existing we will hopefully get all of that completed by the spring airport terminal building for a sum not exceeding of 1999. I beg to move the resolution standing in my name, £3,633,500. sir. Hon. members have had a memorandum circulated to The President: Hon. members, I will put the resolution them giving them information regarding this project and set out at item 16 on the order paper. Will those in favour an opportunity to have a detailed presentation of the scheme please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes by officers and consultants and members of the department. have it. Phase 5 of the ongoing improvement and enhancement of the Island's airport is the next phase in our endeavours to provide the travelling public with a modern and comfortable airport facility and one which we can all be Department of Transport - proud of. The major part of the work has recently been Excess Expenditure Approved completed with regard to upgrading the departure facilities for which we have received a very positive response from The President: Item 17, the Minister for Transport. the public. I and my department are very appreciative of the patience and support of the public and especially of all Mr Brown: Thank you, Mr President. I beg to move: the staff who have had to work within the main terminal during these major disruptions. That Tynwald authorises the Treasury in respect of The department now wishes to proceed with the next the year ended 31st March 1998 to apply surplus receipts phase to improve the arrivals facilities and proposes to totalling £560,686 of the Department of Transport in build a new entrance and arrivals area with associated payment of excess expenditure. facilities. We have endeavoured to reflect in the design

Department of Transport — Excess Expenditure Approved Ronaldsway Airport — Terminal Building Construction Works — Expenditure Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 T85

the design of the original terminal building and, whilst if we are talking about an over-heating in the building recognising the importance of that building, we believe industry, if there is an over-heating in the building industry, we have achieved that and also ensuring that we can, of is it the right time to be doing these issues which are nice, course, cater for the needs of the travelling public and those which look good, but are not a necessity? That is the only who will be meeting people arriving off flights. concern I have, and I do hope that the minister can come The building of this next phase will mean the demolition back when he does sum up and actually say why we need of the existing single-storey buildings which date from the to go ahead with this at the present time. Why is it of such mid 1950s, part of which contains one of the existing and urgency if there is such an over-heating in the building the original baggage carousel. It also contains facilities industry at the present time? I think the point is, it is about for the air taxi, car hire and taxi operators, along with the pacing ourselves with our projects, and I think it is redundant boiler and plant. The new building will provide important, and I just hope that we can get some facts and on the ground floor a new main entrance to the whole of not just personal abuse for opening our mouths up. the Ronaldsway terminal building. It will contain an arrivals area with baggage collection hall, along with the The President: The hon. Mr Downie, followed by the meeters and greeters facilities containing car hire desks, hon. Mr Braidwood. information desk, cash machines and flight information office for the pilots. On the first floor there will be a Mr Downie: I rise mainly to support the scheme. I think replacement cafeteria and bar and facilities for retail and the phasing that has taken place down there is working commercial exhibitors. There will also be a public viewing extremely well and it is allowing at the same time for the gallery and atrium. This will reintroduce a proper viewing airport to function and I think, when one gets involved in facility for those who wish to observe aircraft movements a project such as this, you have to have regard for the and also to watch friends and relatives arriving and conditions which are on the site that the travelling public departing from the airport. Also incorporated in the have to put up with and I think by and large the department development will be a lift and escalator to provide and has behaved admirably. improve access to the departure lounge. There are a couple of points that I want to make to the This project is an investment in the future of our airport minister. One is not directly related to the building, but it to ensure that we can cope with passenger demand for well is a concern that is expressed by a number of people who into the next century. Presently we are seeing in excess of visit the Isle of Man at the amount of scrap, old buses, 700,000 passengers a year throughput and we anticipate a wrecked cars, which are now dumped out on the northern steady growth in that number. Phase 5 will mean that we side of the airport. will have up-to-date modern facilities to cope with one million passengers. We, as a department, supported by The President: Hon. member, the resolution - I am Tynwald, have always endeavoured to provide good quality sorry, I am not accepting unrelated elements to this facilities at our main passenger harbour and airport. This resolution. is a continuation of that policy. If Tynwald approves this motion today, then we anticipate a start on site in Mr Downie: Okay, Mr President, thank you - just November, with completion early in the year 2000. Mr making a point. (Laughter) The scheme itself I think is President, I beg to move the motion standing in my name. fine, but I think that where the scheme is going to lead to trouble is that there has not, in my opinion, been enough Mr Kniveton: I beg to second, sir, and reserve my done to sort out the traffic problems. At the moment the remarks. traffic problems in this area at certain times of the day are horrendous, and any extension and movement will Mr Karran: I am sorry, minister, I am very concerned encourage more and more vehicles at the front of the about the fact that we hear in the department from the building. I am wondering whether it is possible for the previous member about the over-heating in the building department to look at a way in which to remove the buses industry on item 15, and that that was the reason why it from the situation which exacerbate the problem, and I cost us £91,000 per unit; he missed out the important thing, would have thought that with not too much trouble there the value of the land on top of that. What I am concerned could perhaps be a bus lane put in somewhere perhaps about here, I think on this particular item - if it was on a opposite Martin Baker's, because when the bus stops in matter of public safety like the next one where there is a the morning it is virtually impossible for the traffic to get safety aspect, I could not argue, but when we are hearing past and then there is this build-up and then there is a some of the ministers saying that there is over-heating in problem with the high curbs and trolleys and so on and so the building industry and this is the reason we are not forth. getting such good value for money as far as the project is The other thing I want to make reference to today is concerned, I am concerned that this issue I do not see as that we have these schemes, we do redevelop, but are we being of national importance and a priority and if there putting enough money in to our maintenance programmes? was a safety issue here I could see why we need to go at The first phase that was completed, the one that was opened the present time. by Nigel Mansell, the airside extension, is looking shabby What I am also concerned about is that this has been at the moment. The toilets are quite tatty. The carpets are going on for about 15 years, and I can understand the torn in places, the walls are damaged and I think in the minister's concern about wanting to get the job done, but redevelopment programme there needs to be a lot more

Ronaldsway Airport — Terminal Building Construction Works — Expenditure Approved T86 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 regard for the ongoing maintenance and a much better will be the same with the incinerator if nothing happens replacement programme. If one visits airports in the UK there, and we have to do it when the money is available. and other places they are replacing things all the time and, As the previous speaker said, I think this is the shop as has been said in this Court before, it is the first window of the Island. It cannot be underestimated what impressions that count and, while I have no problems needs to be done. If you look around in any of the other supporting schemes either at the harbour or at the ports of airports you realise that we are not going over the top with entry at the airport, I think we have got to take that on this one at all. It is putting forward the new viewing gallery board and we have got to maintain a high standard at all which people have been waiting for for many years (Two times. Thank you, Mr President. Members: Hear, hear.) and which I did not feel should have been taken away, but it was taken away, I understand, Mr Braidwood: Mr President, contrary to the hon. for security purposes, and what worry about security there member for Onchan, Mr Karran, I will be supporting this was down there I do not know. The future expectations of resolution. (Several Members: Hear, hear.) We are a the airport have been put forward as an argument for this premier offshore financial centre. For people arriving on scheme to go through and they have got future expectations. the Isle of Man we need a good image, to have the best We are hoping to get a million throughput down that airport facilities available. and we need to facilitate it. We cannot ignore it; it has got to go on. It is a success story. Whether we get an air bridge Mr Cannell: A proper shipping service. (Other I do not know, Mr Braidwood, but I hope we will do in the interjections) future, and I would just like to say it is an onshore financial centre as far as I am concerned, not an offshore one, but Mr Braidwood: We look at the refurbishment of the with that point in mind I would just like to give my terminal building which has just been completed, externally wholehearted support to the department and wish them and internally, and the works department of the Department well for the future down there. Thank you, Mr President. of Transport should be commended for the work they have done. (A Member: Hear, hear.) This is one of the phases Mr Shimmin: Mr President, I have been before and now which will move the new arrival and entrance building still am a critic of this department in some of its schemes. towards the car park. It has always been criticised that the I have opposed the harbour bridge over Douglas and the people had to walk from the car park into the terminal ensuing phases that will inevitably follow once we have building, but it was always envisaged that this phase would started down a road we cannot really stop. The same has be completed and the car park was built in order for that happened with the airport. We are now on phase 5 and, phase to be incorporated in as the building was extended. talking with the officers down there, we have phase VI The only problem I have is that it was a pity that plastic and beyond and therefore once again we are spending an windows were used in the building and are going to be awful lot of money, and the members of the public - and used in the new section. What I would like to see we talked enough of the policy debate yesterday - they eventually: when people complain, 'Ah, we have to go looked at another £3.6 million. When you look at the upstairs to the second floor and then when we leave or we designs, they are marvellous. Once again we have architects depart we have to go down.' When the building is finished with top designs; it looks smashing, state of the art. We - they are allowing for more arrivals, as the minister as want the best, and I went down to the briefing intent on said, up to one million people - hopefully such as Manx turning this down, rejecting it. I thought, 'Before I reject it Airlines will upgrade their aircraft and eventually we will I had better go and see what they are talking about.' I spent have the air bridge so that it will be connected onto the a long time discussing it with the officers and I am very second floor and the passengers will be able to go onto the grateful for their input, and the points have already been departure and then down onto an air bridge onto the aircraft. made well this morning. It is not something that we can As far as I am concerned, I have no problem and I will be leave. The numbers, the increases in the airport coming supporting the Minister for Transport. through - we have got to have this facility. I will support it. Mr Waft: Mr President, I would also rise to support My concern is really over the priorities of the the department in their efforts to get this next phase department. They are a high-spending department. underway. I was with the department with my minister of Yesterday there was enough discussion on the IRIS scheme, the time, the hon. Mr North, and to realise the pressure how that has been able to be shunted back. We are not at that they put on the members and the minister down there the stage where within the next year, two years, we require when that car park was built - it was unbelievable. They these facilities, but we will in three to four years. It is were calling it 'Spaghetti Junction', the lights were too prudent to build now. It would also be prudent to build bright, the roads were too wide - it was an absolute and progress IRIS or a similar scheme. They have the nonsense. There was no vision of the future at all and Manx difficulties. We have a very clearly defined set of empires Radio did not help at all, I might add, but it is nice to see it in this government, and the airport, because it is the shop all coming together now and people can realise what is window, is one which is very difficult to oppose. But that happening. If we fail to do this at this point in time, as I department has to sort out its priorities. I assume and I can said with the IRIS scheme, if you forget about it for a few only assume that the members and minister in that years it will get beyond our reach. Inflation will take over department consider that this is a higher priority at this and with the hospital we are seeing the results of that, it stage. Inflation does not come into it because, whether we Ronaldsway Airport — Terminal Building Construction Works — Expenditure Approved • TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 T87

build this now and in the next two years or IRIS now and Mr Rodan: Mr President, like previous speakers I wish in the next two years, we are still going to end up paying to give a welcome to this scheme on the basis that it is the the inflation on one of the schemes. We cannot do gateway to the Island not just for visitors but for investors everything at once. The inflation will apply whichever in the Isle of Man. My hon. friend, Mr Shimmin, said that scheme. this represented a top design and state-of-the-art scheme. I will support the department. I would like to know from Well, I would not say that. It is a good scheme but it is the minister whether he is satisfied that all the priorities of certainly not an over-the-top scheme, and I would suggest all the various divisions that he is moving forward on still £3.6 million actually on the face of it sounds pretty good have his full support and that they are in the priority order. value. When you go to somewhere like Jersey Airport, a I have to bow to his and the officers' expectations, but let complete new airport there - £23 million that cost. us remember, when you start a scheme look at the end of However, that was a joint initiative with the private sector the scheme as well as the beginning. The first step is quite and, of course, has to cope with two million passengers a a nice easy one to go down, but after that you are then year where we are coping with 700,000, but there you have locked into something and the price keeps going away from a state-of-the-art scheme. You have a vast hall with pink you and it is very difficult, as I have said before, to leave a sandstone pillars supporting an ingenious geometrically scheme half completed. Therefore it is very difficult for designed glass roof, and that is state of the art and their any of us to actually reject this scheme now when so much window in the world, I must say, does them credit. Our of the building looks first-rate and this facility looks very scheme I would not decry at all. No doubt it is the very third-rate. Thank you. best we can afford, but we jolly well want a presentable window in the world when we are an international finance Mrs Christian: Mr President, I rise to support the sector, and of course the difference with the Jersey scheme resolution but I would welcome, too, the fact that you have is that their ongoing running costs are supported by duty- an escalator, and I am sure many people will appreciate free shopping revenues contained within it, which the fact that you are introducing a viewing gallery again, unfortunately we are not able to organise in this Island. something which was long missed from when the upstairs Thank you, Mr President. facility in the existing building was taken over for office space. The President: Reply, minister? However, if I could just raise one issue, the department has been progressing this in phases, and I think they were Mr Brown: Thank you, Mr President, and I thank probably wise to do that; if we had been faced with the members for really what is clearly an indication of support cost of the overall project at the beginning I think many subject to a number of concerns and I will endeavour to people would have been running scared. However, answer those as best I can. Can I first start with the hon. accepting that we have to have a suitable provision at the member for Onchan, Mr Karran, who expressed concern point of entry to the Island, I would say that with regard to about over-heating in the building industry: 'is it necessary, the development that has taken place so far and will be and why now?' I think one of the problems you always connected with this in terms of departures, whilst there is have with any project is always, 'why now?' The situation a lift going up and now there will also be an escalator going is that we are ready now. We are in a position where we up, there have been complaints from time to time that when wish to proceed to the next phase of continuing our long- you go down again to get to the aircraft there are many term development at Ronaldsway Airport. As far as over- steps to be negotiated. Now, in the briefing at the airport heating in the building industry is concerned, all I can say the other day it was pointed out to me that there is a lift by is that the pre-tender estimate was £3.278 million and our which you can go down on departure. I would suggest that tender came in at £2.775 million. So I think it is fair to say, not many passengers are aware of that. and also based on our tenders, that the four people who tendered were very close in their tenders and the difference Dr Mann: You cannot get to it. between the highest and the lowest, I think, is about £100,000, which in this scale is not massive. So I think if Mrs Christian: And if you do go down it, you are not there was a problem that would be a different issue. What with the rest of the people who are going on to the aircraft. we must always keep in mind - and I know it is difficult I was told that, 'Oh well, if you have difficulty you can because we do not all know the picture of what is going on have a wheelchair.' That is not the point. There are many - is of course that whilst we are giving out new contracts people who do not want, would not wish, to have a contracts are also coming to an end. We have had two wheelchair to get to the aircraft and will manage the few schools come to an end, two brand new schools that have steps to the aircraft but do find it difficult to cope with the been completed in the last few months; we have had other stairs from the departure lounge down to the aircraft and projects which have been completed; we have had our own are not guided or instructed that there is a facility there by at the airport, phase 4(a), which involved contractors, way of a lift. So it is not that you are spoiling the ship for completed. So all the time it is a moving and rolling a hap'orth of tar, the lift is there. Could we not make more programme, government and private sector starting and use of it and make it more widely known that it is there so finishing contracts. So I think the answer clearly is that, that the people who need to use it can avail themselves of yes, we are doing it because it is right. We believe that we it? are in the right position to get on with it and we wish to.

Ronaldsway Airport — Terminal Building Construction Works — Expenditure Approved T88 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998

Now, Mr Downie - and I thank him as well as the others have to deal with with our properties. If you let maintenance for their support, and I do not want to thank everyone deteriorate so far, it gives a shabby view of what you have because I am thanking generally - I think he was right when got and also you end up spending considerable amounts he said we have to have regard for the conditions at present, of money trying to put it right later. So I think one of the and I think it is worth making the point in response to a problems we have had is that whilst we were doing phase couple of points made by a number of members and Mr 4(a) that did involve a lot of our own maintenance staff in Shimmin especially, and again he said that he is happy that contract, and therefore we did reduce slightly the now to support it, based on his concern originally, and I amount of maintenance work that was going on, not just think it is worth making the point that for many, many at the airport but in other areas. We will catch up on that years it is fair to say we had a lack of investment in our and certainly the comments about the toilet facilities and ports. We have two major ports into the Isle of Man: one is things - I will ask the airport director to look at. There is Douglas Harbour for shipping, for our passenger shipping certainly in my view no excuse for standards to slip, especially and one is Ronaldsway Airport for our especially in areas where hygiene is involved and generally passengers, people who are flying into the Island and going where there is a need to maintain and repair something, off the Island. For many years the sea travel was seen as and I will certainly ask them to look at that. The hon. the one, because of course the bulk of our passengers came member for Council, Mr Kniveton, who oversees the by sea and, whilst there had been investment in the 1950s airport I am sure has taken on board these comments as and I think early 1960s at both ports, not a lot had happened well. since then, and of course a lot of things have changed in Again, I thank Mr Braidwood for his support and just travelling habits, in what people require, the standards, say, whilst he might have a concern about us using uPVC and you have only got to look at the Sea Terminal now to windows we are endeavouring also to be practical in that what it was even five years ago. It was still a very basic anybody who knows Ronaldsway Airport knows it can be sea terminal and we used to get criticism for it. When it slightly drafty up in that area - I am sure it was last night - was built it was fantastic. I think the people who designed and also, of course, the original windows were aluminium and went ahead with that scheme back in, I think, the early painted. I would say they were not that attractive and I 1960s really had tremendous foresight in the development think again we are trying to be practical, we are trying to of it not only in what they did but actually in the design, reduce maintenance, and uPVC, whether we like it or not, because it would have been very easy just to build a pretty is a fact of life in most buildings now, and also one of the basic oblong building and said, 'That will do you' and I advantages with using uPVC is you can create things you am sure they were criticised for what they did in those cannot with other materials and I think we would just take days, but it actually is now a feature of the Isle of Man and the point that we are trying to ensure the airport is as I have to say I believe at some stage it will be protected attractive as possible. because of the way it is, the design, its uniqueness. So I The viewing gallery has been one of the pains of my think we have got to keep an eye on that and say that we life for many years. I was very annoyed, I suppose is a do need to ensure that our facilities in these areas are good. nice way to put it, when it was removed for Manx Airlines As Mr Rodan said, it is the first place they see. offices, because I was somebody as a young person who Now, traffic problems Mr Downie mentioned. Can I spent a lot of time at the airport watching the planes as did say there will always be some problem when we are many of our generation, and of course when that went, developing the airport when we have been refurbishing really there was not anywhere proper to do that. I am because hoardings come out and affect part of the roadway. delighted that we are now putting it back in. It is one of We have problems when there are wagons unloading and the things that I have pushed to make sure we do have a so on. We endeavour to deal with that the best we can. We facility in and supported by my colleagues, and we are do have security staff who are able to try and keep the delighted we are now going to be able to re-introduce that traffic flowing. There should not be a problem with the facility. buses because there is a specific bus lane when you get to Can I just say that as far as the general issue is the airport. There was a problem, I think, when they had concerned, the department is trying to do the best it can. the hoarding out on the front if a wagon was unloading, One of the points that was raised by Mr Shimmin was about but again I think we do have to all be patient and I have to an overall development and where are we going? The say that, considering the amount of time this work has been department - it was either late 1980s or early 1990s when going on, the phasing of it, the public and the staff have Minister Callin was responsible for that department - actually been very patient with us. They have actually put actually produced an overall development plan for the up with a lot and we appreciate that; I said that in my whole of this area of the airport, and that showed how the opening speech. It is difficult for us because is the very airport could be developed to meet the future needs. That area we are using to go away and people are carrying was approved and this is actually the ongoing development suitcases or whatever it may be. So we will do what we of that based on that original concept, and that included can to ease that flow and people have to bear with us and car-parking and everything. Therefore what we are actually the record to date is that they will. doing is working through our proposals that were approved As far as the maintenance side goes, certainly back in those days, and I have to say that again we have as maintenance has always been one of my priorities a department wished to move faster but, taking into account everywhere I have been. Keeping our facilities to a good government's overall picture, then it has been clearly standard, to me, is one of the most important issues we identified that we have had to fit in. As far as we are Ronaldsway Airport — Terminal Building Construction Works — Expenditure Approved • TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 T89

concerned, we are ready to do this now. It is one of our contribute towards the construction of the new fuel farm. priorities. When we develop our capital programme as a They have agreed to contribute the cost of three new tanks, department, as I am sure every department does, we sit which will be utilised for jet Al fuel with a total capacity down, myself and my colleagues, with the senior officers of 165,000 litres and one tank with fuel for a piston-engined and we work up our programme and we say which ones aircraft; the tank will have a capacity of 40,000 litres. Shell we wish to get forward first, which are the higher priority, will also provide the operational equipment for the system. and sometimes we have to have a higher priority not The department will provide the main structure - that is, because of what we would like but because it is what we the building, security fence and all the ground works. As need to ensure we can meet the needs of the Island. part of the arrangement the department has agreed to renew Mrs Christian mentioned the point about the lift down the agreement with Shell to operate the system for a further to the aircraft. Certainly again I will ask my colleague, Mr period of 15 years. The department will, of course, own Kniveton, to look at that and we will bring it to the attention the main structural components of the fuel farm. However, of the director. When people have checked in, of course, it at the end of the period of 15-year agreement the installation is the airlines who are responsible for their passengers and will be fully owned by the department. I will ask that we write to the airlines to ask them to make There is provision within the proposed agreement that sure it is clear that there are these facilities available and, provides for review or determination by either party at five if necessary, we will look at putting a sign up so that the or ten years after a minimum of six months' notice. passengers are clear that if they need support, a lift or Therefore if, for example, Shell determine to cease whatever, then they can be assisted in that. operating the facility after five years the department would Mr President, I thank members for their support. I purchase the fuel farm equipment installed by Shell at a endorse what Mr Rodan said. I do not believe we are going cost which recognises the original agreement, and our cost over the top. We have actually produced, I think, a very would relate to the dilapidation of that equipment over the good practical scheme and I believe it is something when period of which the agreement has been operational. In it is completed we will all be proud of, as will the people other words, whatever happens the department will of the Isle of Man, and when you see what they have done ultimately own the whole facility. in Jersey, quite honestly they have spent an amazing I believe this demonstration of government and private amount of money, £23 million, and we are doing the same, enterprise jointly working together provides a new facility virtually, for substantially less and I think we have done it for the benefit of those utilising government services, and practically and I think we will all be delighted with it. I we appreciate the co-operation and goodwill shown by beg to move the motion standing in my name. Shell. Without their partnership this project would have meant government funding the whole of it, and the whole The President: Hon. members, I will put the resolution cost would have been well in excess of £500,000. Mr standing at item 18 on the order paper. Will those in favour President, I beg to move the motion standing in my name. please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Mr Kniveton: I beg to second, sir, and reserve my remarks.

Ronaldsway Airport — Replacement Fuel The President: Hon. members, I will put the resolution set out at item 19 on the order paper. Will those in favour Farm — Expenditure Approved please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. The President: Item 19.

Mr Brown: Mr President, I beg to move: Procedural That Tynwald authorises the Department of Transport to undertake works for the construction of the The President: Now, hon. members, you will realise replacement fuel farm at Ronaldsway Airport for a sum this afternoon we have at item 25 a measure which will be not exceeding £292,500. proving controversial and there will be the appearance of quite a number of petitioners at the bar of the Court. I The existing fuel farm was built in 1944 by the British cannot see any possibility of reaching that item at this stage Admiralty when Ronaldsway was a military base. Hon. and I wondered whether or not we could reassemble at members have had a memorandum circulated and an 2.15 p.m. in order to keep on course. Is that crazy or opportunity to have a detailed presentation again when we acceptable? gave the presentation regarding the airport phase 5. The existing fuel farm no longer satisfies the current standards Members: Agreed. required for such an important installation. The existing installation is owned by the department The President: All right. A 2.15 p.m. start. Thank you, and is operated and staffed by Shell UK Limited under a hon. members. concessioned agreement. In progressing this new scheme the department has negotiated with Shell for them to The Court adjourned at 1.02 p.m.

Ronaldsway Airport — Replacement Fuel Farm — Expenditure Approved • Procedural T90 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998

Social Security Contributions and Benefits Family Income Supplement (Miscellaneous Act 1992 (Application) (Amendment) Order Amendment) Regulations 1998 — Approved 1998 — Approved The President: Item 22, the Minister for Health and The President: Hon. members, we continue our Social Security. scrutiny of the order paper at item 20 and I call on the Minister for Health and Social Security. Mrs Christian: Mr President, I beg to move: That the Family Income Supplement (Miscellaneous Mrs Christian: Mr President, I beg to move: Amendment) Regulations 1998 [SD No 534/98] be approved. That the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (Application) (Amendment) Order 1998 [SD No These regulations are concerned with the same issue as 532/98] be approved. the previous application order. They provide this time, for the purposes of the family income supplement, that income This order is a purely technical one. The change being from insurance policies against being unable to maintain made by the order merely clarifies the position that profits repayments on certain loans are disregarded. on which class 4 contributions are payable are derived in Details, again, have been circulated as applied with the the Isle of Man. last order. I beg to move. Details of the provisions are set out in the memorandum which has been circulated to hon. members. I beg to move. Mr Houghton: I beg to second, sir.

Mr Houghton: I beg to second, sir. The President: Hon. members, I will put the resolution set out at item 22 on the order paper. Will those in favour The President: Hon. members, I will put the resolution please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes set out at item 20 on the order paper. Will those in favour have it. please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Retirement Pension (Premium) Scheme 1993 (Amendment) Scheme 1998 — Approved Social Security Legislation (Application) (No. 6) Order 1998 — Approved The President: Item 23, the Minister for Health and Social Security. The President: Item 21, again the Minister for Health and Social Security. Mrs Christian: Mr President, I beg to move:

Mrs Christian: Mr President, I beg to move: That the Retirement Pension (Premium) Scheme 1993 (Amendment) Scheme 1998 [GC No 33/98] be That the Social Security Legislation (Application) approved. (No. 6) Order 1998 [SD No 533/98] be approved. This amendment scheme again is of a purely technical nature. The changes have been found necessary following This order applies to the Island one set of United the introduction of the Pensions Act 1995. I can assure Kingdom regulations. These regulations provide, for the hon. members that there is no change to the conditions of purposes of the jobseeker's allowance, that income from entitlement or to the rate of benefit for any recipients. insurance policies against being unable to maintain Details of the provisions have been circulated. I beg to repayments on certain loans et cetera is disregarded for move. calculation of the jobseeker's allowance. Again details of this provision have been circulated to Mr Houghton: I beg to second, sir. hon. members. I beg to move the item standing in my name. The President: Hon. members, I will put the resolution Mr Houghton: I beg to second, sir. set out at item 23 on the order paper. Will those in favour please say aye; against, no. Is that agreed, hon. members? The President: Hon. members, I will put the resolution set out at item 21 on the order paper. Will those in favour Members: Agreed. please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. The President: Thank you.

Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (Application) (Amendment) Order 1998 — Approved Social Security Legislation (Application) (No. 6) Order 1998 — Approved Family Income Supplement (Miscellaneous Amendment) Regulations 1998 — Approved Retirement Pension (Premium) Scheme 1993 (Amendment) Scheme 1998 — Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 T91

Mobile Food Premises Regulations Mr North: Thank you, Mr President. I beg to move: 1998 — Approved That the Merchant Shipping (Tonnage) Regulations The President: Item 24, the Minister for Local 1998 [SD No 513/98] be approved. Government and the Environment. This is a technical alteration. Members have been circulated with the details, and I beg to move. Mr Quine: Thank you, Mr President. I beg to move: Mr Lowey: I beg to second, sir. That the Mobile Food Premises Regulations 1998 [SD No 470/98] be approved. The President: I will put the resolution, hon. members, set out at item 26 on the order paper. Will those in favour These regulations provide for the Department of Local please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes Government and the Environment to keep a register of have it. mobile food premises, that is, a vehicle, stall or movable structure, other than a delivery vehicle or a temporary stall at a market or fair or at a fete or similar event, at which certain commercial operations with respect to food are Highway Extinguishment carried on. The register will be open to public inspection. (King Edward VIII Pier, Douglas) (No. 2) Hon. members have previously been circulated with Order 1998 — Approved details. Mr President, I beg to move. The President: Item 27, the Minister for Transport. Mr Braidwood: I beg to second, Mr President, and reserve my remarks. Mr Brown: Thank you, Mr President. I beg to move:

Mr Singer: Could I just ask the hon. minister for an That the Highway Extinguishment (King Edward explanation, please? Under the reasons for the measure it VIII Pier, Douglas) (No. 2) Order 1998 [SD No 535/98] says that a lot of the burger vans and ice-cream vans are be approved. unknown at the moment and therefore this will give you a chance no doubt, will it, to enable regular inspection to The purpose of the order is to extinguish a section of take place of these vehicles which are not taken now? Does highway which is situated on the western portion of the that not therefore, under resource implications, mean that King Edward VIII Pier from the site of the former more resources will be needed to inspect these vehicles gatehouse - the full width of the Red Pier to the edge of that are just discovered at the time? the Circus Beach marshalling area - to the bottom of the ramp in the vicinity of the former watch house which is The President: Reply, sir. part of the harbour freight marshalling area. This is more particularly shown by the diagonal crossed area on the map Mr Quine: No, sir. The hon. member is quite correct annexed to the order. that the object of the exercise is to enable us to identify The Department of Transport proposes to extinguish what mobile stalls do exist. The resource implications are this part of the highway in order to close the specified of no import; there are no additional resource implications section of the Red Pier as a highway on health and safety because the numbers are exceptionally small. It is a grounds. The area has become very dangerous for the question of putting into place a procedure for identification public, since it is now extensively used for the marshalling so we can monitor them. If we were of course, as is now of heavy goods vehicles awaiting shipment and for those the case, not to have a record and we were to have an that have just arrived by vessel. outbreak of some sort of disease, then I am afraid the The status of the area will be similar to that of the department would be in a very difficult situation. Edward, Victoria and Battery Piers in that when the pier is not being used as a work area, and therefore safe, it will be The President: Hon. members, I will put the resolution open to the public. It is proposed that a barrier at the watch set out at item 24 on the order paper. Will those in favour house ramp will close off the entrance to the area by the please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes watch house during the period when heavy freight is being have it. loaded and unloaded from vessels using number five berth, that is, North Edward Pier. This will normally be between the hours of 0600 to 0900 and 17 30 hours to 2000 hours. The working of the office berth just seaward of the Merchant Shipping (Tonnage) Regulations swing-bridge will not be affected. The entrance by Peveril 1998 — Approved Square will always be open but will be manned, as is currently the case, to regulate traffic using the area during The President: Now, hon. members, I have indicated busy periods, in other words when boats are loading or that item 25 will not be taken before 2.30, so we carry on discharging traffic at either of the linkspans. to item 26 and I call upon the Minister for Trade and Statutory notices have been placed in the local Industry. newspapers, and the Attorney-General's Chambers and the

Mobile Food Premises Regulations 1998 — Approved Merchant Shipping (Tonnage) Regulations 1998 — Approved Highway Extinguishment (King Edward VIII Pier, Douglas) (No. 2) Order 1998 — Approved • T92 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 secretary of the Isle of Man Anglers Association have been safety legislation, unless we take proper and safe consulted. No objections have been received. precautions to safeguard the public, we are liable, and There are no resource implications related to the order clearly, as I mentioned in the introduction to the motion, it for my department. will only be restricted when in fact we need to do that and Subject to Tynwald approving this order, it will come that is the case with regard to the Victoria Pier now. into effect on the publication of the notice of making of Members know that when the boat is getting ready to sail, the order in accordance with schedule 3 of the Highways then it is restricted, when the boat is virtually coming in, Act 1986. then there is a restriction, but the rest of the time you can Mr President, I beg to move the motion standing in my wander up and down those piers, you can fish off the end name. of the piers, there is no problem whatsoever. So we do not have a problem with that, but I think we Mr Singer: Mr President, I beg to second and reserve have a responsibility to ensure that there is public safety. my remarks. We have large articulated wagons, and we are talking of very large articulated wagons, reversing in that area and it Mr Downie: Mr President, I just want to receive is unreasonable to expect a driver to have to cope with Joe confirmation from the minister that the rights of the Bloggs - that is me, you, anybody else - or young children fishermen and those other persons who are engaged in wandering up and down that pier when they are having to similar areas will not be affected in any way by this closure. turn these large wagons and therefore I think it is absolutely Thank you. right that we take this action to make sure that when the area is being used to load and unload ships or to marshal Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I am just a little bit concerned. vehicles, in fact it can be controlled to make sure the public The previous issue that the hon. minister brought up about is safe. So I hope that answers that point from the member. the fuel depot I would have supported without reserve As far as the hon. member for West Douglas, Mr because of public safety and I agree that public safety is Downie, is concerned he said can I give him an assurance important, but I am a little bit concerned that what we see that the rights of the fishermen will not be affected. I need is ever more chipping away where people once could go to make it clear the fishermen have no rights. The fishermen and cannot go any more, and whilst we have assurances are allowed by my department to utilise the piers to fish that they will be able to use it at the present time, what we from. There is no right, they have not established any right will see is a situation where more and more access is being whatsoever, and we are happy, at this stage, to permit them lost. At one time you could walk along the piers. to use our piers when it is safe and we have the right as a We get all these fig leaves of excuses for stopping people department to restrict it when in fact that pier is being used having access and I am a little bit concerned that what we for other purposes. So I just want to put it on record in are seeing today is that we will end up with further more case it becomes an established view that they have a right. deterioration as far as access is concerned, and whilst the They have no right: we allow them to use our piers. anglers have not complained maybe as far as this is With that, Mr President, I hope members will feel able concerned, I think when I was a youngster we could go on to support this motion before them today. I beg to move. the piers and fish and now we cannot go on them. It started with one pier, then it the next pier, and I am a little bit The President: Hon. members, I will put the resolution concerned that I want more assurance about the safety set out at item 27 on the order paper. Will those in favour aspect before I can agree to supporting this order because please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes I think it is too easy to be cutting back on public access have it. and I am concerned about that.

The President: Reply, minister. Braddan (Middle Farm) Planning Scheme Mr Brown: Yes, thank you, Mr President. If I may, Order 1998 — Objectors Heard taking the first point from the hon. member for Onchan, — Debate Commenced Mr Karran, just say that I too am always concerned when we are restricting access to any of our piers, or for that The President: Now, hon. members, we revert to item matter anywhere else, and I do not think there is any 25 on the order paper, the Braddan (Middle Farm) Planning politician who would not be. However, I do think we need Scheme Order. to recognise that Douglas harbour is a working harbour Now, hon. members, section 14 of the Town and which is accepting and discharging virtually all of the Country Planning Act 1936 provides that in respect to Island's freight, and safety, whether we like it or not, is orders under the Act, such as the one referred to in this now paramount. item, any local authority or interested person may appear I can certainly remember as a young fella coming in to at Tynwald when such order is being considered and may Douglas to watch boats unloading, in those days manually, oppose the approval of such order. and you used to just sit on the edge and there would be all Now, the procedure I propose to follow in respect of sorts unloaded from the boats. Nobody bothered about this motion is this. I will first of all invite the hon. member wagons backing up and doing all sorts. The world has for Onchan, Mr Corkill, to move the motion and, with it changed, whether we like it or not. Now under health and seconded and before the Court, I will then invite

Braddan (Middle Farm) Planning Scheme Order 1998 — Objectors Heard — Debate Commenced TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 T93

representations from those people who wish to be heard. to acquire the land compulsorily. In November the Court At the end of each individual presentation they may be duly resolved to authorise such compulsory acquisition. required to answer questions posed to them from the floor. Having regard to these various Tynwald resolutions, the The learned Clerk will call out in alphabetical order the findings of the investigation and the outcome of the names of the persons who have given notice of their wish consultation process the department decided to proceed to address the Court and when your name is called could with a planning scheme order as being the most appropriate you please approach the Bar of the Court as confirmation process for allowing public participation in a project of that you still wish to be heard. When you have made your national strategic importance and interest. presentation at the Bar could you please proceed to the A public inquiry was duly held in May of this year and public gallery, as our space is somewhat limited, and so the independent inspector reported to me in June 1998 release seats for those who have yet to be heard. recommending that the draft Braddan (Middle Farm) Now, with so many people wishing to be heard, it would Planning Scheme Order 1998 be confirmed. His report to be helpful if you could keep your statements reasonably me also stated, 'Subject to the conditions referred to in concise and to the point. Schedule 2 of the draft Order, and to the foregoing I now call upon the hon. member for Onchan, Mr conditions, I further recommend that the permitted Corkill, to move the motion standing in his name. development therein referred to, be approved.' That is paragraph 213 of the report. Mr Corkill: Thank you, Mr President. I beg to move: Copies of the independent inspector's report and of the order have been circulated. That the Braddan (Middle Farm) Planning Scheme As members will have seen, this order not only alters Order 1998 [SD No. 537/98] be approved. the zoning of the land but also grants the equivalent of approval in principle for the energy from the waste I have the responsibility and have been authorised to incinerator. I have accepted the inspector's recommendation that this order should be made, but before act in this matter instead of the hon. member for Ayre whose doing so I have given further consideration to two matters: department is not only the planning authority but also the firstly, the conditions to which the approval should be refuse disposal authority. subject, and secondly, whether there should be included It may assist the Court if I start by reminding members in the order provision for compensation for any person of the recent history of the proposed incineration plant. whose property might be injuriously affected by the order. This is best done by reference to the resolution of this Court In respect of conditions I have had regard to the original in May 1996 and I quote from Hansard accordingly: draft order to the proposals from both Braddan Parish `Whereas in - (i) December 1990; (ii) February 1994; and Commissioners and the Douglas Corporation, to the (iii) November 1995 Tynwald approved the waste inspector's comments thereon and also to legal advice. I management strategy formulated by the Department of am now satisfied that the conditions contained in schedule Local Government and the Environment, and has required 2 of the order as now made are necessary, enforceable and that the integrated incineration facility be in operation by in all respects valid. the end of December 2000, and recognises that the Amongst other things these conditions provide that a provision of this incineration facility is of overriding range of reserved matters, that is, matters of detail reserved national importance now therefore Tynwald resolves that for consideration subsequently, must be approved by the it supports the principle that, subject to the necessary Governor in Council. It is my understanding that such planning approvals, the integrated incineration facility reserved matters will be considered by the Governor in should be constructed at the Richmond Hill waste Council in accordance with clause 8 of the 1982 management site, including the former landfill facility, and Development Plan Order, with the appointment of an instructs the Department of Local Government and the independent inspector and written representations being Environment to investigate that site as to its suitability for invited by public notice in the normal way. this purpose as expeditiously as possible.' The department As far as compensation is concerned, I am required to subsequently advised this hon. Court that delays in consider whether to include in the order provision under progressing the project have meant that the energy from section 9 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1934 for the waste incinerator is now planned for commissioning compensation for any person whose property may be towards the end of the year 2002. injuriously affected by the order. This matter was not In response to this resolution the department considered by the appointed person. commissioned an investigation of the Richmond Hill waste Section 9 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1934 management site. One conclusion arising from this was enacted at a time when planning controls were seen investigation and the associated consultations which took as a necessary interference with rights of private property, place was that it would be sensible to leave undisturbed such that, where the owner of land suffered loss by reason the pulverised refuse which was tipped on the site during of restrictions on the use of the land imposed by a planning the 1970s. To accommodate the incinerator at this site scheme, he should be compensated for this injurious without building on the pulverised refuse it is necessary to affection. Prior to that there were few restrictions on the use part of the adjoining farmland. development of land which depended largely on its Having sought, unsuccessfully, to negotiate the purchase situation and on the availability or otherwise of services. of an appropriate parcel of this land, the department Section 9 as originally enacted provided that any order petitioned this Court in October 1997, seeking authority making a planning scheme shall include provision for

Braddan (Middle Farm) Planning Scheme Order 1998 — Objectors Heard — Debate Commenced T94 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 compensation. However, the Town and Country Planning general public interest, and to ensure that the adverse affects Act 1973 substituted the word 'may' for 'shall', thus giving of development are kept to a minimum. It is not the function the department a discretion whether or not to include such of the planning system to put neighbouring owners in the provision. This reflects the fact that present-day legislators same financial position as they would have been if accept that the state must exercise control over the development had not been carried out. development of land in the public interest without being I do not therefore consider that it would be appropriate bound to compensate landowners whose land is affected to make provision in the order for compensation for by it. Since 1973 no order has included provision for injurious affection of land outside the scheme area. No compensation. In particular the Development Plan Order more would it be appropriate, in my view, to pay a levy if 1982, which made a planning scheme for virtually the there were to be an increase in the value of any land. I whole Island, made no such provision. have therefore determined not to include any provision The department invited written representations from under section 9 of the 1934 Act in this order. persons or bodies who felt that their property might be In conclusion, I can summarise the contents of this order injuriously affected by the terms of the order, such by indicating that it is a logical outcome of the previous representations to be received by 4th September 1998. I resolutions of this Court, follows the recommendation of have carefully considered all of the representations the independent person appointed to hear and report on submitted to the department, of which there were 44. the public inquiry and will enable the Department of Local In deciding whether or not to include provision for Government and the Environment to proceed with compensation in relation to this order before the Court commissioning the detailed design and construction of a today I have considered two different cases: firstly, land facility which is now needed as a matter of both importance within the scheme area, and secondly, land outside the and urgency, and I beg to move the resolution, Mr scheme area. President. In the first case it does not appear to me that provision for compensation is appropriate. Part of the land in the Mr Cannell: Mr President, I beg to second and reserve scheme area is already in the ownership of the department my remarks. who are authorised by resolution of Tynwald, dated 18th November 1997, to acquire the remainder compulsorily The President: Hon. members, with the resolution for the purpose of the incinerator plant. The present owner before the Court I now propose we hear the petitioners, of that land will be entitled to compensation based on its and I would emphasise that we are not dealing with the market value and it does not appear that any further principle of incineration, we are dealing specifically with entitlement to compensation would arise even if provision the planning order before us today. Learned Clerk, will were made in the order. you call your first petitioners, please. In the case of land outside the scheme area I have again considered all written representations in so far as they relate The Clerk: Mr President, could I ask the persons to the injurious affection of land. These were almost appearing at the Bar if they could do so adjacent to the entirely concerned with the effects of the proposed microphone, for the benefit of the Hansard record. Mr and development on either the enjoyment or use of land or on Mrs K C Ashcroft. its value. I appreciate the concerns of those making representations with respect to the effects of the proposed The President: Are you comfortable there? development on their enjoyment or use of their property but I am not satisfied that those effects will be such as to Mr K C Ashcroft: Yes, Mr President, I am fine. warrant the inclusion in the order of provision for compensation. The conditions included in the order and The President: Welcome and proceed, sir. any more stringent conditions which may be attached to the disposal licence for the plant, together with the Mr Ashcroft: Mr President, hon. members, thank you measures of traffic management now under consideration for giving my wife and I the opportunity this afternoon to by the Department of Transport, should ensure that the speak to you on this very important issue to ourselves and adverse effects on the environment of the plant will be to our neighbours living in the Richmond Hill area. I do kept to an acceptable level. I am advised that if any damage hope to be brief. I should say that in making these to land were caused by the plant, for example, affecting its objections I speak on behalf of my wife. suitability for agriculture, it might be the subject of a legal Our objections are twofold. First of all at the public action for damages. In my view it is not therefore necessary inquiry we understood, it was made quite clear, that there for the order to make additional provision for compensation would be a further inquiry into the detailed proposals for for such damage under the head of injurious affection. the incinerator. That would have given affected parties the So far as depreciation in the value of land is concerned, opportunity to consider such matters as building elevations, it appears to me that it is an inevitable fact of modern life the layout plan of the building - including that for waste that developments may take place which will alter, either storage for use when the incinerator is not running - increasing or reducing, the value of neighbouring land. It arrangements for dealing with foul drainage from the is the role of the planning system to balance the pressures vehicle wash-down facility, outdoor lighting, noise for development on the one hand against the interests of mitigation, visual screening, odour reduction et cetera, as neighbouring owners on the other, having regard to the well as the vital operating parameters on which the health Braddan (Middle Farm) Planning Scheme Order 1998 — Objectors Heard — Debate Commenced • TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 T95

of the town of Douglas depends: Douglas with its schools, The President: If there are no further questions, thank its hospital, its places of work and its many homes. you for your presentation. Our understanding of the motion before this hon. Court is that if the order were approved it would, in addition to Mr Ashcroft: Thank you, Mr President, members. approving the rezoning of the land, effectively grant outline planning approval to the development of a mass burn The President: The next witness, please, learned Clerk. incinerator on the site. We further understand that rather than submit the detailed planning approval to the usual The Clerk: Mr R Atherton. scrutiny of a planning application in front of the Planning Committee, where affected parties are given the The President: Welcome, Mr Atherton, please proceed. opportunity to object, with further recourse to review and appeal with the possibility of an inquiry, the details would Mr R Atherton: Mr President, hon. members of the be agreed by the the Governor in Council. Court, when I purchased my house I purchased it in good At the risk of repetition, this building at 12 storeys in faith of the local plan which is the only true guide to likely height would be the tallest building on the Island. We future developments around an area. If the local plan has understand that under normal planning regulations the zoned an area for industrial use, then we would not be maximum building height for offices in towns is merely surprised to see an industrial building going up there. five storeys. Indeed a premium may be placed on the land because it Coming on to the second point of objection, despite allows such a development and a discount may be made this gross property blight, the order, as we have just heard, on the surrounding properties because they can expect such excludes the possibility of compensation for affected a development. Land values and house values are directly parties. This has been estimated by local estate agents to influenced by the local plan, and the public should, be in the order of 30 per cent to 35 per cent of prior market therefore, have the right to expect consistency in the value. That is of course in addition to the loss of enjoyment application of its zonings. of the property caused by the appearance of this vast building. The land which will be used at Richmond Hill is clearly Mr President and members, in the cause of natural designated as open space on the Braddan local plan. For justice no-one should have a gross industrial facility the inspector to decide that this is agricultural land and imposed upon them without normal recourse to planning should not be regarded in the same way as open space is safeguards and then find that they suffer a property value bizarre, as it strikes me that this is the exact reason why loss without recourse to compensation, as well as having this qualification was originally placed on the land, that to suffer the effects of such an unneighbourly intrusion. is, in order to ensure that it has the protection and To conclude, we in the Richmond Hill area are literally restrictions of an open space designate. The area around carrying the can for the rest of the Island. Thank you, hon. Ballamona hospital on the Braddan central plan confirms members, Mr President. the fact that the open space delineation is selectively applied to agricultural land. The President: Thank you, sir, and would you stay a Policy 13.4 of the Braddan Parish District Written moment, please, in case any hon. member wishes to pose Statement, which was approved by Tynwald, states that a question from the floor. The hon. Mr Duggan. all areas designated as open space must be respected and no further intrusion will be permitted. It simply is not good Mr Duggan: Could I ask Mr Ashcroft, have you had enough for the planning officer to subjectively redefine any valuation of your property recently and what it would what 'open space' means or to simply state that open space be if an incinerator was built there? should be considered as an anomaly in this case. This is one area where I believe Mr Brinkworth is wrong when he Mr Ashcroft: Mr President, we have indeed. At the effectively states in paragraph 171 of his report that he invitation of Mr Hamilton to submit such a valuation, we does not believe that a strict interpretation of these words did so, and the effective devaluation is in the order of should apply. Why not? What message does it send out £50,000 to £60,000. My wife and I, as I think most when the government can simply accept or reject its own members here know, both work in government established policies by way of convenience? By rezoning employment and we have given our all to this Island for the land at Richmond Hill outside of a scheduled plan the past 10 years. It seems somewhat unfair that on top of review which weighed up the balance of strategic and local that we have to suffer this. That is all I have to say on that choices in a fair and comprehensive and considered manner one. the government is effectively undermining the credibility and fairness of the Island's planning system. The President: Thank you. With no further questions - When the hon. member for Onchan advised that he does not believe that compensation is due to those people whose Mr Delaney: Yes, there is one question. Good homes will be devalued and whose quality of life will be afternoon, Mr Ashcroft and Mrs Ashcroft. Can you tell me directly affected by this bleak development and simply how long you have lived in your present accommodation? attributes their loss to an inevitable fact of modern life, he is expecting them to bear the burden for the sake of the Mr Ashcroft: We have lived at Sunrise for nine years. national interest and is actively discriminating against

Braddan (Middle Farm) Planning Scheme Order 1998 — Objectors Heard — Debate Commenced T96 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 them. This can hardly be described as fair and must surely Mr Atherton: Quite possibly, yes, but that was not the be against the principles of natural justice. case in this instance. With regard to the proposed development itself, I cannot think of a less appropriate site for such an enormous Mr Quine: Thank you very much. building to dominate a scenic landscape. This is the main arterial route between Douglas and the airport and as such The President: Are there any further questions? If not, will form the first and last impression for most visitors. It thank you, Mr Atherton. does little to reflect the true beauty of the Island. Most importantly to me, as a father whose daughters Mr Atherton: Thank you. are soon to attend Kewaigue School - indeed there are eight schools in the area - the health issue is a genuine concern The President: Our next witnesses, please, learned which DoLGE to date has failed to address. DoLGE argues Clerk. that the emissions will be within the proposed EU standards and therefore should pose a minimal risk to health. The The Clerk: Mr and Mrs A E Corlett. They do not appear argument completely ignores the inadequacies of previous to be here, Mr President. Mr M J Dale. guideline controls which ironically we would be following had this scheme been implemented earlier. The fact that The President: Welcome, Mr Dale, please proceed. during the inquiry eminent scientists seemed unable to reach agreement with each other over the effects of dioxins Mr M J Dale: Mr President, hon. members, I reside and furons only serves to emphasise how little we know and have done so since May 1987 at Ballacubbon Farm, about the long-term exposure to these substances. Mr Richmond Hill, a site approximately 50 metres to 60 metres Brinkworth stated as much in his report. higher and some 750 metres due west of the scheme area. Additionally, incineration could hardly be described as I base my objection to the scheme order before this hon. tried and tested. Modern plants have not been in operation Court on three points. for a long enough period of time to make a true assessment. My first objection is upon the grounds that if this hon. Meanwhile DoLGE rejects the adverse evidence provided Court approves the rezoning of land under the scheme from earlier forms of incineration on the basis that they order, no provision for compensation for those who may were not operating to the proposed emission standards. be affected by the building of a mass burn incinerator upon This is fortunate for DoLGE, as these earlier systems are this site is contained within the order. now regarded as dangerous and obsolete. I have received a copy of the letter of 16 September Finally, a simple scenario. What if the incinerator has from the acting minister in which he lays out his reasons been up and running for five years and the scientific for not including compensation within the order, in community say, yet again, 'We've got it wrong'? Tynwald particular paragraphs 12 to 14 of that letter. I must ask this would obviously close the plant down, but what comfort hon. Court to take issue with the reasoning given, although would you offer to the majority of the Island's population until such time as this scheme is approved and the detail who will have been continually exposed to emissions, the of type, design and operation is decided, I accept that the finer particles of which will remain in their lungs ad degree of injurious affection cannot be easily quantified. infinitum. The burden of proof should rest with those who The planning development order dates from 1982 and I wish to build the incinerator to prove its absolute safety am lead to believe that it was arrived at only after beyond all doubt. It should not be left to the local residents exhaustive enquiries. Since that time successive planning to prove the operation wrong with their subsequent ill officers and ministers have given substance to the health. Thank you. development order being a specific rather than a generic plan. The land required for rezoning has been clearly shown The President: Thank you, Mr Atherton. Just for the as open space agricultural since 1982 and was designated moment, are there any questions? The hon. member for as such in the Braddan plan of 1991. Ayre. Tynwald determined upon a policy of incineration in 1978, some four years before the planning development Mr Quine: Mr Atherton, are you aware that land zoning order was made. It would therefore appear reasonable to is subject to review every five or seven years suppose that any right-minded person acquiring property since 1982 within the middle valley area would assume approximately? that the price paid would reflect the location within an agricultural valley of high landscape value and scenic Mr Atherton: No. significance. Within a planning system such as that operated by the Mr Quine: You will accept from me that that is a fact? Department of Local Government and the Environment it cannot be, to quote the acting minister, 'An inevitable fact Mr Atherton: Okay. of life that developments may take place which will alter, either increasing or reducing, the value of neighbouring Mr Quine: So maybe therefore if you bought your land', without such developments being clearly signposted house, in a subsequent rezoning the land adjacent to your within either the planning development order or a house could change anyway. subsequent local plan.

Braddan (Middle Farm) Planning Scheme Order 1998 — Objectors Heard — Debate Commenced TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 T97

It surely cannot be the intention of this hon. Court to and environment of this Island should not be hostage to impose a double penalty upon those living in the vicinity potential political expediency, as appears to have been the of the proposed scheme order. Firstly they will be penalised case so far. On the other hand I can only foresee this Island financially. I am professionally advised that in my own being locked into a continual escalation of real capital and case and in the event of an incinerator of a similar size to operation costs if construction and operating integrity is the conceptual design being built, the extent would be to to be maintained at the levels being promised by the some 30 per cent of pre-incinerator property values. There department from now until the year 2025. are others who will be even more badly affected than My final point is one in common with Mr Ashcroft and myself, but we will all be blighted. Secondly they will be with the many others who attended the public inquiry and penalised for having to view for nearly every day for 25 meeting at the Stakis Hotel in May this year. That is that years or more 'a monstrous building with an the matter of assurance by this hon. Court that matters of uncompromising chimney', to quote the inspector's report. detail, planning, design and operation will be subject to a No doubt our rates will rise as well. full public inquiry as stated at that time by the I also fail to see the justice in his arguments that money representative of the department to those in attendance, paid in compensation reduces the funds available for the including the inspector. Obviously if this is made clear, projects themselves. Surely a budget provision for that that provision of such a public inquiry on these matters compensation should have been already made and included is obligatory rather than discretionary within the scheme in the project cost when it was known that rezoning within order, then I am happy to remove my objection on this a predominantly agricultural area would be necessary, point. Mr President, hon. members, thank you. particularly since the type and potential size of the intended building and chimney is clearly known to the department The President: Thank you, Mr Dale. Would you concerned. probably just hold a second. Any questions? The hon. My second objection, which is linked to my first, member for Ayre. concerns the actions taken by the department in arriving Mr Quine: If I may, sir. Why do you assert, Mr Dale, at the site in question. Whilst I fully understand that in that the department has known since 1989 that the site is May 1996 Tynwald approved the principle that, subject to unsuitable? the necessary planning approvals, the integrated incinerator facility should be constructed at the Richmond Hill waste Mr Dale: I think if the department did not know that it management site, I am certain that the department have was unsuitable, then it has been negligent in its duties, known ever since the abortive attempt to obtain planning simply because to approach a site that is a former waste permission for the site in 1989, and certainly prior to the landfill site without being aware of the dangers of building meeting with local authorities in April 1996, that the upon such a thing I think would be very, very foolish and Richmond Hill waste management site as such was not very in line with professional attitudes. inherently unsuitable for a building and chimney of the size proposed, without undertaking the dangerous task of Mr Quine: Are you aware that regarding the previous excavating and removing the landfill material. To quote public inquiry into this site, which is the 1989 one, the the Hyder report of 1997: 'From data gathered for the 1997 reason that that was unsuccessful was purely on the basis investigations, the made ground (landfilled area of the site) of zoning? is not considered an acceptable bearing strata for foundations, except for very lightly loaded non-settlement Mr Dale: I do accept that, but I also accept that the sensitive structures. The glacial till may provide an building itself was at completely the other end of the site acceptable bearing structure but this would be dependent concerned, at the Oakhill end, I believe. on the required foundation level, geometry and structural settlement tolerance.' Mr Quine: But it was zoning that was the reason why It is also my understanding that no detailed cost benefit that application failed. comparisons were made or published concerning the relative merits of the recommended sites from the Mott Mr Dale: Yes. MacDonald report. Furthermore, in what appears to be confirmation of this, account does not appear to have been Mr Quine: Thank you. taken of matters such as access to the main drains and sewage systems, the reality of proximity to potential heat The President: Are there any further questions? The users or provision of required facilities such as a knackery. hon. member for Onchan, Mr Karran. The only conclusion that one can draw by those affected by this proposal, such as myself, is that the decision was Mr Karran: You say that you feel that it is being done and is a purely political one and that the rezoning of land as a political compromise. The situation is that if you use from agricultural usage stems from that, rather than a an incinerator the waste heat is most efficient for a district logical planning or engineering justification. heating system than a power system. So obviously the most To approve a scheme founded upon such weak logical site would be next to a public building such as a foundations would, I feel, be premature. As a resident of prison or a hospital or whatever. So you feel that you are Richmond Hill I am concerned that a facility with a being used as a scapegoat simply because they feel that it capacity for so much potential damage to the population is the weakest line of defence to go to this site?

Braddan (Middle Farm) Planning Scheme Order 1998 — Objectors Heard — Debate Commenced T98 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998

Mr Dale: I think that may well have been the case. representing the department at the public inquiry between 6th May and 14th May 1998 at the Stakis Hotel reiterated Mr Karran: And do you feel that there are other things and stated the fact that there would be a public inquiry that will affect the area? There will be a problem as far as into detailed planning. sewage and getting rid of the waste water is concerned. Now then, Mr Brinkworth, in his meeting which he held That will have a problem; you cannot just push it into the on 21st April at the Castle Mona referred to the fact that Middle river. he expected that there would be a public inquiry into detailed planning, which would obviously have some effect Mr Dale: No, I believe that none of us are on main on the matters that he would be prepared to consider under drainage, main sewerage. The area has none, as far as I am the inquiry that he was about to hold, which he held in aware. Obviously we will be affected by traffic and by May, and I think that his expectation on that matter is noise, probably to a greater extent than we are now, but reinforced by paragraph 163 in the report to the Hon who knows. Richard Corkin dated 24th June 1998. My second objection is that I would submit that the Mr Rodan: Mr Dale, can I ask, are you familiar with order would be discriminatory, in that there is provision the text of the planning scheme order? for compensation to be considered for those owners of property which may injuriously be affected by the provision Mr Dale: I am not a lawyer but I have read it, yes. of a facility deemed to be to the benefit of all residents of the Isle of Man. Mr Rodan: You have read it. Would you agree that Mr President, that is all I have to say, thank you. schedule 2 of the order lists some 14 conditions, one condition comprising 14 reserved matters for detailed The President: Thank you, Mr Gisborne. If you would inquiry, special inquiry to go to the Governor in the pause a moment, there may be some questions. Does any Council? hon. member wish to pose a question? The hon. Mr Duggan. Mr Dale: I am aware that that is the case. I am not aware that it was a public inquiry, though. That was not Mr Duggan: Could I just ask Mr Gisborne, have you made clear, I think, within the order. had a valuation of your property, sir?

Mr Rodan: Is your query in this regard whether it is to Mr Gisborne: I have had my property valued recently be a public inquiry? and I have been advised that the effect would be between 25 and 35 per cent of the value. Mr Dale: Basically, yes. I think we are all concerned that the public has access to make points. The President: Any further questions? If not, thank you for your presentation, sir. Mr Rodan: Just to clarify that. Thank you. Mr Gisborne: Thank you, Mr President, hon. members. The President: Right, if there are no further questions, thank you, sir, for your appearance. The next petitioner, The President: The next petitioner, please, learned please, learned Clerk. Clerk.

The Clerk: Mr M G Gisborne. The Clerk: Mrs P M Gisborne.

The President: Welcome, Mr Gisborne, please proceed. The President: Welcome, Mrs Gisborne, please proceed. Mr Gisborne: Mr President, hon. members of the Court, I am grateful for this opportunity to make known Mrs P M Gisborne: Mr President, hon. members, I my objection to the granting of the planning order. In fact object to the granting of the Braddan (Middle Farm) the grounds for my objection are basically two, which have Planning Scheme Order 1998, as I consider the site to be been covered in much more detail by the two previous the worst that could possibly have been chosen on the speakers, so I do not think there would be much point in whole Island, since it will adversely affect the capital. In my reading through my somewhat brief draft, other than the event of a malfunction or accident, the placing of a to say that my first ground for objection, which has just mass burn incinerator on this site would provide the been touched on now, is that there is no provision within potential to cause the most damage to the greatest number the draft of the order which guarantees a public inquiry of people living and/or working in the Island. It would that will be held into detailed planning for the site. I find equally cause the most adverse visual impact to the greatest this is contrary to remarks made by the hon. minister for number of visitors and tourists. DoLGE on 15 January at a public meeting at the Mount The addition of heavy goods vehicle traffic in the area Murray Country Club when we were reviewing the of the site will cause congestion on the main thoroughfare environmental study which was done by his department. between the capital, the airport, its dormitory areas, Also I believe, as has been stated, that the advocate affecting the majority of residents and visitors. Braddan (Middle Farm) Planning Scheme Order 1998 — Objectors Heard — Debate Commenced • TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 T99

I would therefore consider it the worst possible site. The President: Mrs Kelly, welcome, please use the Thank you, Mr President. microphone. Proceed.

The President: Thank you, Mrs Gisbome. Now, are Mrs E Kelly: Mr President and hon. members of there any questions hon. members wish to address? Thank Tynwald, I should like you as members of Tynwald to vote you for your presentation. If you will hold a moment, Mrs against the planning scheme order 1998 for an incinerator Gisbome. The hon. Mr Henderson. at Middle Farm, Braddan. I feel a lot of people have been misled into believing Mr Henderson: Thank you, sir. I would just like you that we have no alternative other than to build an to expand on your health concerns. Could you perhaps incinerator, but how many people realise we are not explain a little more? building one incinerator but three: one mass burn, one for medical waste and one for animal waste? Do we really Mrs Gisborne: Yes. When I realised where the wind need three incinerators? blew and if anything should happen, which it does in every I would like to say most categorically that we do not mechanical thing, I was horrified to think that the whole need a mass burn incinerator. A mass burn incinerator will of Douglas, all the schools, the hospital, all the old people's encourage the production of waste, as it has to have a homes, the vast majority of the residents of the Island would minimum amount of waste to operate and is most efficient suffer. That is when I started to take this whole thing very when running at its capacity. The Hyder report stated that seriously indeed. this incinerator will produce 16,000 tonnes of waste ash per year which will have to be landfilled somewhere on Mr Henderson: Thank you. the Island. It will also produce an undisclosed amount of toxic ash, requiring a licence to be landfilled. The Hyder The President: Thank you very much, Mrs Gisbome. report also states that the air quality in the surrounding area is generally in line with targets set in the Isle of Man. Mrs Gisborne: Thank you. What targets are these and how stringent are they? It was also stated that added pollution from the incinerator would The President: The next petitioner please, learned be negligible. What exactly is negligible? Another obtuse Clerk. comment was 'The risk to health would be acceptable.' Excuse me, but what risk is acceptable? It should also be remembered that this site is less than a The Clerk: Mrs M Harrison. mile away from the site which was turned down 10 years Mrs M Harrison: ago because the land use did not conform with the Mr President, hon. members. development plan of the Island. Now suddenly it has been declared of national importance that the incinerator be sited The President: Welcome, please proceed. there and land is to be compulsorily purchased to achieve this aim. Mrs Harrison: I am a resident of Richmond Hill, have This government seems to be suiting itself rather than been for the last 18 years. We specifically chose the house acting in the best interests of the Island and its residents. that we live in now because of the beautiful views and the There are people here today who are acting in the best lovely open location. interests of the Island and its inhabitants. They are Though I am a layman, I do not understand the presenting themselves to you at this Bar of Tynwald to technology at all, I do agree with everything that my friends object to the siting and building of this incinerator. They have said and I have to add that I myself feel it would be a have not been paid huge sums of money to compile a report very injurious thing to put the incinerator where planned, to say what you want to hear. They have come in their as it would spoil the aesthetics of the place and, most own time and at their own expense because they know in particularly, it would be injurious to the health of the their hearts that building an incinerator is the wrong thing residents and the children. I go down to my own to do. grandchildren who are four years old and six years old Finally, when you are voting perhaps you could spare a and attend Kewaigue school and this seems to me a very thought for Terry Groves and Bernie May: they just did bleak outlook for them. not listen. Thank you.

The President: Now, are there any questions hon. The President: Thank you, Mrs Kelly. Now, are there members wish to pose? Well, thank you very much indeed any questions? The hon. member for Ayre. for your presentation. Mr Quine: Yes, indeed. Mrs Kelly, where do you live? Mrs Harrison: Thank you. Mrs Kelly: I live in Onchan, but I believe I will be in The President: Our next petitioners, learned Clerk, the fall-out zone. please. Mr Quine: Now, these matters that you referred to of The Clerk: Mr and Mrs Hatton. They do not appear to toxic ash, air quality, risk - were they addressed in the public be here, Mr President. Mrs E Kelly. inquiry?

Braddan (Middle Farm) Planning Scheme Order 1998 — Objectors Heard — Debate Commenced T100 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998

Mrs Kelly: Yes. environment - Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany and Holland - the majority of those countries Mr Quine: Thank you. get rid of their waste or they turn their waste into energy by incineration? Mr Karran: Is it not a well-known fact that the safest place to live is next to an incinerator and there is an optimal Mrs Kelly: No, they are also looking into new place where it is more dangerous to live and in fact it is alternatives, aren't they? We are a very small Island. We the two or three miles around an incinerator or where the have got, what, a population of 70,000 at the most. Unless wind is blowing that is the most dangerous place, so people you are planning on increasing it to 150,000 in some hidden in Onchan should be rather concerned about it? agenda here that you want a big incinerator for, we just do not need a big incinerator and just because other countries Mrs Kelly: That is true: they should be very concerned. in the world have been using them does not mean to say that they are going to continue to use them. It does not Mr Henderson: Could you explain a little more what mean to say that they are totally safe. We should be trying you mean by 'fall-out zone'? to lead the world and look into the most recent technology rather than just follow on. Mrs Kelly: Did I mention it? Mr Karran: Do you think, Mrs Kelly, that you could Mr Henderson: In a drop-out zone. support the principle with the hon. member for West Douglas who is saying that they are building these Mrs Kelly: Well, it is just when the smoke comes up incinerators in the middle of London and places like there, the chimney, goes round and lands, doesn't it? It does not that that would actually strengthen your case as far as the just go anywhere. It is where the wind blows it to. I do not location being in the wrong place to start off with, without think I mentioned that but, yes, it could be anywhere. But the principle of the incinerator, if they are talking about I think Onchan Head is particularly where the prevailing building incinerators in the cities of London and wind comes that way and that is where I live and that is Birmingham? where the smoke will land. Mrs Kelly: Personally, I do not think anywhere on the Mr Henderson: Okay, thank you. Island would be a good place for an incinerator.

Mr Karran: Mrs Kelly, isn't it a fact that what actually Mr Henderson: Could you, at a public inquiry, back happens is once it leaves the chimney it rises with the hot up what you are saying with health issues and toxic air and then it slowly, over the next two to three miles, emissions and so forth? Could you produce some facts starts coming back down to earth and the particles that and figures for an inspector at an inquiry, the group that have got most concern if the washers do not work right you are affiliated to? will be coming down within a two or three-mile radius? That is where the danger is. Mrs Kelly: I am sure they would be able to, yes, if we had the opportunity. Mrs Kelly: Thank you for answering Mr Henderson's question. Mr Rodan: Mrs Kelly, can you just clarify what you mean by 'smoke'? You used the word twice, 'smoke'. What Mr Downie: Mrs Kelly, I would just like to ask you are do you mean? you aware that there are about 11 incinerators currently being constructed in the United Kingdom? Two of the most Mrs Kelly: What do I mean by 'smoke'? I suppose I recent ones constructed are in the centre of London, and mean the pollution which comes out of the chimney. When the other is in the centre of Birmingham, and do you think you have a fire you usually get some sort of smoke. I know that given the technology available and the standards of in an incinerator it is slightly different but there will be the work team you are still not satisfied that we can some sort of pollution which will come out in the form of construct a plant here that will not be hazardous to people's a type of gas which may or may not look like smoke. If health? you look at Peel power station, that is not meant to have Mrs Kelly: Definitely, I do not think we could construct any smoke coming out of it, but it has big black clouds of anything, to be honest, but as usual you want to follow it. England blindly. Because they are building 11, that is okay, when obviously they do lots of things wrong and we follow Mr Rodan: But would you accept that the definition them and then it is wrong again. So I do not think we can of 'smoke' is it is solid particles suspended in air, the go by what England is doing. Just because they are doing suspension of solid particles? it does not mean to say it is right. Mrs Kelly: I am sorry but I have probably used the Mr Downie: But would you not agree that some of the wrong term. I hope you understand what I am talking about. countries in Europe who have the highest standards in their Emissions is what I am talking about, not smoke.

Braddan (Middle Farm) Planning Scheme Order 1998 — Objectors Heard — Debate Commenced TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 T101

Mr Rodan: Would you accept that there is a distinction location proposed, a site, you will recall, which had to be between smoke, which would comprise solid particles extended to accommodate a building of the size required.' which an incinerator is designed to trap and from being Perhaps at this point I can just mention - seeing the emitted? hon. member for Douglas West mentioned incinerators being built in such places as London and Birmingham - Mrs Kelly: Right, yes. I would accept that. It is not yes, they may well be, but those are very large urban areas really smoke, it is more emissions which are very fine requiring very substantial amounts of waste to be disposed particles. of. Here, we are in a small Island where an incinerator is not in my opinion the right solution for that size of waste. Mr Rodan: Thank you. There are alternatives which are particularly suited - and the one I have mentioned is one of them - to a small The President: Right, thank you very much for your community and it is tried and tested in those conditions. presentation, Mrs Kelly. The next petitioner, please, learned If I may now move to my second point, in paragraph 14 Clerk. of his letter the acting minister states: 'But, in reality, money paid in compensation reduces the funds available The Clerk: Mr D A C Lever. for the projects themselves. In this case in particular, therefore, money applied to which compensate The President: Welcome, Mr Lever. Please proceed, neighbouring owners for depreciation would unacceptably sir. Just you be comfortable anywhere you wish to be. reduce the funds available to construct and operate the plant Proceed. to the high standards to which Government is committed.' Government is proposing to amend drastically the use Mr D A C Lever: Thank you very much, this is fine. of the land as designated in the one public document on Mr President, hon. members of Tynwald Court, I appear which purchasers rely in order to ensure future enjoyment before you today in an attempt to avoid what I believe of their property and if their property is substantially would result in an injustice being done to a section of our reduced in value by government action, surely community by the passing of the Braddan (Middle Farm) compensation for the loss is not an unreasonable Planning Scheme Order 1998 today. expectation. Any such compensation should surely be In stating my case I will rely on two statements made regarded as part of the budgeted cost of the project and by the acting minister, the Hon MHK in should be taken into account when comparing the cost of his letter dated 16th September 1998 to the chief executive one proposal with another. of DoLGE. In paragraph 13 of his letter the acting minister Finally, I am concerned to find no mention - and this states: 'It is the role of the planning system to balance the has been said by, I think, just about every speaker - in the pressures for development on the one hand against the scheme order of a public inquiry having to be held when interests of neighbouring owners on the other, having detailed planning permission is sought. The advocate acting regard to the general public interest, and to ensure that the for DoLGE at the public inquiry assured the inspector on adverse effects of development are kept to a minimum.' I more than one occasion that such an inquiry would take do not disagree with this statement but I do feel strongly place, and I for one would feel that he had been misled if it that adverse effects of development can only be kept to a were not required to take place. minimum if at least the alternatives have been examined May I take this opportunity to make it clear that neither impartially and in depth, and tried and tested alternatives I nor BADAIR, of which I am a member, is trying to be do exist. One of these alternatives, known as a product obstructive or trying to delay a decision in this matter. We and energy centre or PEC, is the subject of a presentation are merely concerned that we end up with the best solution in some three weeks' time which I hope you will all be for the Island to what we acknowledge is a very difficult able to attend with an open mind. problem, and in fact the PEC plant which we are asking As one of the stated advantages over mass burn you to consider could be up and running much sooner than incineration is a much smaller building which can be a mass burn incinerator. I thank you for your indulgence. situated in an industrial estate, surely it is premature to consider the rezoning of land until you are able to decide The President: Thank you, sir. Now, the hon. Mr whether the alternative is indeed to be preferred. I must Downie. remind you that Mr Brinkworth, the inspector presiding over the public inquiry, stated in paragraph 203 of his Mr Downie: Thank you, Mr President, Mr Lever. Thank report, and I quote: 'My conclusion on the visual issue is you, Mr Lever for your contribution. You did mention the that a pleasant rural vista where every prospect pleases possibility of pursuing a PEC or plasma-torch plant. I would be changed permanently and irretrievably for the understand that you were given a copy of an environmental worse.' He continues: 'Unlike the former proposal lower report compiled by Environmental Resources Management down the valley, the effect on part of the landscape of high at the behest of the Braddan Commissioners. value and scenic significance would be unacceptable under the strictures of established planning principles. I suggest Mr Lever: That is true. therefore that nothing should be done which will affect the value of any property until it is finally decided to Mr Downie: Could I refer you to the first page of that approve a system which requires a site of the size and where the report quite clearly indicates that the downside

Braddan (Middle Farm) Planning Scheme Order 1998 — Objectors Heard — Debate Commenced T102 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 of these technologies is that they are still in the development Mr Henderson: Just to clarify, they are actually up and stage in so far as commercial size and feed stock is running at the minute servicing some sort of population? concerned and on the second page in the first paragraph the independent report quite clearly states: 'All this implies Mr Lever: As I understand it, yes, but I am sure Mr that there is no actual operational experience on full-scale Uhlenbrook will confirm it. plants.' Now, when we met recently I did indicate to you that the department were prepared to pursue a PEC plant The President: Now, before calling on the next and have as much information available for members of questioner I simply want to make the point that the principle this Court as possible. Would you not accept that the best has been established and we are dealing with the planning course of action for the Isle of Man is tried-and-tested and the people who are abusing that situation are members technology that we know is proven to be efficient and cost- of the Court. Proceed, the hon. member for Onchan, Mr effective and overall safe? Corkill.

Mr Lever: No, I would not accept that at all. I think Mr Corkill: Thank you, Mr President, and afternoon, what ERM were comparing was an incinerator of the Mr Lever. Moving away back to the actual planning order normal scale which, as I say, best operates in large and the process, are you aware that under the 1982 communities. As I said before, a PEC plant is ideal for development plan order in paragraph 8 - and this perhaps small communities. It is untried and untested for will clear up one of the points that you made - an application communities such as Birmingham and London where we by the Department of Local Government and the are talking of 100,000 to 150,000 tonnes. We are not talking Environment for planning approval shall be referred to a that amount here. The demonstration models are not much person appointed for the purpose, in other words an less, if less at all, than the size of plant we would be talking inspector, by the Governor in Council and the person so about now. appointed shall. In other words, with regard to the next But may I suggest that you attend the presentation and stage of planning, if this order is approved today, are you ask questions of the people who are technically equipped, aware that there would be an inspector appointed and a and I know that you have asked to meet them as members public inquiry for a detailed application to follow which of DoLGE separately, and we appreciate that, and what would then be considered by the Governor in Council? we are trying to give you is an opportunity to acquaint yourselves fully and to ask questions and hopefully get Mr Lever: I think from the number of people who have satisfactory answers to an alternative to mass burn already made this point and expressed their concern on incineration because basically a mass burn incinerator is this particular point we did not realise that there was such a large visually obtrusive plant. I know it is not the without any doubt a further stage at which a public inquiry place to go into it in any detail here and I will not, but I would be held and we would have the opportunity to raise think I should say it does require landfill, it does not questions on the detailed plans. If that is so and is confirmed completely solve that problem. A PEC will solve that in open court, well then that is good enough for me. problem, as explained in the note which I circulated to everyone. It does on the face of it have advantages. Mr Karran: Mr Lever, do you think that the way that Now, I am not a technician and most of you here, we the planning has gone has been fundamentally flawed are all in the same boat, but our concern is that you at least because of the department's refusal to look at alternative have the opportunity to consider an alternative and if you processes in order to get away from incineration and the consider that with an open mind and having examined it fact of the matter is that the minister has been invited to in depth if you decide that an incinerator mass burn for France to see one of these plants and has refused to go? whatever reason is the best solution for the Island, well Does that not highlight your concern that there is a then we will have to accept it, but we are just asking that commitment of not looking at the best planning use of this you take the final decision in the full knowledge of what area simply because of their refusal to look at all other is available on the market. alternative technologies?

The President: Mr Henderson. Mr Lever: Thank you, sir. It does leave us with a feeling that proper examination in depth has not been made of Mr Henderson: Thank you, sir. We heard that the PEC these new technologies and I say new because they have plants are only 'in developmental stage', but could you been developed in the last five years or so, so they were give this Court an example of one that is running, albeit in not available 10 years ago. We constantly come up with the development stage? the argument, 'They are not tried and tested and we will not inflict any form of risk on the Isle of Man people', but Mr Lever: I am not sure how many and maybe there as we have heard today, there are risks which are of concern are only two, three, five or six, but I understand there are to a number of people arising, rightly or wrongly, from the plants that are actually operating and I think Mr proposal to build a mass burn incinerator. Uhlenbrook who is following later has been into this in rather greater depth than I have and is in a far better position Mr Gilbey: Mr President, trying to keep purely to to answer that question, but as I understand it, these plants planning points, Mr Lever, from what you have said, is it have been operating and operating satisfactorily. correct that you would not, and neither would BADAIR,

Braddan (Middle Farm) Planning Scheme Order 1998 — Objectors Heard — Debate Commenced TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 T103 object to a PEC plant - the alternative you are that it also grants planning approval for this matter. The recommending - on this site and that you have also said if acting minister who dealt with this has made the point that it proved that a PEC plant just would not be suitable if that it is still subject to a public inquiry. I think it may be helpful, was proved to everyone's satisfaction, you would not object because this matter keeps being raised by those at the Bar, to the present proposal on this site? if we could have a ruling on that if it is appropriate at this time. Mr Lever: I would not object if the Court, having examined every other alternative in depth, stated the The President: Can you answer that query, Mr reasons fully as to why it came to its decision, I would not Attorney? object in those conditions. This is just one alternative that we have come across through our own researches privately. The Attorney-General: Mr President, thank you. We understand there are others. Whether they are more suitable, less suitable, I do not know, but to look at them The President: The learned Attorney-General. does not mean that it will hold back the provision of a facility to deal with the Island's waste, because the PEC The Attorney-General: If I may refer hon. members plant, for one thing, can be built within a year, some two and indeed the persons who have attended to make years earlier than a mass burn incinerator could be up and representations at the Bar of the Court to the text of the running, so it is no answer to say it would delay the building order, the order, as I interpret it, in essence creates three of a suitable facility. propositions, first of all that the land which is indicated on the plan is zoned for development and that the plan is to The President: The hon. member for Ayre. be construed by reference to the wording on the plan. That is the first point. Mr Quine: Yes, sir, I will return to the issue of Then the second point which is material is that technology, if I may, in the debate, but jumping to irrespective of any previous zoning, the department is planning - authorised to carry out the development - that is, the development as and all-Island integrated incinerator, storage building, access and site works - subject to certain The President: When we come to technology let us be conditions, and the conditions are those which are set out careful. I am not going to go past the fact that the principle in schedule 2 to the order and those conditions are matters has been accepted and we are dealing with this planning which are referred to as 'reserved matters'. order, so bear that in mind, hon. members. The hon. The third proposition, which is most important in this member for Ayre. context, is that the reserved matters are not, as it were, cut and dried at this stage. What has happened is that the order Mr Quine: Yes, I appreciate that. I am aware of it, but is identifying matters which are reserved and it is saying some members do not appear to be, sir. If I could just ask that the development shall not be commenced unless the Mr Lever, when did you move in to your present house, department has submitted particulars of the reserved Mr Lever? matters. Now, that is not the end of it and I do feel that the Mr Lever: Some four years ago. members of the public have put their fingers on a problem, well not a problem, they have put their fingers on a very Mr Quine: So that was post the 1989 issue when the important point which is whether or not these reserved Richmond Hill site as a possible site for incineration was matters, these detailed matters, can be considered further, discussed? and it says so in the order. It says that the matters will have to be referred to an inspector because it says that paragraph Mr Lever: It was. 8 of schedule 1 to the 1982 order, with which we are all familiar in principle in planning matters, applies in the usual Mr Quine: Thank you, sir. That is all I wanted. way where the department is an applicant for planning approval. As we know, where the department is an applicant The President: Well, thank you, sir, for your for planning approval a special regime has to be set up, we presentation. have to have a special inspector, and that is what is going to apply particularly in this case, that the public may be Mr Lever: Thank you, hon. members. assured that these reserved matters, these special conditions, will be referred to an inspector appointed for The President: Will you call our next witness, please, the purpose by the Governor in Council, and further learned Clerk? reference to the inspector will be advertised and persons who feel that they are affected by the development can Mr Brown: Mr President, may I ask point of order under make representations to the inspector in the usual way, standing order 2.7? As the matter has been raised by the and then of course it is for that inspector to make his report hon. member for Onchan, Mr Corkill, regarding the to the Governor in Council and the Governor in Council planning approval, I think it would be prudent if we were can either accept his report or reject it. able to be given guidance by the Attorney-General. The So I hope that has made it clear, sir. The position is that order that we have before us makes it clear, as I read it, there is a further stage to go and the members of the public

Braddan (Middle Farm) Planning Scheme Order 1998 — Objectors Heard — Debate Commenced T104 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 who have voiced their concern in this respect I think need am having some difficulty in capturing your eye under these have nothing to worry about if that is their only concern. circumstances, so if you would make it clear which hon. member wishes to question the petitioner I should be The President: Thank you. We proceed, hon. members, grateful. If you would just stand up and indicate, please, at and will you call your next witness, learned Clerk. this stage. Does any hon. member wish to pose a question to the petitioner? If not, thank you very much indeed, sir, The Clerk: Mrs J W Lever. for your presentation. The next petitioner, learned Clerk, please. The President: Welcome, Mrs Lever, would you please proceed. The Clerk: Mr R Pilling. Mr Pilling does not appear to be appearing, Mr President. Mr D Radcliffe. The Lord Bishop: She has not appeared. The President: Mr Radcliffe, welcome, please proceed. Mr Delaney: She is not here. Mr D Radcliffe: Thank you. Mr President, hon. The President: In that case I am afraid the shadow I members, although most of the points I want to make have saw at the doorway is caused by the sun; it is most unusual already been made, I will nonetheless briefly reiterate some to have sunlight in this place. of my concerns over the proposed means of dealing with waste on the Isle of Man for the next 20 to 25 years, i.e. The Clerk: I suspect, Mr President, that might be Mr L conventional mass burn incineration. N McCubbon. Firstly, the risk to public health. The main risk to public health from waste incineration has always been and Mr Delaney: Or his shadow: that was a spectre! remains exposure to dioxins and furons. These substances are amongst the most toxic known to man, with the The President: Now, Mr McCubbon, now you are potential to cause cancers and hormonal and genetic materialising may I welcome you and ask you to present disruption. Research into the effect of these toxins is an your petition. ongoing process, with the result that permitted emissions from incinerator stacks are now much lower than they were Mr A L McCubbon: Thank you, Mr President, hon. 10 or 20 years ago. members. As a landowner in the vicinity of the proposed Members are probably aware of the research published incinerator site I am seriously concerned about the in France in May of this year which predicts between 2,000 possibility of fall-out in the event of an accident during to 4,000 deaths annually in that country from cancers the operation of the plant. I farm the land and it would be directly which are directly attributable to exposure from seriously wasted if it could not produce food. I am also incinerator emissions. This amply demonstrates the risks concerned about the schools in the area and the possibility of a long-term waste incineration policy. of fall-out on the schoolchildren. Members may also be aware of the proposals published The majority of my argument was against the principle by the European Commission on October 7th of this year of incineration and, Mr President, you have eliminated that to limit emissions of dioxins, furons and heavy metals from argument, but I suspect you think there has not been a lot incinerators. Proposed legislation would reduce emissions of objection to it by the public but percentage-wise there by approximately 99 per cent relative to 1994 levels by probably was not a big percentage of followers of the ban the year 2005. This is probably in response to statistics the bomb in a percentage of the population, but it did not such as those which were obtained in France. Adherence mean to say the bomb was right, did it? So does it mean to to these standards would inevitably add to the cost of an say that incineration is right? So I think an opportunity to incinerator facility on the Island. come here and give my views on incineration would have I am also concerned about the threat to Manx agriculture. been nice, but I am afraid if it is not part of the argument, If incinerator emissions exceed the permitted levels even then I can say not a lot about it. on isolated occasions this could lead to a gradual build-up I would say that personally I would have no objection of toxins in local farm produce, eventually making it to a recycling plant on that site. My argument is the unsaleable. There have been numerous cases of incinerator principle of the destruction of raw materials which will be emissions contaminating farmland. In Northern France this needed by future generations, the possibility of burning year the amount of dioxin in milk was found to exceed organic materials which is the topsoil of the land to be maximum permitted levels, with serious effects for the local wasted. When chemical fertilisers are not acceptable or dairy industry. What assurances do we have that such a not desirable we will need this organic fertiliser and waste situation will not occur here in years to come? and we are going to burn it, probably from the IRIS scheme Finally, use of a mass burn incinerator to my mind is a as well, and I think it is unacceptable. Thank you. vast waste of resources. The current proposal by the Department of Local Government is to take all the waste The President: If you would please wait a moment, and burn it. Inevitably a great deal of potentially recyclable sir. Could the attendant at the back please draw that back and uninflammable material would be lost and buried in curtain so that I can see into the Court? I am sorry, the the ash landfill site. This will effectively kill off any right-hand one please from this point. Hon. members, I incentive to recycle materials.

Braddan (Middle Farm) Planning Scheme Order 1998 — Objectors Heard — Debate Commenced TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 T105

There is currently no provision, to my knowledge, for a accepted these criticisms and asked that further work be composting plant to accompany the incinerator. This is one undertaken to establish the true figures, yet the order does of the recommendations of the Mott MacDonald report on not recognise this and still talks in terms of 60,000 tonnes. preferred incineration sites. Less tonnage means less cost, and as the inspector points The Department of Local Government does not appear out in his report, a building of lesser size. Without the true to have looked seriously at alternatives to mass burn figures Tynwald is in danger of approving another abattoir: incineration. This is a serious concern, particularly as an overcapacity and overpriced. alternative strategy could well prove to be cheaper and Secondly, all the other sites for an incinerator would more efficient and safer. Mr Lever has already mentioned have contained a composting unit, and this excluded the PEC plant which a company is coming over to give a Richmond Hill. As Richmond Hill was then chosen for presentation on in the near future. The research that I have reasons of political expediency, the composting unit was seen shows that these plants certainly emit a great deal quickly dropped. Yet when it was deemed necessary later less pollutant as well as producing up to 50 per cent more to expand the site into Middle Farm and more land was to usable energy, as well as producing saleable covered be made available, the composting scheme was not materials. I certainly think it is incumbent upon this Court reinstated and it is still not part of DoLGE's plans. to look carefully at these alternatives before going ahead Composting costs of less than £30 per tonne are far less with the incinerator as it now stands. Thank you for your than incineration. attention. We should have been composting putrescible organic waste for many years now, as it is the major source of The President: Thank you, sir. Are there any questions leachates in landfill and is causing unknown damage to to the petitioner? If there are no questions, thank you, sir, the marine environment around the Ayres and from being for your presentation. Our next petitioner, learned Clerk, pumped into Peel Bay after collection from The Raggatt. please. Putrescible organic waste is especially bad for incineration as it is predominantly water. It thus requires energy to burn The Clerk: Mr J Rimington. rather than giving energy. If you take the organic waste out of the incinerator stream it reduces the tonnage to about The President: Please use the mike, Mr Rimington. 35,000 tonnes: a smaller building, less cost and more energy. Neither this scheme order nor DoLGE appear to Mr J Rimington: Right. Mr President, sir, hon. have addressed this vital issue. members, this scheme order is progressed under the 1934 Perhaps the worst omission from this order is the health Town and Country Planning Act. The inquiry was not held issue. Incineration of plastics and other man-made under the 1981 Town and Country Planning Act, and there compounds combine with oxygen to create chemicals is a subtle difference here because the 1981 Town and which are potentially damaging to human health. Dioxins Country Planning Act allows you to question, discuss, and furons are well publicised, yet there are more chemicals evaluate matters of general importance to the Island, whose effects are unknown and there are yet even more whereas the 1934 Act focuses much more narrowly on the chemicals whose existence is unknown, let alone their planning issues of rezoning the land. Thus the objectors' effects. Many of these chemicals are already in our concerns about the policy of incineration held very little environment from man's activities and I believe we should weight at the inquiry. not be deliberately adding to them. This is why so many In planning terms the incinerator project was clearly of us are keen to promote a different technology which rejected by the inspector in his report. He agreed with incinerates without oxygen, like making charcoal, and does Douglas Corporation that it would be a massive visual not create such toxic chemicals. intrusion and wrote in his own words that it would be a The expert medical witnesses from both sides at the monstrous building with an uncompromising chimney. He inquiry highlighted the lack of a health profile of the only recommended it for approval because DoLGE came population in the surrounding area. You cannot measure to the inquiry armed with a resolution of Tynwald on May or monitor the health effects of the incinerator as it operates 1996 stating that it was of overriding national importance. over the years if you do not have a starting point. The So as you consider this matter, please do not delude inspector recognised this in his report. The toxic chemicals yourselves that the scheme has some form of planning which are of both public and medical concern accumulate acceptability, as it was only by your resolution that it was in the fatty tissue of the body and are in high concentrations approved. The objectors were not in a position to challenge in mother's milk, thus posing a danger to foetal or discuss this overriding national importance at the inquiry development. I do not believe you can morally approve and I would conclude that the inquiry was heavily weighted this order without a clear commitment to undertake that in DoLGE's favour and that the proper planning process health profile, a crucial part of which can be done relatively was abused and today's order has a rather weak legitimacy. quickly by an analysis of lactating mother's milk. There are serious omissions in the order which I think My final point is the matter of cost. There has been no make it unsatisfactory. financial analysis presented to either Tynwald or the public Firstly, I presented evidence to the inquiry which as to the capital and running costs of the - showed that DoLGE's figures of 57,000 tonnes for waste to be incinerated were grossly exaggerated and that 43,000 The President: Excuse me, sir. Costs, as far as I am tonnes was more realistic. The inspector in his report has aware, do not come into the planning operation such. We

Braddan (Middle Farm) Planning Scheme Order 1998 — Objectors Heard — Debate Commenced T106 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 are getting onto costings now. Costings are not involved Mr Rimington: Well, with respect, sir, it is a bit of a in relation to the planning. It is foreign, in other words, to cop-out. It is Tynwald's body to decide on the site, subject the business we are discussing, so if you could confine to the department's recommendations. It was rather yourself to the issue, please continue. convenient that you were able to use the local authorities to help you in this direction. Mr Rimington: Okay, sir. If I may just make one last point which was raised in the debate earlier by some of Mr Gilbey: I asked, Mr President, a direct question: the members in terms of siting. was it the preferred site of the majority of local authorities which is what you have said would lead anyone to The President: Yes, usually out of order, understand to be the case? When it is a straight question, was it or wasn't it? Mr Rimington: Pardon? Mr Rimington: Yes. The President: Often out of order. Mr Gilbey: It was. Thank you very much. Mr Rimington: In terms of the siting of the incinerator, it would be my own personal opinion, and this would be The President: Are there any further questions? The something which members might find hard to grasp, and I hon. member for Ayre. would join with Dr Howard who spoke at the public inquiry against an incinerator, if you are going to site it the best Mr Quine: Is it not a fact the position that you approach place is in the middle of the biggest town you have got this from, Mr Rimington, is quite simple: you are opposed because the pathway for pollution from the site is to incineration? predominantly through the food chain through the effect of the chemicals going into agriculture and through then Mr Rimington: That is true. into the food chain, and yes, there is an effect through inhalation but it is minor. So if you put it in the middle of Mr Quine: That is true. Thank you very much. the town you get the greatest benefit in terms of reducing the pollution in utilising the heat and cutting down the Mr Delaney: Can I ask a question? transport element, but I appreciate that hon. members might find that a bit difficult. The President: Certainly, sir. The President: Thank you, Mr Rimington. Now, are there any questions? The hon. member for Glenfaba. Mr Delaney: Whereabouts on Richmond Hill or anywhere near that do you live, Mr Rhnington? Mr Gilbey: Mr President, Mr Rimington said that Richmond Hill had been chosen as a matter of political Mr Rimington: Nowhere near it, sir, in the south of expediency. Would he explain what he means, particularly the Island. bearing in mind that it was the preferred site of the department no less than 10 years ago when the hon. Mr Brown: Mr President, could I ask Mr Rimington? member of the Council, Mr Delaney, was minister? You made reference to a concern you had about the inquiry being held under the 1934 Act. Could you please clarify Mr Rimington: Since that point 10 years ago the Island your concern on that for me, please? seems to have been littered with sites for waste management of one sort or another which have not come Mr Rimington: Well, I believe and I am quite sure that to any fruition. The previous one - well, there was White it is quite legitimate and right and proper for it to be held Hoe, Stoney Mountain and so on. To be precise why that under that Act, the effect of it being, though, that it was chosen was at the meeting of the local authorities or narrowed the focus of the debate, and I believe it was Mr representatives of local authorities which was held in the Vannan in the press, or the department, said quite Manx Museum and which I attended, and it was a rather categorically, 'This inquiry is not about incineration', as loose and imprecise discussion that took place and it was indeed this discussion here today is not meant to be about limited not to support for incineration but to 'Well, which incineration, it focuses purely on the planning issues. So site do you think we could get away with best or which under the 1981 Act the terms of reference for special site would the majority prefer?' and out of that meeting inquiries are broader and allow a broader discussion of was built up this great political legitimacy for the siting at the general principles which we were unable to partake of Richmond Hill. at this particular inquiry.

The President: A further question. Mr Brown: Can I then through you, Mr President, just really clarify? Do you accept that the Town and Country Mr Gilbey: Mr President, I would continue and ask a Planning Act 1934 and all the Acts up to and including further question: in which case are you admitting it is the 1991 are read as one Act? preferred site of the majority of local authorities in this Island? Mr Rimington: I have to take your word on that.

Braddan (Middle Farm) Planning Scheme Order 1998 — Objectors Heard — Debate Commenced 0 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 T107

Mr Brown: If I can advise you of that, and the actual The Speaker: Do you consider that the duties of a local matter that was before the inspector, and I am now looking authority are to look after the interests of the people within at his report, was Report of an Inquiry into a Proposal for their boundaries? an All-Island Integrated Incinerator Facility at Middle Farm, Braddan. So that was actually what he was being Mr Rimington: Yes. asked to look at and you are saying that you were restricted from dealing with that issue. The Speaker: Do you consider it possible then that the commissioners of Bride, for example, or the commissioners Mr Rimington: From day one the department said that of your own authority at Rushen would in that case have this was not an inquiry about incineration, it was an inquiry been casting their preference for Braddan rather than north about the rezoning of the land for an incinerator. or south of the Island?

Mr Brown: Could I ask you what did the inspector say Mr Rimington: Undoubtedly, sir. because the department of course was a party to it, not the inspector? The Speaker: Thank you, Mr President.

Mr Rimington: I cannot remember his words exactly Mr Rimington: I abstained. but he allowed it to develop out where it was necessary in terms of the conditions that he might have to impose in air The President: Thank you very much, sir, for your quality et cetera but he was not interested in consideration presentation. Our next petitioner, please, learned Clerk. of the process by which this site was approved or was the policy legitimate or sensible under the circumstances or The Clerk: Mr J Ryan. any other such matters. It was quite tightly focused. The President: Welcome, Mr Ryan, please use the mike Mr Brown: You would accept - sorry, Mr President, if you wish. through you - that if there is a policy adopted by Tynwald Court and then it is a matter for a public inquiry, for Mr J Ryan: Certainly. example, in terms of a planning issue, then in fact the inspector is likely to take note of the policy of the Isle of The President: Proceed, sir. Man Parliament? Mr Ryan: I think the majority of my points have Mr Rimington: Yes, I accept that, sir. What I am actually been covered quite ably by the previous speakers, pointing out is the reason for approval of this order by the so, Mr President and hon. members, I would just like to inspector was one item only which was your resolution of say that I was interested by, I think, Mr Downie's comment saying it was of overriding national importance, but that about the fact that these are being built in great numbers issue of overriding national importance was not a subject throughout Europe in France, Germany, Switzerland. I have for discussion at the inquiry. So you had - well, I am not lived in all of those countries and one of the things that saying you, sir - but the department had a pretty good go has been particularly noticeable is that they are combining of it. incineration with recycling and recycling is pushed very heavily, particularly in some of those countries. Mr Brown: Could I then ask again, Mr President, do I think one of the things that I am here to talk about you accept that when Tynwald adopted the policy of really is the impact on the value of my house. I will be incineration it was not site-specific? quite frank. I live quite close to where this will be and it seems to me that it is being built because it is the quickest and easiest route to go. The size of the thing is governed Mr Rimington: I do, although the department at the by the fact that it is going to be a mass burn and no thought inquiry did its best to make it look site-specific. of recycling or composting has been really seriously considered, and I would like the members, please, to Mr Brown: Do you accept that the Tynwald policy was consider this. not site-specific? Also from my own viewpoint I came to the Island just a little over four years ago and bought a house quite in the Mr Rimington: Yes. country, as I thought, and was told, 'Well, you don't have to worry: this is a green belt area, there are no other plans The President: The hon. Mr Speaker. for this area', and I was told about the possibility of the incinerator but it was going to be at Foxdale. So I think it The Speaker: Mr Rimington, you indicated in response is quite a surprise to find that perhaps 35 per cent of the to Mr Gilbey that in fact the majority of the local authorities value of my property is to be written off as a result of preferred this site. Is that correct? building this incinerator. So it is really primarily on the issue of compensation that I come to speak to you here. Mr Rimington: Yes. 'Preference' is probably not the I would like to also add that I think the impact on traffic right term but the least unacceptable. around where I live will also be quite considerable.

Braddan (Middle Farm) Planning Scheme Order 1998 — Objectors Heard — Debate Commenced T108 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998

I do not have any other points that have not already which would in turn render the land unsuitable for food been ably put. Thank you. production or sustaining livestock for an unknown period of time. The President: The hon. Mr Delaney. Secondly, we consider that in the event of any of the foregoing scenario occurring, the aspect of compensation Mr Delaney: Hello, Mr Ryan. to landowners and tenants who are affected has not been adequately addressed. In his report the acting minister, in Mr Ryan: Hello. his planning scheme order, dismissed this question of compensation by making reference to being advised that Mr Delaney: I was interested about when you first came any damage to land caused by the plant affecting its four years ago to buy your property and you were told suitability for agriculture might be the subject of legal there were no plans for around this area when we all know action for damages. We contend that this will be an exercise and everybody else knew there were specific footprints well removed from the financial capabilities of the average being laid in that area. Who told you this? Manx fanner, and the suggestion that one sues the Manx Government in a court of law is such as to preclude our Mr Ryan: The advocates that were dealing with my members from procuring any form of compensation should purchasing of the house. this prove necessary. We believe that the Manx Government has a duty of care to safeguard the agricultural value of Mr Delaney: I suggest you may have redress of the Manx countryside and would therefore urge this hon. grievance. Court to carefully consider the implications before voting on this proposal. Mr Ryan: I may well, yes, indeed, but I think at that I would conclude with the sentence, 'The future of our time Foxdale was very much the preferred site. Thank you green and pleasant land is in your hands.' Thank you for all very much. your time and consideration.

The President: Any further question? I think that is The President: Now, are there any questions from the all, sir, so thank you very much indeed for your floor? The hon. member for Ayre. presentation. Mr Quine: Yes, just one, really. Your representations Mr Ryan: Thank you. were considered at the public inquiry held by the inspector?

The President: Our next petitioners, please, learned Mr Sleight: Yes. Clerk. Mr Quine: Thank you. The Clerk: Mr I Sleight and Mr J F Crellin. Mr Gilbey: Is it not true that the MNFU are opposed to The President: Welcome, gentlemen, the microphone an incinerator wherever it goes? is there: please help yourselves. Proceed. Mr Sleight: That is the policy of the union, yes. Mr I Sleight: Eaghtyrane, hon. members, Thank you for affording me the opportunity to address this hon. Court Mr Gilbey: So your main objection is against the on behalf of the Manx National Farmers Union with regard principle of incineration rather than the siting? to the proposed incineration facility at Richmond Hill. As the designated official body representing the Mr Sleight: Both. agricultural industry of the Isle of Man we have had extensive discussions at branch and committee levels on The President: That was not the hon. witness's numerous occasions on this subject matter. We have also statement, sir. You are leading him. Any further questions? made submissions to the planning authorities at all stages The hon. member Mr Karran. of the planning process, whilst considering those made by other interested parties both for and against the proposal. Mr Karran: You said about the fact that the land around Our submissions have been made in relation to two main there is pretty productive and that. How far do you believe concerns. that the land would be affected by the building of an First, the question of the siting of the incinerator facility incinerator, allowing for the fact that we are building it in would, because of the topography of the site, indicate that the valley and the fact that it is just south of the capital? in the event of a malfunction, whether it be through human error or failure of the incinerator system, mean the Mr Sleight: Well, I can refer you to the Chernobyl likelihood of contamination of surrounding land which disaster which is still affecting the agricultural industry would be a distinct possibility. Similarly, dependent upon over here on one hill in particular. That is thousands of the prevailing wind direction and associated speed, this miles away, so it could affect the UK or anywhere else contamination could cause serious long-term toxification apart from the Isle of Man. So it is not just here it could of a significant area of the Island's agricultural land bank affect, it could be anywhere.

Braddan (Middle Farm) Planning Scheme Order 1998 — Objectors Heard — Debate Commenced TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 T109

Mr Karran: And did you have any points as far as the Mr Downie: Well, I will speak to Mr Crellin afterwards. climatic situation, of the fact that if there is low cloud and that it can increase the concentration of any pollution that Mrs Hannan: No, we should have the answer, surely. does come out on the surrounding land? You are aware of that, are you? The President: Do you wish to pose a question?

Mr Sleight: Oh, yes. We have read all the submissions Mrs Hannan: The question has been posed, but the main points that we have made are the two that I Eaghtyrane. It is not a question for one person. Surely the have just spoken about now. question should be answered to the Court. Mr Downie is suggesting that he will talk to Mr Crellin afterwards. He Mr Karran: And for anybody who has got a farm in has posed the question in front of this Court. Surely, if Mr that area it will almost certainly make what is a virtually Crellin can answer the question, Mr Crellin should answer impossible job at the moment, to make ends ends meet in the question to the Court. farming, impossible if this planning goes through. The President: There is no question about that. Mr Sleight: Well, on that area basis we were going to consider that any form of fall-out on the land, regardless Mr Cannell: Mr President, surely these witnesses are of the dioxins or whatever, if it gets into the food chain it appearing jointly. will go through the animal, the animal will become contaminated and therefore that animal or food or whatever The President: Will you once again pose that question, it be would be unsaleable and it would give the whole Mr Downie. agricultural industry on the Isle of Man a bad name. Mr Downie: Certainly. I would like to ask the Mr Karran: And could I just ask you then, finally, that representatives of the MNFU, bearing in mind that there if an incinerator, whilst being against it, was put at, say, is somewhere in the region of 2,000 tonnes of animal waste the Point of Ayre where there is more distance between produced on the Isle of Man every year as a result of the good fertile land, your objections would be less than they agriculture industry, together with a considerable amount are? of diseased, fallen animals, and animals which are due to be culled due to BSE, would you not agree with me that it is of national importance that we get on with the incinerator Mr Sleight: Well, as I said before, the policy is against and use the best practical means to establish it on this site incineration but I would concede that there would be a on Richmond Hill? possibility that the emphasis might shift. The President: Reply, sir. Or your colleague may reply Mr Karran: That would answer the points that they if he wishes. are trying to make out that you are totally against it. Right. Mr J F Crellin: First of all I would like to say that I do Mr Downie: I understand you have come along today not see that this is directly involved with the planning to represent the Manx National Farmers Union and the application for this site. agricultural industry. Secondly, it is pertinent to note that the Island is already dealing with this problem adequately, I believe. It is Mr Sleight: Correct. exporting a lot of the culled stock and it is managing to cope with the fallen stock at the facility at Litt's. Mr Downie: Could I ask you then, if this application Thirdly, there may well be need for an incinerator to for an incinerator on this site is not successful, what plans deal with animal waste, but that does not necessarily mean does your industry have to deal with the 2,000 tonnes of that we require one to deal with general household waste, animal waste and the diseased and fallen animals and those which is the main issue that we are concerned about, as subject to the BSE cull? this is the one that leads to potential contamination of farmland. Mr Sleight: That is not actually for us to say, I would say. The President: Are there any further questions? The hon. member for Ramsey. Mr Downie: Well, would you not accept that, as this government has a responsibility at the moment to dispose Mr Singer: Thank you, Mr President. You mentioned of the waste products from your industry, what we are that there would be a possibility of animals around the trying to do in establishing a facility on this site is we are site, the present site, being contaminated with dioxins and using the best possible means and practice to progress it? becoming unsaleable. Do you have any examples of areas around any other incinerators where animals have become Mr Sleight: I will say on the point that I have not long unsaleable because of fall-out? been in this job and that Mr Crellin is more au fait with what has been going on, so if it is okay with you, I will ask Mr Crellin: There have certainly been cases in Holland him to answer the question. where milk has proved unsaleable in the vicinity of

Braddan (Middle Farm) Planning Scheme Order 1998 — Objectors Heard — Debate Commenced T110 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 incinerators as a result of the animals ingesting subcontractor Geotechnics. It says about the ground water contaminated herbage. - I quote: Tor the deeper substructure excavations, the presence of the confined groundwater pressures within the Mr Singer: Are there any nearer home than Holland? bedrock will need to be considered'. About the foundations of a waste incinerator the report Mr Crellin: Not that I personally know of. states in paragraph 9.1, page 12 - I quote: 'The foundation loads are generally high, possibly up to a meganewton per The President: Are there any further questions? square metre load for the chimney', which is about the equivalent of a hundred metric tonnes per square metre. Mr Crellin: Could I just add that there was a plant near Further it says: 'For more heavily loaded structures, like Glasgow which was incinerating toxic waste and that was the chimney, or where tight settlement tolerances are certainly implicated in contamination of livestock. But it needed, pile foundations probably extending down to the was a matter that finally ended in the farmer becoming bedrock will be required.' But that report also states: 'The bankrupt as he attempted to prove the responsibility lay results of nine point load tests all indicate very weak with Rechem International. bedrock.' The introduction to this report on page 1 concludes: 'It The President: Well, thank you, gentlemen, for your should be noted that the recent ground investigations have presentation and we move on to the next witness. Learned been scoped to give an indication of ground conditions at Clerk, will you call the next witness, please. the site but' - my emphasis - 'do not provide all the information that may be needed for a detailed design. The Clerk: Mr G W Uhlenbrook. Further ground investigations therefore will probably be required.' The President: Welcome, sir, and please use the Considering the adverse conditions of what is called microphone if you wish. the waste management site reported by Hyder, DoLGE ordered an investigation to be carried out on the adjacent Mr G W Uhlenbrook: Mr President, hon. Court, hon. farmland in September 1997, the result of which was members, thank you very much for the opportunity to reported in December 1997. The reasons for moving their appear before this hon. Court and give my opinion. investigations to that new site were given in the I would like to draw your attention to one important Geotechnics report, page 4, because the original site had question which was not addressed in the rezoning inquiry the following problems: confined ground water pressures in May: whether the ground conditions underlying the in the glacial gravels and bedrock, the excavation of scheme area are unfavourable for the construction of very putrescible waste and landfill gas. The problems of the heavy and tall buildings of the waste incinerator. If they putrescible waste and the landfill gas are well known and are unfavourable, this will have considerable cost must have been taken into account when the site was implications and it should be known before any further selected. So the decisive factor must have been the ground endorsement is given to this site. water pressure and its effect on the pile foundations needed In the evidence given by the DoLGE to that inquiry to support the heavy structures. nothing was said about underlying ground conditions. This The report says - paragraph 10.3, page 25 - 'It should was the only area covered by the report of Hyder, the be borne in mind, however, that given the presence of the consultants of the department, to which no reference was confined ground water pressures in the glacial gravels, the made and for which no expert witness was present. appropriate pile type will need careful selection. In the However, there is one paragraph in the proof of evidence long term the confined ground water may force a seepage to this inquiry given by the principal engineer of Hyder path upwards.' which may be relevant. He says in paragraph 4.2: 'The It is worth noting that the DoLGE did not submit any outline plan layout prepared by Fichtner Consulting proof of evidence as regards the ground investigations, Engineers' - who are the waste incinerating engineers - nor were these investigations discussed at the inquiry. `took account of sometimes conflicting requirements of These technical issues were considered to be outside the the various environmental constraints. Their proposal remit of the public inquiry about rezoning. The appointed represents a practical concept that addresses the various inspector had been given to understand that there would environmental constraints pertinent to the proposed site.' be a special inquiry on these issues when the definitive I ask this Court, what is this consultant talking about? design of the buildings and their specific siting would be The written evidence of Fichtner gives no clue as to discussed. However, the scheme order before this hon. what is meant by these 'various environmental constraints'. Court has no provision for such a special inquiry other Volume 3(1) of the Hyder report entitled 'Design Basis than that the plans listed in the reserved matters - schedule and Plant Descriptions' makes no reference to the ground 2, paragraph 3(1) - have to be approved by the Governor conditions or the foundations. But they must have been in Council. That effectively rules out any further say by taken into account in preparing the outline plant layout Tynwald as a body and it irrevocably ties the construction and therefore may at least be part of the constraints to which of a waste incinerator to this site. the principal engineer refers. No comparative cost estimates were given to Tynwald Volume 3(6) of the Hyder report, paragraph 9.5, page about the various sites on the Island. If this site was selected 13 describes the ground investigations carried out by the on the basis of a cost feasibility study, the figures have

Braddan (Middle Farm) Planning Scheme Order 1998 — Objectors Heard — Debate Commenced TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 T111 certainly not been made public. It is common knowledge As a compromise and to ensure a democratic safeguard that this site was chosen only because it was next door to against these uncertainties at this stage, there should be at the so-called waste management site. This choice has so least a stipulation in the scheme order before you. I far proved to be costly. The figure now given by the hon. understand from the Attorney-General that an independent member for Ayre is over £37 million, an increase of about inspector will be appointed and that the members of the El 1 million over the previous figure. What about this public will have the right to make representation. However, additional £11 million? What part of this additional £11 it should still be clarified whether these representations million is site specific? are only in writing or in meeting, verbally. Without this, The hon. members may be interested to know that the Tynwald will effectively have surrendered any democratic new waste incinerator built in the Shetlands and soon to control over this project, to the detriment of sound financial be commissioned cost about £15 million for a capacity of policy. Thank you, Mr President. 40,000 tonnes. That is one third of the cost budgeted for the Richmond Hill incinerator. The President: Thank you, sir. The hon. member for Ayre. The President: Once again, sir, we are not going into the issue of cost this afternoon. Mr Quine: Thank you. You attended the public inquiry, sir, didn't you? Mr Uhlenbrook: Well, I think the cost has a direct bearing to the site, or the site has a direct bearing to the Mr Uhlenbrook: Yes, for all day, every day. cost. That is what I am trying to explain. The hon. members must also be aware that the inquiry Mr Quine: Yes, and these matters that you have referred inspector Mr Brinkworth only recommended approval of to us, you have addressed us on, were raised at the public the scheme order because Tynwald had declared a national inquiry? need for incineration - paragraph 204 - and Tynwald had named a part of the scheme area as a site for the incinerator Mr Uhlenbrook: No, they were not. The ground report - paragraphs 166 and 169. He did not, however, endorse was not raised. the choice of the site. In fact he said it was unacceptable under established planning principles - paragraph 203. Mr Quine: The ground report was not raised. Now, I However, he had been instructed not to consider the relative am advised that this matter of ground conditions was in merits of other sites. He adds in paragraph 166 - this is the fact raised. inspector's report - 'I should also say that I did not find the applicant's explanation for ignoring the Mott Mr Uhlenbrook: It was not. MacDonald sites convincing, nor adequate explanation why this site was selected in preference to others in that Mr Quine: But let me just go on to the second question. report, except that White Hoe was for political reasons. To The issue of ground conditions would be a matter for spend an extra £11 million to build an incinerator on a site detailed planning. Is that correct? which is unsuitable technically and in planning terms but politically convenient will not be ignored.' Mr Uhlenbrook: Yes. The same applies to the plans for the use of energy from waste. There is no evidence that the investment costs for Mr Quine: Yes, thank you. the project have been included. If there is any merit in a waste incinerator, it is that it produces some heat which Mr Uhlenbrook: But they are relevant to the site. can be used for generating electricity and district heating. The further this district heating is removed from the heat The President: The hon. member for Onchan. source, the higher the cost of investments and operation and the lower the benefit and justification. Has this Court Mr Karran: Can I just ask you, sir, with the track record been informed of all the design details of the district heating the department has had as far as getting the costs wrong, scheme and cost? what hope do you yourself see of us actually getting the In conclusion I would like to say that if the hon. Court planning done on the right basis, that there has been a full accept the Braddan (Middle Farm) Planning Scheme Order 1998 without having seen and debated the definitive account taken into account of all the other issues, such as designs of the whole project and its specified cost estimates getting rid of the water, the waste water that is produced and compared these with those of other sites, it is highly from the site? premature. In fact it puts the cart before the horse. It may also cause further delay to this project. Mr Uhlenbrook: Well, we are in uncertain territory By approving the scheme order as proposed, Tynwald because we really do not know - at least the public does effectively surrenders any future financial control over this not know, maybe the department know things that we do project and will find its hands tied later when additional not know or that this Court does not know - what the funds are requested. In fact approving this scheme order conditions are and what it would cost to put them right. Of without a comparative cost analysis of alternative sites is course one can build a waste incinerator on that site. One equivalent to signing a blank cheque to DoLGE. can build it on the moon if you have money.

Braddan (Middle Farm) Planning Scheme Order 1998 — Objectors Heard — Debate Commenced T112 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998

Mr Karran: Would you agree with me that the whole were no serious malfunction, with a resulting affair, as far as the basis of this public inquiry is concerned, environmental disaster as well as the time bomb health has been based on the end justifying the means and that as impact for the centre of population; (5) the Island's far as that is concerned, the government has a moral agriculture is an important part of the economy and any obligation and if they want to gerrymander the situation, risk to that industry should be very seriously considered. then they should pay out compensation to these people I urge this Court to think again or at least consider a because of the fact that they are not looking at it from a method of incineration that does not incorporate a chimney level playing-field? threatening an environmental sword of Damocles. In addition, may I read the refusal of a planning Mr Uhlenbrook: Well, I would strongly recommend application by Manx Flora, dated 18th April 1998. It was against building on this site and therefore the matter of refused by the Department of Local Government and the compensation really should not come into it. Environment on the following grounds: 'This development will constitute (a) a gross and unwarranted departure from The President: Now, you did pose a question, sir, which the Isle of Man development plan and (b) an undesirable I think the learned Attorney-General is quite prepared to visual impact within an area of high landscape value and answer. scenic significance. As such it would be contrary to the department's policies and the provisions of the Isle of Man The Attorney-General: Thank you, Mr President. In planning scheme development plan. There is no evidence answer to the specific inquiry raised by Mr Uhlenbrook, to demonstrate that foul sewage from the proposed the position in relation to the procedure before the inspector development can be satisfactorily disposed of.' And this will be that the inspector will invite representations in application applied to field number 0055 adjacent to the writing in the first place, both from the people who wish pulverisation plant, Middle Farm. Thank you, Mr President. to make representations and from the department, and having considered those representations, the inspector will The President: Thank you, Lady Walker. Are there any then give to the department and to persons who have made questions to the petitioner? The hon. member for Ayre. representations an opportunity to appear before him and to make oral representations and to call witnesses. So it Mr Quine: I had some difficulty hearing Lady Walker, will be very similar, as I apprehend it, to the procedure sir. But could you just clarify for me, that application you which applied at the first hearing before the inspector. referred to, what was it for?

Mr Uhlenbrook: Thank you very much. Lady Walker: It was from Manx Flora Limited and it was an application for the approval in principle to develop The President: That answers your question, sir, I think. land to form a commercial industrial estate, field number The hon. member for Glenfaba. 0055 adjacent to the pulverisation plant Middle Farm.

Mr Gilbey: This is a very quick, simple question for Mr Quine: Thank you. Mr Uhlenbrook: how close do you live to the proposed site? The President: Are there any other questions? If not, thank you for your presentation. Would you call the next Mr Uhlenbrook: I live on the other side of the Island. petitioner, learned Clerk, please.

Mr Gilbey: Thank you. The Clerk: Mr M Whipp.

The President: I think that concludes our questioning, The President: Welcome, Mr Whipp. Would you please sir, to you. Thank you very much for your presentation. use the microphone. Proceed, sir. Call the next witness, learned Clerk, please. Mr M Whipp: Carnane Farms Limited, as owner of The Clerk: Sir James and Lady Walker. the proposed incinerator site, and Barony Farms Limited who own a thousand acres of the surrounding land, strongly The President: Welcome, Lady Walker, would you object to the granting of this scheme order because it is please proceed. creating a potential environmental disaster, the complex is visually unacceptable, the scheme does not comply with Lady Walker: Mr President, hon. members, my best available technology and entailing excessive cost and objections to the rezoning of land at Middle Farm are: (1) it is not in line with the Manx or European policy of reduce, the 1990 Braddan Plan did not propose the Richmond Hill re-use and recycle. site; (2) the Mott MacDonald report did not propose that Firstly, building an incinerator that burns plastic on the site; (3) to build a utility in an area officially described as Isle of Man, especially upwind of Douglas, is creating a being of high landscape value and scenic significance will potential environmental disaster we could all do without. create a gross visual impact and fly in the face of The problems are all well documented in the planning established planning; (4) furthermore, during the proposed inspector's report, which I take as read, but briefly they lifespan of the incinerator it would be miraculous if there are, and you have heard them all before, the health risks to

Braddan (Middle Farm) Planning Scheme Order 1998 — Objectors Heard — Debate Commenced TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 T113 all those who live and work in Douglas, especially the the state of the economy. The longer we delay the more unborn child. The negligible net energy that incineration time there is for developing technologies and anyway with offers, especially when there is no district heating scheme, bank interest at 71/4 per cent and inflation at 21/2 per cent I and you can rest assured that if it is not built at the same would say the longer the delay the cheaper it will be, unless time, there will never be a district heating scheme; the of course he knows something we do not. Perhaps they creation of toxic landfill sites that will be with us for are going to stop making incinerators. Perhaps there penalty evermore and the contamination of the farmland and hence clauses for not buying an incinerator. He cannot be referring the agricultural produce for the home and export markets. to landfill sites running out because he has 400,000 tonnes The planning inspector was particularly concerned that of toxic landfill to dispose of from this scheme. The only there would be, and I quote, 'An adverse effect on the costs that rise are the costs of continually upgrading the market for lamb and beef by virtue of the public's plant to meet ever-increasing emission control regulations. perception of the risk', and he was disappointed that these In America those regulations have now become so strict issues were not in his remit, but they are certainly within that incineration is no longer economically viable. At a your remit today. projected cost in excess of £40 million we have obviously I personally have been convinced by the scientific reached the same stage. This scheme entails excessive cost. evidence at the public inquiry that it is irresponsible to If this Court decides to pursue this scheme, then it ought produce food in the lee of an incinerator. Food produced to be fully aware of the timescale it is setting itself. Landfill in that way will one day be banned or at least not sold by sites have to be acquired for the toxic bottom ash, probably the supermarkets. Since agriculture is in such recession with long legal delays. A long-term agreement has to be in anyway it is no idle threat to say that I will cease to farm place with the UK for the export of toxic fly ash. this land if this scheme proceeds, the highly attractive Thirdly, I was going to go on about the detailed planning, rolling farmland that forms the main approach to our capital which would be challenged legally, but I am pleased to being lost for ever. see that the Attorney-General has assured us we will get Secondly, the inspector also states in his penultimate one and it is a pity we were not all told sooner. paragraph of that report: 'My conclusion on the visual issue Fourthly, since it appears that compensation is being is that a pleasant rural vista where every prospect pleases withheld because the funds would be better used elsewhere, would be changed permanently and irretrievably for the and there will obviously be strong legal challenges there, worst. A landscape in which at present sheep may safely the Minister for the Treasury is clearly wrong when he graze would be dominated by the presence of a monstrous states that owners of surrounding land will not be building with an uncompromising chimney, announced injuriously affected with regard to land use. My land will occasionally by a plume of vapour over the surrounding no longer be able to be used for organic food production land. Unlike the former proposal lower down the valley, and it can no longer be used for residential development: the effect on part of the landscape of high value and scenic the very purpose for its acquisition over 20 years ago. significance would be unacceptable under the strictures of Although this Court gave DoLGE permission to established planning principles.' And yet he passed it. He compulsory purchase land for this scheme, they have not passed it because DoLGE told him it was of overriding done so, yet. If Camane Farms Limited receives a notice national importance. That is the only reason this land has to treat, then this Court should be fully aware that we will been rezoned by the planning inspector. Tynwald have seek a petition of doleance in the Chancery Court and we never said it is of overriding national importance to have shall take the matter to the Privy Council in the UK since an incinerator at Middle Farm. The May 1996 resolution we are firmly of the view, having taken the best legal certainly did not say that. advice, that the Acquisition of Land Act, contrary to the DoLGE have chosen the wrong site in planning terms opinion of this Court last November, is not applicable in with a current political will to use compulsory purchase this instance since DoLGE have not investigated other sites. and the planning inspector's acceptance of the national When Camane was first approached for some additional strategic need, send DoLGE away to buy the best possible land it was assured that the incinerator would be built on site if you are committed to incineration. government's own land, regardless of whether it sold any. Thirdly, this scheme does not comply with BATNEEC, Camane was never a willing seller of an incinerator site a requirement for all statutory environmental assessments but it tried to compensate itself in the knowledge that no- in the UK and in Europe and that is to use the best available one else would for having an incinerator in their backyard. technology not entailing excessive cost. I am sure you are It did this by instructing a firm of chartered surveyors to all now well aware that there are more environmentally value the plot of land and its associated injurious affection friendly and more economically viable alternatives to and blight to the remainder of the estate. We now know incineration which can be up and running much sooner that no incinerator could ever have been built on and at a fraction of the cost. Surely it is irresponsible not government's own land and that DoLGE deceived Treasury to use the best available technology not entailing excessive valuers, Carnane and Tynwald. As a matter of principle cost. Surely you have a responsibility to the taxpayers. Carnane will fight compulsory purchase to the bitter end. On the subject of cost, and I do appreciate that we are Knowing what we do today about incineration, some 18 not meant to be talking about cost but this is more talking months on, I am sure the Camane estate will be devalued about delay, on the subject of cost the Minister for Local by considerably more than the £800,000 asking price if Government told the nation last week that delays will cost this scheme were to proceed. If this is too high a price to millions. Why? Building costs are generally governed by pay for an incinerator site out of a budget of £40 million,

Braddan (Middle Farm) Planning Scheme Order 1998 — Objectors Heard — Debate Commenced TI 14 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998

pay for an incinerator site out of a budget of £40 million, Mr Quine: And these matters were considered by the then you should choose a better waste management system inspector? that creates less injurious affection and blight. That is the only way to acquire a cheap site within your timescale. Mr Whipp: They were. Finally, I quote again from the inspector’s report where he says, ‘I consider that the figure of 60,000 tonnes of Mr Quine: Thank you. domestic and other waste, which was given by the applicant as being the current annual amount, needs to be verified. The President: Any further question? If not, thank you Unless there has been an unusually high growth in for your presentation, sir. population, and I was not told of such, the apparent increase I understand, hon. members, that there are no further of some 60 per cent in less than 10 years seems to me petitioners but I would like to say on behalf of Tynwald excessive. If the proposed draft order should be confirmed Court, thank you to all the petitioners for coming forward I would recommend that a more precise analysis should and exercising their democratic right so effectively on this be made.’ It appears that DoLGE have fiddled the figures issue. (Members: Hear, hear.) Thank you all very much. for waste arisings to bring them up to the level required The Court will now take a short break and will resume for the smallest available incinerator. We just have not got at 5.15 p.m. enough rubbish to keep an incinerator going. I am sure today all of you here would rather not go The Court adjourned at 4.57p.m. down the road of incineration that this scheme implies, but you seem to think that we are in a hole because of the impercipience of previous administrations. I would suggest Braddan (Middle Farm) Planning Scheme the first thing to do when in a hole is to stop digging. An Order 1998 - Debate Concluded incinerator will create more problems than it will solve. - Motion Carried Our children and their children will not thank us for this, in the same way as we do not thank the UK administrations for Sellafield. Incineration is an outdated, complex solution The President: Hon. members, we resume the debate on item 25 on the order paper and I call on the Lord Bishop. to the wrong question. The question should not be ‘How do we get rid of our rubbish?’ but ‘How do we reduce, The Lord Bishop: Thank you, Mr President. I would reuse and recycle our waste?’ An incinerator will be like the chance of saying, adding to your words of breathing down our necks for the next 25 years, during congratulation to those who petitioned this afternoon in which time we will never learn - very difficult circumstances (Mr Delaney: Hear, hear.), I thought they did very well and answered the queries we The President: Would you come a bit closer to the put to them extremely well indeed. subject, please. You are getting a bit wide. I want to ask three questions of the Treasury minister, having listened to the petitions this afternoon. I just want Mr Whipp: I am on my last paragraph. An incinerator for my own clarification but also to make quite sure that will be breathing down our necks for the next 25 years, we are on the right track of some of the tilings that the during which time we will never learn how to reduce, reuse, petitioners said, and the first one is with regard to the recycle, something we will all ultimately have to do. Surely statement they made, some of them made, that the planning the way forward is to set up a waste management officer in his report, I want to know is it true to say that he department and employ waste management consultants changed the ground rules, or changed the goalposts, with divorced from DoLGE and their incestuous relationship regard to the concept of ‘open ground’? It seemed to me with planning matters and incineration to look at the that was an important question to have answered, that the modem alternatives, something which has never been done, planning officer report changed the goalposts with regard in the hope that they will come up with a scheme of which to what is termed ‘open ground’. we could all be proud. The cost of a U-turn is insignificant I would also like to know, when the plaintiffs spoke of compared to the cost of an environmental disaster. Thank health hazard, which many of them did, has DoLGE gone you for your attention. into the health situation with any depth at all? Because there was the inference that this had not been examined The President: Thank you, sir. Are there any questions with any definite depth, and I would like to know because from the floor? The hon. member for Ayre. it seems to me, having listened and also studied the thing oneself, that there could be quite a health hazard to many people, not least our schoolchildren in that area, and I would Mr Quine: Just one very short one, sir. You attended like to know in what depth, if it is possible for the Treasury the inquiry, Mr Whipp? minister to answer that, DoLGE can say it has gone into that subject. Mr Whipp: I did. Thirdly, the other question is the important matter again raised of die structural inadequacy of the site for a proposed Mr Quine: And you gave evidence to the inquiry? set of buildings such as would be needed for an incinerator. Has that been investigated to the full and is it likely to be Mr Whipp: I did. the hazard that the questioners posed to us? Thank you.

Braddan (Middle Farm) Planning Scheme Order 1998 - Debate Concluded - Motion Carried TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 T115

relation to these particular orders on the agenda paper, as I effectiveness of the plant if we do go ahead and build a will be the last to vote as far as the House of Keys is mass bum incinerating plant. concerned, I thought maybe I should on this occasion be It is difficult just to stick purely to the land zoning area the first from the House of Keys to speak and as far as I and it is my certain wish that I should do that, and I would am concerned, I have to tell the hon. Treasury minister at say that as this has to go to detailed planning on unzoned this stage that I am certainly proposing to vote against the land, unless this is accepted, there would be absolutely no order on the order paper today. I do so because I think a planning hope of getting a monstrous building with a strong case has been made by those presenting their chimney through on that particular area of ground. It is an petitions today, not only on health grounds or on anti- area which is scenic, unquestionably, as you approach the incinerator terms, on which we may all have our views capital of the Isle of Man, as was referred to earlier, as you and in the long term those views, by the natural course of come down Richmond Hill. I came over Richmond Hill events, would come to the floor of this hon. Court. one morning this last week and I was impressed, I slowed However, I happen to come most days into Douglas on down, which is unusual, but I slowed down not because the main thoroughfare from the south in to Douglas and there were flashing lights, as there sometimes are at the come down the Richmond Hill. The one occasion when I top of Richmond Hill, but I slowed down because the view supported this move towards incineration in this hon. Court across the hill and the view then out across Douglas Bay I was told and this hon. Court was told that in fact we to the hills on the other side was actually quite stunning. I could build an incinerator and we would build an had fields in front of me just breaking into new sewn grain, incinerator on the footprint of the old pulverisation plant. I had the backdrop then of the Douglas Bay surrounded by That is what we were told and we were told that we had the hills on the far side, and I slowed down so that I could the capability so to do. Consequently upon that we have view that view, and if I consider this afternoon that onto apparently discovered that it was impracticable, and that vista it is the intent of this Court in planning terms to therefore I think I made the point at the time, which I think put a building, a monstrous building, from the planning again certainly against my wishes Tynwald accepted, that officer, a monstrous building 12 storeys high, with a they should go for compulsory purchase of adjacent land. chimney of indeterminate width but certainly of Now, in planning terms that was open land and in considerable height, well then, I am sorry, but I may as planning terms it would appear from what we have well be up front and say that I will be voting against the garnered so far that we cannot build on the original site planning order. and that, to use the words oft flung across this Court this afternoon, this monstrous building will be sited at a higher M r Duggan: Mr President, like Mr Speaker, sir, I will elevation up the Kewaigue Hill, as I approach it from the be opposing the order before the Court. Like his concerns, south than it would have been had it been on the original I am concerned about the height of the chimney, which site of the pulverisation plant, quite appreciably higher, will be very, very tall. It will definitely block the and we have had a comment made this afternoon that, countryside, which is very scenic, as Mr Speaker has also although we are not into detailed planning but we are into pointed out. zoning of this land, it could be a building, a monstrous The emissions will go into the Douglas valley from this building, 12 storeys high. That is what I was told, unless high chimney, which is very residential - we have got my ears were not quite tuned in. I have been told that the schools, hospitals - and as Mr Speaker has also mentioned, chimney necessary for this particular plant will be half as when he has driven into Douglas other times, I think he wide again as the chimney for the electricity station and was more or less saying about the smoke from the power 30 foot higher. station. This will certainly add to the pollution in the Now, if I am wrong, that is fine, but these are the Douglas valley and already, as I have spoken of in this comments which are being made and they would all Court before, I have a lot of my constituents suffering from certainly come out when it comes down to detailed asthma; it is a fact. planning at the detailed planning stage. We heard Mr Also I am concerned about what the petitioners have Uhlenbrook this afternoon make the case in relation to the said about the effect on the food chain. suitability of the ground, and the suitability of the ground I was also concerned when I questioned one or two of of course to hold a chimney of that particular height is an the petitioners today regarding the effects on the valuation important zoning matter. of their property, which is a great concern. I have to say that I tend to agree with those petitioners There are also the effects on wildlife, and also a great concern, as I have pointed out in the past, is the heavy who have today told us that it was a political nicety and a traffic which will be generated on a busy road already. political decision to go for this particular site. I have to So overall I am totally opposed to this site, I think it is say that I think it was and I hold both hands up and say the wrong site completely, and I think the petitioners today that I was prepared to run along with it when I thought we I would like to also congratulate on the excellent evidence were building something on an existing site which could they gave to this Court. I am fully opposed to this order be and would be used, and I was given the understanding before us. in this Court by DoLGE that in fact that could happen, and we know, as we said, consequent upon that it has moved M r Henderson: Mr President, I would just like to echo on. the views of other hon. members with regard to the We had the question raised as to the tonnage and the presentations made and just hope my presentation two

Braddan (Middle Farm) Planning Scheme Order 1998 - Debate Concluded - Motion Carried T116 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 years ago with regard to the new hospital was equally as digressing slightly there, but I think it is an issue with the good. Having said that, until recently, my own view on an placement of it and in the arable area where it is sited that all-Island incineration policy and its placement in the area is something that will have to be taken into consideration. that we are now talking about and the zoning of that area In saying that, we are now getting down to the nitty- was that, in the light of nothing better then, obviously we gritty. What is wrong with taking a little more time in had to progress with something, landfill being not the best making our assessment? I am not asking for years, but option; the Island is not a never ending piece of land that what I think we have heard this afternoon are some very we can keep digging holes in, and in fact landfill probably good cases and there are other options. Even if we only is more of a pollutant than incineration ever will be. So in explored them for 48 hours, at least we can go away at the the light of that, in the light of nothing better or a strong end of the day and say that we have had a look at all the case being progressed by anyone else to any degree with angles and are able to make a proper informed choice, and facts or figures and so on, I came round to the considered I think that is highly relevant considering we are going to opinion that we cannot dig holes forever, we need to do spend in the future something in the region of £40 million. something with it and we cannot keep shipping it off the At least we can go away and honestly say we have covered Island, so the best way forward is to pick the best of the every aspect. And I think we want to be brave enough to bad options and go for incineration. We have been assured put this issue of national importance to one side for one that we are not going to have a 300-foot chimney stacks moment. I think that can be used as a bit of a big stick and and smoke splurging out all over the place and there are it can sway people's opinion - national importance, we various health and safety implications, and indeed to this must go for something, we must approve this planning very specific site and indeed the original footprint that Mr order or whatever. I think we need to be brave enough to Speaker alluded to, I myself and an ecological group did put that to one side and give this project the just actually go and perform an ecological survey there for consideration that it deserves and just go away and have a Hyder International and, on the original footprint, then we think about things. found that we could not oppose a building there. But now From saying that I would like to hear from the closing we have got something more substantial. remarks from the acting minister, certain assurances and Notwithstanding that, I have taken very careful note of certainly from the members with responsibility for this the presentations that we have heard here this afternoon, multi-million pound project, I want assurances on the levels and I must say I have been very impressed with the of monitoring, and whether we will be keeping the levels evidence that has been presented to us and the courage it within EU safety regulations, that we have properly has taken to actually come forward and put that to this examined all the options, that there will be some form of hon. Court. Some of the concerns also now greatly concern compensation for homeowners, that there will be a full me and certainly things like extreme visual impact onto and in-depth planning inquiry - I know the hon. Attorney- the area, the devaluation of people's homes. Also we heard General has told us this, but I would like to hear it said that there will not be any compensation; that worries me, again categorically that there will be a proper planning and the way that came over. If development is a fact of inquiry - and that the health and safety of the people, life, you could very well buy a house one day and tomorrow livestock, crops and environment will take part in an you will have a big factory next to it - you know, tough! informed decision of this hon. Court. If the hon. members That concerns me. with responsibility for this project cannot come somewhere The ambiguity of the original Braddan public inquiry close to these assurances, then I am afraid I will have to concerns me because there seems to be some conflict of respect Mr Speaker's decision and I will not be able to reporting of the issues there, and certainly in relation to back this motion either. Thank you. what the inspector may or may not have said in relation to this building being intrusive and so on. Mr Shimmin: Mr President, on an emotive issue like I am also very conscious of the health of the inhabitants this it would be much easier to be living in the blacks and of Douglas and that incinerators, however good, do have whites. I tend to live in a grey area on this issue. Most of emissions. There is no getting away from that one way or us have spent a period of time, some years, some like the other. Certainly a construction of this size, placed where myself only the last two years, trying to get a position, it is, is a concern of mine and probably one of the foremost. confronted on both sides with opposing experts and it I also have not heard what is the worst case scenario if comes down to a level of trust. there was an accident at this plant. If something did not Unlike many of the people in the gallery who have work, what is going to happen to Douglas? I want to know, strongly held views, I have had to determine whether or what are the possible health hazards? We have heard lots not I was pro-incineration and I have come down in favour of issues being bandied round the Court, I would like to of incineration. Having made that decision, the issues that see some facts and figures presented or something clearer, have been raised regarding health matters, farming issues, but it is something of great concern. Having said that, we the alternatives to incineration, I have agonised and I have have also heard the percentages and so on given from come to the conclusion that incineration is the way forward. French studies and so forth to the emissions of dioxins I do believe that this is in the national interest and that one and furans and so on and, given the proposed siting of this of the biggest complaints we have levelled at this Court is plant, I think that is something that needs to be taken into that we do not make decisions, that nothing has happened serious consideration. Also the build-up in the soil and the in the last two years. I am very uncomfortable about the contamination through the food chain. I know I am compensation. Gut instinct tells me that it would be right

Braddan (Middle Farm) Planning Scheme Order 1998 — Debate Concluded — Motion Carried TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 T117

compensation. Gut instinct tells me that it would be right I would first of all like to try and put to rest some of the to compensate those people whose lives are blighted by concerns of some of the other hon. members in this Court. the actions of government, but you then follow that through The Lord Bishop has said, has the department gone into to all the decisions that have been taken by this Court over the health position? The same point has been put in other previous years and again you have to rationalise that it is ways by the hon. member for North Douglas, Mr unfair. I accept that the local plans can and do change and Henderson, and the hon. member for South Douglas, Mr that unfortunately there will be many victims as well as Duggan, and perhaps others as well. some beneficiaries. Now, I do not think there is any doubt at all that We come down to the order for today, and that is where incinerators are perfectly safe. I myself, ten years ago, I need reassurance. The single most problematic issue that visited a huge one in Edmonton, north London which was we have dealt with in my time in this Court is the hospital surrounded by houses. We have had someone of no less and the site of the hospital. We have spent years trying to standing than Dr David Bellamy, who is a world respected get to a position where the hospital site was determined environmentalist and who told 1,000 people in this Island for the right reasons, it was in government ownership and who were sitting in the Villa Marina that he recommended we have then gone through the lengthy history that we are incineration for us as the most environmentally friendly all well aware of. I believe that that decision was taken in and safe way of getting rid of our refuse. He also gave his good faith but possibly now, in hindsight, would be name publicly on a video supporting the new south London questioned. incinerator. But it is not just the British Isles, for those The siting of this incinerator - I accept that there is going who say, 'Oh, you do not want to blindly follow the to be an incinerator; wherever we put it it will blight adjacent isles.' If you go to environmentally conscious somebody's life. I need to have reassurance from the countries like Denmark and Holland and Germany they department or the Treasury minister that all the previous all have incinerators, and they have incinerators in the sites that were identified have been assessed, checked and middle of urban areas. So I am absolutely convinced that that this is the way forward. It does not give much incinerators are safe for people's health. confidence when the department's preferred site at the Now, the question has been raised about the danger of Richmond Hill area was found to be unsuitable so had to the contamination of the food chain. Well, strangely enough be moved. We have now had an eloquent speech today I have a constituent in Glenfaba who farms some land up about the possible unsuitability of the substructure in the not far from the proposed site. He was worried about this area now designated. That will, in detailed planning, take and I took him to see the officer of the Department of Local care, but again, once we agonise and we get to this decision, Government, Mr Dobbie, who has been working on I believe that after today, if we vote for it, then the great incineration on behalf of the government for no less than probability is that it will be sited at the area we are now 15 years, and we spent no less than an hour discussing looking at. Many members of this Court, I am sure, have this. I certainly was totally satisfied that there would be no had members of the public and constituents questioning, danger to livestock or crops because they happen to be why are we building a hospital site at Ballamona? That near the incinerator. argument has now been argued, decided upon and a We then come to the point that was raised by the Lord decision taken. That is where we are now, the siting of the Bishop about the inadequacy of the site. With all respect incinerator. this is not a planning matter. Whether an individual or the I was not here for the Mott MacDonald report. I have government builds on a site is a matter of land use and heard allegations of political expediency and, from two what is going to be put there; whether they have to put in years in this Court, I believe that that does take place. more expensive foundations is their matter, their affair, Unlike some of the opponents who very much live in the their cost, and all round the world people are building on black and whites - they have made their decision, they sites that are not ideal. Hon. members may know that they know which way they are going to vote - I am agonising are still building buildings they hope to last in Mexico over this. I feel, as everybody does, a great deal of sympathy City, which is actually on a swamp; there are buildings for the people in the gallery. That to me is not the issue. being put up in earthquake zones in America and Japan. Once we proceed down this road, then we, those of us in With modern techniques the problem of not perfect this Court today, are going to be held responsible for the foundation soil can be overcome, and this is in any case siting of that for the next 25 years. I want to be assured not a planning area. that all those officers and political members responsible Then we had Mr Speaker talking about a monstrous for that decision can convince me they have looked at the building and the hon. member for North Douglas, Mr alternatives and that this is the one they genuinely believe Henderson, was also concerned about this. There is no need is the only way forward. Thank you. for it to be a monstrous building, as again Mr Bellamy said at that public meeting, it is not me saying this, it is Mr Gilbey: Mr President, I am not speaking either as a him. He said, 'You should build an incinerator that you member of the department who has to back the minister or are proud of, an incinerator that is open for the public to as a member of the Council of Ministers who may feel go round and see its operation' and I totally agree with they have to back the minister, but as someone who is him about this. completely independent but who has studied incineration Next we had a point raised by Mr Speaker that the site quite closely over the time I have had the privilege to be in being used was not exactly the same as the original site this Court. proposed. Now, in fact a fellow member of the National • Braddan (Middle Farm) Planning Scheme Order 1998 — Debate Concluded — Motion Carried T118 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998

Farmers' Union of his raised this very point with me in a I am pointing out the vital necessity, Mr President, of letter, and again I took this up with the department. It is getting a site decided without further delay because we true, it is not exactly the site that was originally proposed virtually have no alternatives. The sites for tipping in the but it is so close that in terms of a rural area the difference north are virtually utilised; the site at Ballaharra will only is totally negligible and immaterial. last, I was informed by a member of the department, for The hon. member for North Douglas then talked about three years and frankly, unless we come to a decision very the effect of this, if it happens, on the value of people's quickly, we will have nowhere to put the 70,000-odd tons homes. Of course this is a very important point, but of rubbish that we all produce every year. whatever we do in terms of waste disposal will affect I have no doubt, returning to this specific site, that it is somebody's home, because somebody's home will be near the right one and has been for many years. It is near the to it whether it be an incinerator, whether it be a waste Douglas, Onchan connurbation from which most of the disposal site; somebody will be near it and their home may rubbish actually comes both in terms of private individuals have a reduction in value. and businesses; it has got good road access on a main road; It is suggested that we should have compensation. Now, and it is in a place, whatever anyone says to the contrary, this sounds very nice and very attractive, but the reason where the energy can be used both in the form of electricity we do not have compensation for detriment to land is being connected to Pulrose power station, which is not because we do not have a levy on the betterment of land. that far away, and hot water being used at places like the One of the objectors said how he had originally bought his Cooil industrial estate. Furthermore, it is interesting that, farm land with a view to residential development. If he as Mr Rimmington admitted, this is the preferred site of got permission for residential development which could the Island's local authorities. It is no good saying, 'Oh increase the value of that land by an enormous amount, in yes, they would all say somewhere else', but there are only this Island he is not expected to pay a betterment levy, and one or two of them which would be affected wherever it it is because people do not pay betterment levies that we went. So the majority of them felt that this was the best do not have compensation for loss of value. I would submit site, and I hope we will not be put off by threats of legal that if we were to have compensation we should have to action et cetera, because you could get them wherever we have betterment levies, and personally I am sure we are decided to go. quite right not to have that system and even the UK has We have suffered 15 years of vacillation in trying to decided that it would not really work. work out a waste disposal policy. At last we have the I well understand the objections of those who live near department with a firm policy and, frankly, if we do not support this policy, I believe we shall truly have a national the site; it is only human that they should object. I also crisis that will clearly show that this is a matter of national understand the objection of those who as a matter of importance, and I hope, bearing in mind the national principle oppose incineration, and I congratulate many of importance of this issue, hon. members will support this them on the way in which they presented their cases, though resolution. I must point out that it seemed to me that the main weight of their arguments was against the principle of incineration Mr Brown: Mr President, I do think we need to be rather than the siting proposed and on which we will be careful not to get drawn into the actual policy of voting later today. I must point out that in this they were incineration. That has been determined by this hon. Court, unlike SMOG, that is the Stoney Mountain Opposition hence why the department has progressed to the stage that Group, who did not oppose the principle of incineration is now before us and I do think it is difficult for us all to but, merely for reasons that I will not elaborate on now, keep away but I do think that as far as we can we have to felt the wrong place was being chosen. Also there is another do that. I think it was interesting, and appreciated by me difference that many of the people speaking today did not certainly, to have those who had concerns about this come from the area and freely admitted they came from appearing at the Bar, putting forward what their main all over the Island. concerns were, and if we take into account that there is I think the most important thing is, is it essential that opposition to incineration and that matter really has been we have an incinerator? What are the alternatives? The dealt with by this Court the other concern, apart from one that I would much prefer, and I had actually worked devaluation of their property, was in fact about their rights out.. . as they saw it to have another bite at the cherry to put forward their objections in relation to the actual final design The President: Hon. member, I think we are straying of what might well be the incinerator. I think quite clearly once again. We are dealing with this planning issue. Mr Attorney answered that in response to my question, which I think was appreciated by everybody, in terms that Mr Gilbey: Well, I am just going to say why it is the order is somewhat confusing on first reading but clearly essential we get.. . there is another stage which is to have that inquiry. There is a slight difference there, though, as far as I understand The President: You asked the question about whether it, in that Mr Attorney did say - and I do not know the or not we are going to have an incinerator. That has been exact words - that those affected would have the right to decided. appear at that inquiry - in other words, given party status, I presume. Unless that application itself was called in, then Mr Gilbey: All right, that has been decided. But the the broad spectrum of views would not be permitted when argument by many people is that we should not have one; and if it goes to that next stage.

Braddan (Middle Farm) Planning Scheme Order 1998 — Debate Concluded — Motion Carried

TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 T119

So really the matter before us is actually quite then naturally you must vote against the order. If you do straightforward, and the matter is, do you or do you not support it being on this site then you support the order, but agree that this site should be used for an incinerator? Now, it is not about the policy of incineration; that has been done. whether or not it will be 20 storeys high with a chimney I therefore hope that members will go to the next stage, that is 100 feet or 200 feet or however wide is at this stage which is to support this, and the detailed examination will to some degree irrelevant. I know my concerns I would then come at the next public inquiry. have is if it is over-intrusive in the countryside, but in fact that is a matter that if we approve this stage will then be Dr Mann: Mr President, I, like the previous speaker, subject to a detailed planning application, and I think and would like to concentrate on the real matters before the I hope the department, as far as it can, will take into account Court this evening. We have certainly heard a large, or the views being expressed here this afternoon. One of the rather wide-ranging, number of objections, but having limitations, of course, is the physical size of the plant to heard those objections and taken account of those cope with all the work we expect it do to - in other words, objections, we, as members of this Court, I think, have to the amount of refuse that it is going to deal with, the decide two essential things: whether the planning chimney being high enough because of where it is to be procedures that have been gone through have been gone located and so on. So I do think that those matters certainly through correctly - that is, legally correctly - and the other are bound to cause concern, and can I say that because issue which I think possibly underlines most of the local land is zoned for a purpose does not mean that you get objectors, and that is the decision not to compensate the detailed planning application approval, and we have seen local land or house-owners for loss of property value. Now, that in my town, very, very recently where land has been that is a question that we seriously ought to look at, but zoned for 20 years and a planning inspector misdirected those are essentially the only two issues that I see we have himself and made a recommendation that really, I think, to decide this evening. went astray, but the planning was refused. So it does not I must, as a matter of my professional entity, I suppose, mean that because it is zoned it will actually happen. That just comment on the public health issue. It is not actually a is the detailed aspect of it. thing that we are really talking about but it keeps coming I accept within this order it is specific to an incinerator in and, although I am not going to give a personal view, I and it clearly mentions in a number of areas in schedule I have to draw the Court's attention to the fact that the and schedule 2 different aspects of what may be required, Department of Local Government and the Environment but in fairness to us all and in fairness to everybody, has a team of environmental health people whose especially those who have concerns about this, in the 1989 responsibility is not to the department only, but to the application, where the inspector was content to give it public. Secondly, there is a director and deputy director of approval, he actually criticised government for not zoning public health whose job in this community is not just to a the land and because it did not specify emissions. government department but to the people of the Isle of So in fact you cannot have it both ways. Here the Man, and if you think those officers have to have political department has actually gone down that road of making it expediency, I can tell you there is a team of specialist clear what is required; it has sought Tynwald approval on physicians at the hospital who most certainly would not the policy and then gone for the zoning. In other words, it be tied to political expediency. Not one of those has learned from the mistakes of the 1989 planning professional people has raised an objection and their application. We, as a parliament, have a responsibility to responsibility is to each individual in this community, and deal with this issue of refuse; whether we like it or not we for the same, I would say, in animal health we employ in have to deal with it, and if anybody thinks getting a landfill this government veterinary advisers who also have a site is easy as well, then it does not matter what we try and responsibility not only to the department but to a wider get. We had enough trouble trying to get a hospital, which group, and as far as I am aware not one of those has raised was to help our people for their medical care, so it does an objection. So this is not my personal view; I just put not matter what we try to do; where we are trying to build those facts before you this evening. anything that is large that has an impact, there will be a concern. Mr Quine: Mr President, oscillation and vacillation - I think that the issue before us, as I say, is quite anything, duck and dive to try to avoid taking a decision. straightforward. Incineration might pollute our atmosphere, It has been made quite clear that the issue is one of the Mr Speaker, and it is the degree of pollution, but I can tell acceptability of the Richmond Hill site in planning terms you that landfill pollutes our atmosphere as well and it to house an integrated incinerator facility. That includes pollutes our water courses and pollutes other things, so it incineration for animal waste, old animals and for the is not one or the other, and you have got to work out what hospital - the hon. member for health, I am sure, when he is the best for the Island. I believe Tynwald has done that; was lending his support as a member for health, took on it has made that decision. So the matter before us is quite board that the hospital application was proceeded with on straightforward. We made a decision for an incineration the basis that its incineration requirements would be met as a policy; we determined that we should give authority on this facility. It is the acceptability of this site that is an for the Department of Local Government and the issue, whether or not an integrated incinerator facility is Environment to purchase the land, if necessary, by placed on this site purely in planning terms. We have compulsory purchase and the next stage is this, and if you touched upon the detailed planning process that follows do not support an incinerator being located on this site, from this and hon. members are aware that I will be

• Braddan (Middle Farm) Planning Scheme Order 1998 — Debate Concluded — Motion Carried T120 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 bringing back, next month, a motion which will allow them Coming on to some of the points that have been raised to debate the other aspects relating to this incinerator - which are additional to that but are relevant to the costs and all the rest of it. We are talking here about a application, the Lord Bishop has raised a point on the matter planning order and its acceptability for this purpose. of open space. Seeing as he is not here, that is not going to May I remind hon. members this has gone on for some be very helpful for me to explain it to him. considerable number of years, and I do not want to go back to the start, that is probably too long, and Mr President Mr Delaney: He is praying for you! would not permit that, but I think I must remind members that in February 1988 Tynwald resolved that incineration Mr Quine: Suffice for me to say that that issue is was the preferred method of MSW disposal. That was a covered in the report of the planning inspector, so there is Tynwald decision; it was not my decision, not this no need for me to expand upon it. department's decision, it was this Court's decision. In The health situation - they say that this site is unsuitable December 1990 Tynwald approved a complete waste because of health. Again, it has been dealt with. If we were management strategy which built on that and incorporated to follow some of the logic, some of the reasoning that has incineration as an element of that strategy. Tynwald been put here today and say that for health reasons this approved that. That decision in relation to the waste site is unsuitable, therefore this order should not be management strategy and the inclusion within that strategy approved, we would not be driving about in cars. There is of incineration was confirmed by Tynwald in February far more harm being done by virtue of the movement of 1994 and confirmed in November 1995 - cars and the use of fuel by cars. The health situation in this report is dealt with in four expansive sections, virtually The President: Hon. member, this is all very interesting, four pages of it, and I would just draw hon. members' but let us get down to the meat of this resolution. attention to the conclusion here. The inspector said, 'It would be unreasonable to withhold permission on that Mr Duggan: Hear, hear. basis.' It has been considered, it has been adjudicated upon. It has also been submitted that this site should not be Mr Quine: With the greatest respect, sir, the issue here approved because, as Mr Speaker has pointed out, there is national interest, which is the premise on which this was an understanding previously that the site of the former application has been put forward. That is part of the pulverisation plant would be the site, and that is true and planning application. when I came before this hon. Court to seek powers for compulsory purchase of additional land, I spelt out in great The President: The issue, as I see it, sir, is related to detail why the additional land was needed and why we this particular resolution and has little to do with the fact could proceed, but would not be proceeding, within the that Tynwald has already accepted a principle. It has; we confines of the pulverisation site. That has been spelt out know that; that is established. The hon. member for already. Tynwald have already passed their judgement on Castletown made the point, and I hope other hon. members that. will take it up: we are not debating the principle of Mr Speaker says that this site should not be approved establishing such a process; we are dealing with this because of the vista. Hon. members, if you are going to particular application. have an incinerator - and that is your policy - it matters not whether we put it here or whether we put it in other Mr Quine: I will take your guidance, sir. available sites; it is going to have an impact on the vista. You cannot avoid that when you are dealing with a plant The President: I hope so! (Laughter). of this nature. That has been understood from the outset. But what we have to take on board is, as has been pointed Mr Quine: Well, if for no other reason, sir, than I have out, the criterion requires it to put it within this five- to, but I am convinced that this is part of this application. kilometre striking distance of the main source of arisings. A number of issues have been raised by the petitioners When you take that into account, then your alternative sites and, by and large, those issues, indeed almost exclusively are very limited indeed. those issues, have been the subject of a public planning Hon. members, again, this issue of have other sites been inquiry. So hon. members may well - and I can understand considered? They have been considered. They were that - have certain sympathies for the points raised, but considered when we debated and decided that the those are issues which, in the context of the planning Richmond Hill site would be the preferred site at that time application, have been considered by an independent amongst other occasions, alternative sites have been inspector and reported on. Hon. members have before them debated in this Court and decided upon. the conclusions of that inspector; he has concluded that I can understand the concerns of people living in the this order should be approved. So I believe, it is my Douglas area. Anybody who is going to have this sort of conviction, that due process has entered into this and these facility near them is going to have concerns, no doubt about concerns which have been voiced by the good folk who that, but the evidence is quite clear that working to the have appeared here before the Bar of the Court today have standards which were put before the planning inspector, been examined in a proper fashion by a highly qualified there is no basis for those concerns. That has been made person, we have that recommendation before us and he quite clear. The inspector has considered that, and whether recommends that this order should be made. we move it to the outskirts of another town or somewhere Braddan (Middle Farm) Planning Scheme Order 1998 — Debate Concluded — Motion Carried • TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 T121 else, these same points are going to be raised but they have location and what effect it can have on the surrounding little if any relevance. The point the inspector makes in area. They said that about the Titanic and that it would not that regard is that we have got to work to the specified sink but it did, and I do think that this over-enthusiasm we standards of emission control which have been put forward are seeing today from the minister. . . He seems to have as part of the department's case, and we have given a got the disease that he has become a minister, and of course commitment to do that; that is part of the submission of once you become a minister we can never be infallible our evidence. and the system has to be always right, even when we are Mr Henderson raises the question, well, is this site wrong. I think that this is what concerns me today. No suitable if an accident happens? Well, of course, accidents wonder there are people out there concerned about this can happen in relation, I suppose, to any facility, industrial planning order. Just on the street cred alone, when you or otherwise, but what I can say is this: I have visited a think of certain things like knacker's yards that we could number of the new incinerators and the controls which are not get to work, it has taken us years to get it to work right, now imposed, computerised controls in the main, provide not to be a complete blot on the landscape. a virtually fail-safe system. That is now built in to these What concerns me and what came over from a lot of new incinerators. the people, I believe, today is the fact that you hear this - it Again, it is said this is the wrong site. With the greatest is almost like the Moonies - we have got to go down this respect to the members that have made that point, any site road, it is fixed, and I believe that the planning has been for this type of operation, an incinerator or a landfill, is fixed that way in order that we will have a situation where going to be the wrong site. Nobody wants it, but the fact is it was agreed. We hear the vista does not make any we are creating this waste, this is Tynwald's policy that difference; wherever we put the chimney it would make we will proceed to deal with it by this means and proper no difference - absolute rubbish! The reason why we have evaluation has been made, the risks have been carefully seen this planning and the whole issue gerrymandered, the taken into consideration and this is the site that has been reason they did not use the old site was because when they recommended and, I believe, correctly so. It is also started digging holes in it, they killed off the Middle River suggested that by virtue of the legal threats which have again in my former constituency, which was part of Pulrose been uttered here today we should back off, and I can see national glen where the old fairy bridge was, and the that appealing to certain members. If we are to take on situation is that that was the reason and the whole order, in board, when we are deciding issues of this sort, the use of my opinion, has been manipulated in order that we can get this site for this purpose, the fact that somebody comes it through. The ends justify the means even if sanity goes before us and says, 'If you go forward with this I will take out of the window. this to this court', 'I will take it to that court' - he is perfectly Now, he talks about the reason why we have got to have entitled to exercise all his rights, but when the day comes this order through is that it has implications for the hospital that this Court starts taking decisions on the basis that such and he said about the waste and that issue; the fact of the threats have been made we will be on a treadmill where matter is that we could be looking at industrial we will get no decisions taken. (Mr Gilbey: Hear, hear.) microwaving to get rid of the waste, but the problem is I am convinced that this is the best, the preferred site, and the core issue that was put into his debate today is that Tynwald has said it is the preferred site, and I am satisfied, it has been 15 years; what has changed? The only thing having gone through the evidence in great detail which is that has changed is the MHKs and the politicians in the contained in the inspector's report, that we should proceed department. The staff has never changed and that is why now, we should endorse this order and Tynwald should the policy has never changed as far as this crackpot scheme give their blessing to this order. We should then continue, is concerned. (A Member: Hear, hear.) Now, I would hate as we will, next month and consider the financial and other for people to say. . . I am against incineration, I admit that, implications of this order and proceed to detailed planning but if this order was an order saying next door to the new which will take on board these other concerns that have hospital, I would find a lot more to argue that point. At been raised today by persons living in the area who have least, hopefully, it is going over to the hon. member for appeared at the Bar of the Court. That is what we need to Garff's constituents by the time it has gone up two miles do. But I would honestly appeal to members: we have set (Laughter) and come down another mile-and-a-half, so it out on a course; we have decided what you want to do; will be hitting his constituents instead of it hitting mine. this department has carried it out; let us have a little political So on planning terms I would have to say it would be backbone and get on with the job. of a vast improvement than the situation now where it is actually going to come - if we do not have this wonderful Messrs Houghton and Gilbey: Hear, hear. scheme where we have no emissions which. . . I would suggest that the hon. minister should apply for the job with Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I do not need any lessons on Blue Peter, because it is children's programme time as far backbone from anybody in this hon. House, and just as this is concerned if we believe that that is going to be because I will not be supporting the order here today it the case. will not be the fact that I have not got the backbone to There are many points that have been brought up today stand up and say what I believe and needs to be said. about this, and he brought up the point about cars and he I hear the hon. minister, but he does not reassure me or is right: there is an element of pollution with everything the local residents. He talks about the system, the fail-safe and I would not like to argue that point in this proposal system, that it is not important the academics as far as the and what effects it would have on this local area. He is

Braddan (Middle Farm) Planning Scheme Order 1998 — Debate Concluded — Motion Carried T122 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 right, but because we have got cars with pollution - and I emotive issue because their officers are leading them hope that that does convert him to my believe of free instead of them leading their officers, because that is the transport on public transport - two wrongs do not make a only thing that has changed over the last 15 years - the right, and you do not add to the problems for our children staff have stayed there and the policy has stayed there in the future, and I believe by this location that is what because the truth is, the vested interest has been for an you are going to do. If you put this in this location it is the incinerator and they will not look for other things. wrong place and it is a stupid place to put it. This planning order should not go ahead in my opinion. Now, the Minister for Education missed out the If we go ahead with this planning order government will important point, I believe, that has been on this whole affair have a hollow victory. It will go to prove what I said many and he missed out more important fundamental points, and years ago when we brought in ministerial government: the that was fairness and just and, let us be honest about it, it danger will be that the parliament will become like those was a foregone conclusion that - surprise, surprise! - he plastic nodding dogs that were in the back of the cars which would agree with it, and he tells us that we need not worry can only go with the law of gravity and nod up and down because the medical profession will protect the people. even when the core issue has not been addressed, and the How many years did it take the medical profession on this core issue of this proposal is about justice. Can I just say Island to recognise the danger of Sellafield and Windscale one final thing? to this Island? It is only now we are starting to realise. So this fall-back, safe position of, 'Oh, well, the medical The President: Be quick. (Laughter) people. . - they are not in the forefront in the Isle of Man; this is one of the problems we have with getting the Mr Karran: I am not for compensation under normal right sort of consultants over here. We are a cul-de-sac. So circumstances. I believe that if life puts a bad neighbour I did not take any sort of reassurance from the minister's next to you, you cannot be compensated and I do not proposal as an ex-JP - an ex-GP even (Interjections and believe in compensation under normal circumstances, but laughter) - well, I believe they thought he was very good I do feel that there is a situation here where I feel that there in Laxey (Laughter). has been an injustice and I do think, when I hear certain We come to the hon. member for Castletown, and I members like the hon. member for Glenfaba doing his job thought he said you either accept the site or you do not lot of seeing the light on the road to Damascus like so accept the site. It is very true, but he said, `Do not worry, it many others because it has got out of his constituency, is only early days now, it is only at this stage, it is when it there is a legitimate case, if this goes ahead, because I think gets to detail.' We know what will happen. It will be like it is wrong and I think it is wrong, to mislead this House, I the train that has lost its brakes. We heard him mention must say to the hon. member when he talks about the local about the new hospital. Now, I am not one of these ones authorities wanting it in this area, they would have would that seem to suffer from the shirveishaghitis. I do not say put it in Timbuctoo and not put it in their area.. . now that I am the member responsible for the hospital. I have seen the light; like Saul on the road to Damascus, it Mr Delaney: On the road to Damascus! seems to be a very infectious disease around here. There are problems that were there that I raised that are there Mr Karran: and let's keep that in the equation as well. now. They have not changed because I have suddenly I hope hon. members will not support this proposal. become the member for health and they have disappeared because I am in charge now, and where the ends justify Mrs Christian: Mr President, I would just like to the means. The problem we have today: if we support this respond with regard to the health issue. My hon. colleague order, we will be doing the same things where we allowed rather preempted my remarks but, in the light of the a situation where something was bludgeoned through and comments made by my colleague in the department, I feel all the side issues that should have been addressed were I ought to make the point that the director of public health not addressed, and so now we have the problems of the and his deputy have certainly been following this issue roads, the accommodation and everything else because the with interest. They do have a responsibility to the public ends justified the means, but the difference with this is of the Isle of Man to advise without fear or favour, as far that I believe the minister is quite right, there is a pressing as politicians are concerned, on the health risks of aspects need to get our act together on waste disposal, and we of Island life, and I think the hon. member for Ayre quite have not got the luxury and the £40 million, and I am very clearly demonstrated the point. Life is not free from risk glad to see that they did not come out and own up that I but you can be assured that the risk from this development, was talking the truth in the first place but did not actually given the controls that are to be imposed, is less than the admit to it when I asked them the cost. risk from many other aspects of life in Douglas, and we If we support this proposal today, we will not just be need to get that sense of proportion about what relative doing something that is bad in planning terms, in my risks are. opinion, I believe we will be doing something that is wrong I think that the hon. member for health clearly has closed for the Isle of Man. I believe that what we have got to do is his mind to any scientific or medical evidence which may not allow ourselves to be hoodwinked into a situation of be presented, and I think that is unfortunate, but I would national importance and 'it is crisis time'. We hear this all like the rest of the Court to be assured that the director of the time. We must not allow the people who want to give public health and the consultants at the hospital, I know, us the bums rush into making a decision today on an have taken an interest in this, and that they are satisfied

Braddan (Middle Farm) Planning Scheme Order 1998 — Debate Concluded — Motion Carried TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 T123

that within the parameters in which this should be built, Was the tonnage massaged? The figures, as we heard the risks for health are acceptable, in their view. from some of the very, very good petitioners which have swayed so many people today - they did a great job there. Mr Cannell: Now for an alternative view from Onchan, Was the tonnage massaged to get the plant? I hope not. Mr President. (Laughter) Hours ago we heard that this was Action for accidents? Accidents, we have heard, are a planning only matter, not anything to do with the inevitable. Let us hope not, but the Manx Government does principle. Of course there have been many attempts to stray not have a good record of being sued by private people it into the principle. I sat on those benches 20 years ago - and the private individuals winning, and I would not like not 15, as Mr Gilbey said - when first this subject came, to think that this Court here would try to give the impression and it has been talked about backwards and forwards ever that the Manx Government is immune from prosecution if since. We are at the crossroads. We need to decide; we do they can be found to be culpable in any action whatever. need backbone; we do need to make a decision. In my The petitioners, as I say, were very impressive. Some, manifesto, when standing for the House of Keys for of course, had a self-interest. Some did not; some came Onchan, I was asked specifically about this and in a from a long way away from whether they will be directly newspaper article, and you may have said then I was affected by the Richmond Hill site or not. I cannot accept hedging my bets because I then said I was in favour of the parallel with Chernobyl as was once made by one of incineration but I was against this site. I was against the the petitioners. I do not know where he got that notion site purely for the reasons which Mr Cringle so eloquently from; we are not talking nuclear plants here. Also he said stated before, that when you come down the Richmond, that it would be possible that some of our spillage from apart from seeing what Prince Charles would undoubtedly the Richmond Hill site would even move to the United describe as what will be a massive carbuncle of the chimley, Kingdom. Well, they have got plenty of incinerators so chimbley, or in fact chimney, as it is supposed to be, at the how come theirs are not coming here? end of the day it is not a good site on a autumn morning to So as this is a matter of planning, do we have it in the look out over Douglas and Onchan and see what already Richmond Hill site or don't we? That is what we are talking is a minor form of smog settling over the town and for us about here. It could have been the Blue Point site. It could who live in Ballabrooie, we catch all the Pulrose power have been anywhere but it is not. This is the agreed site for station materials and you cannot have your bedroom an agreed principle of incineration which has gone on for windows open unless you do want to wash your net curtains so many years. We have on page 3, schedule 1, I think it every day, which does not come easily to me. is, 'reserve matters', a list of at least 20 points there which So Douglas and Onchan already has an incinerator of a should cover just about everything. You can rely on people sort operating at Noble's Hospital. There is a big chimley such as myself to be keeping absolutely to that menu, that there. There is a chimney too - there will be no commencement of the permitted development unless the department has submitted Mr Houghton: Have you seen it belching out? particulars of the matters including the design and external appearance of buildings, the landscaping of the site and a Mr Cannell: - and we also have the Pulrose power scheme for ensuring that no offensive odours escape from station, quite an item, and we do not really want an that site as well as about 15 other points. I shall be watching incinerator at Richmond Hill so near by, adding to it. them like the proverbial hawk. The temptation is to say, in (A Member: Hear, hear.) We do not really want it but, as journalism anyway, 'if in doubt leave it out'. If you have you will hear from it, we may have little alternative. got any doubts do not go ahead with it. I do not think we Landfill - it is very puzzling to me why you have a massive can afford to do it. I think we are going to be committed to quarry at Stoney Mountain, a massive quarry, and that something or we are going to be in bigger trouble. We are cannot be used for landfill. I would have thought that would going to be in real trouble, because I do believe the do us for a hundred years, the size of the place up there. assurances I have been given that landfill has just about The planning, coloured by national interest, as we have had it, three years' life left to go. heard - I hope I have been reassured by the Minister for So I have thought long and hard about it. It is a tricky Local Government that that did not colour the debate and one for someone who is a newcomer and particularly in the subsequent findings of the inspector. I certainly accept Onchan, and particularly having given that manifesto that assurance that that was not a way of bundling it pledge that, yes, I was in favour of incineration but not the through. Middle Farm site. I think the whole scheme will fall if we Compensation - I have a lot of sympathy with those do not go for Middle Farm. I think we will be back where who say that the surrounding residents might press for we were in 1978. There are still many hurdles to go. It is compensation. I feel it would be a special case. We are not a formality that this is going to be built if we give this rezoning something. It is okay saying you can have the nod tonight, by a long chalk. There are many, many something built next to you, but you would not get away hurdles to go, but we have got to grasp the nettle on this with it if it was not a national-interest matter. So we cannot occasion and I urge the ditherers to go with it and I fall have it both ways and, if we are going to put this through down narrowly in support of this on the basis of a genuine as a matter of national interest, we are doing it on special need to deal with the Island's waste even at the expense, terms and therefore I think that the nearby residents should as Mr Cringle said, of a nice site which undoubtedly will be considered for compensation because this is something be scarified by the site works, but I shall be monitoring that could not have been foreseen and has not come through everything that happens and, if there is any deviation from the normal channels. this, I will be on it.

Braddan (Middle Farm) Planning Scheme Order 1998 — Debate Concluded — Motion Carried T124 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998

Mr Rodan: Mr President, just to put the debate back Mr Downie: Mr President, I think from my perspective firmly into issues of planning considerations, back to it has been a very useful debate today, but I am still basics, if somebody wants to build or develop somewhere, concerned that some of the members who have spoken whether it is a member of the public, whether it is a today do not really fully understand Tynwald's waste company or whether it is government, then that person management policy. Now, I am not going to go all through needs planning permission. So what are the questions asked it, I would be out of order straightaway and told to sit down, by the planners when somebody comes along seeking but there are some points relevant to the site and I think planning permission to do something? Well, the first thing that the most important thing to realise today was, we kept that is asked is, does the proposal comply with the land- harping on about the price of this thing and how the price use zoning? If it does, if the zoning is residential, then in has grown, and I think what you should bear in mind is principle you will be allowed to build a house provided that when this site was last revisited back in 1990 a figure that certain other questions are addressed. If it is zoned for of around £20 or £21 million was discussed at that time. industrial use or for mixed use you could put up a factory We are now looking at a completely different plant where or a commercial development, for example. So if the zoning we are dealing with twice the amount of waste arising that is fine and the principle seems to be all right, then certain we have initially. We are also providing a requirement to other questions can start to be asked. If it does not comply deal with clinical waste, with whole carcasses and also to with the zonings it is not necessarily the end of the story deal with the Island's animal waste. We are also bringing because the question then asked is, are the circumstances our plant up to date with 2002 specifications and we are of the proposal such as to set aside the basic objection of complying fully with all the latest and possible future land-use zoning? And sometimes, if there are persuasive European Community directives with regard to grounds to set aside the basic objection, if it is a matter of incineration. Now, there is a cost in all of this and if overriding importance and if other material considerations members will appreciate, that is where a lot of the cost is are met, then approval can be given, but in these coming from. circumstances there are pretty strong grounds for objection from opponents, from objectors, on the land-use zoning, The President: Hon. member, for recollection - I and they are free then to take it to review and appeal. So it mentioned cost before - we are dealing with this planning is far safer for somebody seeking approval to put the issue. proposal where land is zoned. That is the first basic question to be asked; the first hurdle to be overcome is the land Mr Downie: Right, I have finished with costs, Mr zoned. So ideally the applicant would then go away and President. (Laughter) I just wanted to clear the air on that put forward a proposal on land zoned for the purpose. one. Mr Speaker said he was voting against the order and But if there is no land zoned for the purpose, like in this he was always under the impression that we needed to instance this evening for incinerator use, then clearly there build on the footpath of the old disposal site. Now, I accept is a need to change the zoning to make sure that land is that, but right from day one when this site was revisited by available for the purpose, and that is simply what we are the department, everything was open and above board, the doing here today. Into that consideration of changing the local authorities were consulted, the Braddan zoning - in this case from open space, an area of high Commissioners were consulted, as were Douglas landscape value, to incinerator use - comes the question Corporation, because they were the people whom this site of national need and other issues such as visual impact, affected most of all, and right from the outset, when we access, drainage, environmental impact, all matters that visited the site concern was expressed about the hundreds should be thoroughly tested and which have been tested at of thousands of tonnes of rotting refuse still on the old a public inquiry, and those with concerns went to the site. There were some additional tests carried out and, in inquiry and put these issues before a planning professional consultation with the Braddan Commissioners, it was inspector who reached the conclusion that the proposal to decided then that we should not get into that situation where change land zoning was appropriate. And being we had to remove thousands of tonnes of unknown appropriate, and having recommended a change in the quantities of rotting refuse. Back in the 1970s when that zoning by the order that we have today, for certain the tip was in operation, we did not keep records as we do other questions to be addressed follow on naturally in today, and who knows what could be under there and how sequence and they have been listed, as we can see, in hazardous it could be to health? So that is the main reason schedule 2, the conditions of this order, those matters for enlarging the footprint, and I just want to make that reserved for detailed consideration. Many of the issues clear to Mr Speaker. That is one of the main reasons why raised this afternoon by objectors are matters for an the department chose to extend their researches into the inspector at an inquiry into the detailed reserved matters. adjoining land. So the issue is perfectly simple: what we are concerned Part of the objection today has been to the vista and the with is the situation of a proposal to build an incinerator visual impact. There will be a visual impact and I think, somewhere. There being no land zoned for the purpose, given modern planning practices and architectural the proper procedures have been gone through to identify approaches, there can be very practical ways brought in to land that might be suitable for the purpose and to have ameliorate the environmental impact. In fact, quite a lot of that 'might' turned into a certainty by having all the matters, the incinerators that have been built in the last few years material considerations, tested at inquiry by an inspector. have been extremely attractive and they have not been a That basically is all we are concerned with this afternoon. blot on the landscape. If you want to see a good example

Braddan (Middle Farm) Planning Scheme Order 1998 — Debate Concluded — Motion Carried TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 T125

of how not to do a thing, I would suggest you go on further environmental experts. They sat down and thought it all down the road from Richmond Hill and, as you cross over through and I think, because of their hard work, if this on to the top of the Pulrose golf links, what greater blot on incinerator does go ahead at the bottom of the Richmond the landscape is there than the old Pulrose power station if Hill the people who are living there can know that their you want to see things badly planned? (Interjections) commissioners did an excellent job and safeguarded their Now, Mr Henderson raised one or two points about rights as far as all the environmental issues have gone. All pollution control and about the public inquiry and that we right, you will not convince them we are in the right place should all go away and think about it. Well, I attended as as far as the vista and interfering with their view goes, but much of the public inquiry as I could get time away from as far as the environmental issue goes, I take my hat off to the department to do, and I was very impressed with the the commissioners: they did an excellent job. cases that were put by the people who were against As part of the ongoing incinerator, this project now - if incineration and by the witnesses that were called to it gets the green light, the department will be setting up a represent the . We had some of liaison committee which will have representatives of some the leading exponents in both camps. From the Friends of of the people who have come along here today. They will the Earth they had a very professional gentleman who does be invited to have some input into the incinerator project, nothing else but go all over the UK and Europe appearing as will the local commissioners and members of Douglas at planning inquiries on their behalf, and we also had on Corporation. the environmental health side and the medical health, a Now, just to move slightly, Mr Cannell made reference Professor Alan Blain. He was backed up by Professor to the hospital incinerator and I think we have to be fully Porteous, who is a leading figure in incineration. At the aware that at the moment our hospital incinerator is end of the day the decision the inspector made was based working - on the evidence that was presented at the public inquiry, and all these good people who have come along today had The President: Hon. member - their opportunity at the public inquiry and the decision was made based on the evidence, which I feel was very Mr Downie: Well, it is linked, Mr President. soundly put. There was no hint at all of what some hon. members have been suggesting here, that it was a foregone The President: Hon. member, it is not linked in my conclusion or some other outcome. I think that is totally view. erroneous and misleading to actually use terminology like that in the debate. Mr Downie: Right. Mr Shirrimin said, 'Have we got the right site?' and he was concerned about the unsuitability of the substructure The President: Proceed with the resolution in front of and he needed assurance about the site. As far as I am you. concerned, that site, in my opinion and the opinion of all the expert witnesses at the public inquiry, is the best site. Mr Downie: I am nearly finished, Mr President. I would It fits all the criteria: it is very close proximity to most of urge members to vote for this, to progress this incinerator the waste arising in the Isle of Man; it is close to a 33,000kv this evening and I would just like to remind members that power line for distribution of electricity; there are premises by December 2000 Wright's Pit East, the current landfill nearby, the largest greenhouse complex on the Isle of Man, site, will have to be closed and reinstated by that date. The the business park. We are about to replace 250 local department are currently progressing an application for authority houses just over the hill which could all be heated landfill at Ballahara. The cost for this application and, by a district heating scheme and, despite the cries from should we be successful, engineering, will be a figure this Court today by some people that this is nonsense, the approaching £5 million. This will be a fully-engineered department are looking at district heating. There is a study landfill site which will last us for about three years and, if well under way and some of you will be aware that I was we do not get on with the incinerator project, we will be recently in Lerwick, who have just built a brand new looking for yet another landfill site at a cost of £5 million- incinerator with district heating and their district heating plus to tide us over for the next few years. As far as I am main extends to over six kilometres. Their incinerator only concerned, we need to get the decision made, get on to the deals with 23,000 tonnes a year, but it is the mass-burn next round of planning and hear from all the people who principle, tried-and-tested Scandinavian design and it fits are interested to come in and build this and get on with the the same criteria that ours does as far as standards go, and job. they have had the foresight to get on and get the thing built. The President: May I call on the minister to reply? I was very pleased today to see that in the public gallery The hon. member for Peel, sorry. and from within the people who have come to petition the Court, there has not been any representation from the two Mrs Hannan: Thank you, Eaghtyrane. The member local authorities. Could I put on record the tremendous for the department stated that we should not take any notice amount of work some of their officers had with regard to of threats, but I think the member just resuming his seat the planning inquiry, and the very, very stringent list of has said, 'Well, if you do not get this you are going to get conditions that you see before you today on the order are something else.' Yes, we are, because we have a problem. there because Braddan Commissioners engaged the right The policy of government is reduce, reuse, recycle and

Braddan (Middle Farm) Planning Scheme Order 1998 — Debate Concluded — Motion Carried T126 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 then think about incineration, and I am not aware of any were being laid down, that it would happen, that there will action taken to reduce waste. Reuse - yes, to a certain stage, be another inquiry. In actual fact, the order actually says but we are not even willing to pay for the shipment of that planning approval is granted. It does not form part of paper, and therefore the actual policy that has been the order but it is an explanatory note and it quite clearly undertaken by the Department of Local Government on says: 'This order propounds the planning scheme for the behalf of government and on behalf of this Court has not development of the area shown on the map at Middle Farm, been carried through. It still remains the policy that was Braddan. It provides for the zoning of part of the area as a supported yesterday by the policy statement, and I am site of a proposed all-Island integrated incinerator (energy concerned that we have a policy which says that is what from waste) plant and of the remainder as an area of private we have been doing for at least 10 years and it has not woodland. It also grants planning approval for the happened, and the supposition has been put forward that development comprising the plant, subject to the conditions there is so much more waste than any of us have ever specified in schedule 2.' But it does say that planning imagined, and what will happen is that with the introduction approval for the development is granted. of this incinerator everything will be put into the incinerator on this particular site. Mr Rodan: In principle. If I could move to this site, why should I be worried about where an incinerator is sited, because it is not sited Mrs Hannan: It does not say in principle, it says as in my area? Mention has been made today about the long as schedule 2 is complied with, that is it. So if this unacceptability of chimneys wherever they are and, yes, I land, so zoned after today's debate, is zoned for have one in my area which is not attractive at all and it is development, that would mean that as this land is now not all very well us holding our hands up and saying, 'Yes, we agricultural land the proper value of this land has changed. don't like it' but that chimney was supported in my area The value has also changed with the people that are by this hon. Court, as was the chimney in Pulrose supported affected, its neighbours, but the value of this land has by this hon. Court and that is what will happen in this area changed from open space agricultural land to now land and we will say: 'Oh, it's not nice, is it? Look, we never which has a planning application secured on it and therefore thought it was going to be that big.' We have not actually the value of this land has changed. We have seen this in been told how big this construction is going to be, but it is the past and moneys of the sum of £500,000 have been on a raised site as opposed to a site which was in actual paid in the national interest for the Sound and over £1 fact a lower site and which might not have been as million in the national interest for Rushen Abbey. Five obtrusive. years ago land at Cronk-y-Berry and land at Ballacottier The inspector did comment on dioxins and furans and were bought for £120,000 per acre and land at Ballacottier that is where my concern has been. I have tried to embrace £125,000 per acre for a school. and fall in love with incineration but I have been We have been told that there is no basis for concerns on unsuccessful to date. Waste is not nice. We have hospital health in this area and that the environmental health waste, animal waste and municipal waste. We could reduce inspectors and the medical officer of health and everyone the municipal waste, but action has not been taken on that concerned will be watching this site to the closest possible and I am very concerned about that. I shall not be determination of contamination that has been suggested supporting the order. The introduction of furans and dioxins by the people that made a very good case at the Bar of the are not just our concerns; they concern the globe, our world, Court today. I would just like to ask the acting minister and they affect our world and will affect our world for a that if health is affected by the emissions from this plant, very long time, longer than we are here, maybe even longer what would happen? Would the plant be closed down? than man is here - and I mean man, human beings. These What would happen to the surrounding land should it be toxins will still be here, as will other materials that we contaminated? The inspector states that all in all, weighing have created. So it is the global ecology as well as local up all the evidence - because he did have evidence placed ecology which concerns me. As I have said, why should I before him - he thinks that there should be protection for be worried about Douglas and Onchan? That is where the this area, taking into account everything that was said at initial fall-out is going to be, but it does worry me; it worries the public inquiry and I think it should be made quite clear me intensely. that if this land is rezoned, if it is in the national interest Now, if I could turn to this particular site, we have heard that it should be here, who is going to watch the health today that the importance of this particular development and the environmental effects that affect not only the people is of national interest, and if this development - we have of Douglas and Onchan with the fall-out but also had other national interests in recent times and I will come surrounding agricultural land? Mention has been made of to those in a minute - is of national interest for an a medical officer of health and environmental health and incinerator, then I am sure - at least the feeling I have got also government vets, but should concerns be expressed from the comments made already during this debate is - by these professional people, what will happen? It is all that this site will be accepted. The national interest as such very well making threats that if we do not do this we have is that this site is going to be used for the whole of the got to have landfill somewhere else. Landfill has changed Island for incineration of waste. from how it was when we pulverised and put it next to the The question of compensation has been raised. The river at Richmond Hill. It has changed since then. It does member for Garff, who is a member of the department, have to be engineered but we would not have to have such stressed that schedule 2 would be followed, that conditions big fights if the policy of government had been followed,

Braddan (Middle Farm) Planning Scheme Order 1998 — Debate Concluded — Motion Carried TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 T127

and the policy of government, of Tynwald Court, has not far as I am concerned this is not a matter of political been followed. expediency. I have been guided by the evidence and the law relating to the planning and Tynwald's policy on The President: Reply, minister. Mr Braidwood? Are incineration. there any other hon. members who wish to speak following This afternoon we have had a number of issues raised Mr Braidwood? If not , carry on, sir. relating to technology, and I do hope the Department of Local Government have taken note of some of those Mr Braidwood: Thank you, sir. I will be very brief comments, because I think they are genuine comments that because I will try to keep it site-specific, but there are a need to be examined. Costs have been mentioned, an issue couple of points I would just like to clarify that the last which I view seriously. However, today is a day of planning speaker has just raised and that is the valuation of the land decisions and the matters relating to that, and I think there going up. She talks about Ballacottier; that was industrial. have been some useful things collected today because, by She talks about Cronk-y-Berry; that is residential. The area the answer to my question to Mr Lever, one of the we are talking about for rezoning is to provide for the petitioners, and also by the clarification of the Attorney- zoning of land at Middle Farm to enable the construction General and also a statement which seems to have been of the proposed all-Island integrated incinerator (energy forgotten about that Minister Quine did make in public, it from waste) plant. So the land will be just zoned for an is quite clear that the next stage is where the detail will incinerator, not industrial use. come in regarding this planning application. It is quite clear that the Governor-in-Council will have an independent Mr Downie: There is nobody else building them. inspector's report with recommendations and that an inquiry for those wishing to put their case forward, whether Mr Braidwood: I would just like to clarify that that is the department or petitioners, will take place, so I situation. hope the petitioners take heart, because I do believe there Also another point: the last speaker just said 'Who is was some misinformation in the intervening period whilst going to look after the interests of the people?' There is a this agenda was in circulation that they did not have that consultative committee being set up with representatives, right, and I think that has been well-clarified on more than two from Braddan, one being a commissioner, one being a one occasion today. lay person; there is a representative from Onchan, there is On hearing today - and I was already aware of the effect a representative from Douglas, who will be looking at the on property and land values- the majority of complainants emissions from the incinerator, looking at all aspects of it mentioned property devaluation - one cannot help but be and keeping very tight control. sympathetic towards them, but I think I made it clear in Mr President, I do not want to go off on tangents as my letter which was circulated, and those were the other people in this hon. Court have done this afternoon. I paragraphs 12-14. At this late hour in the evening, I was am looking, is this land the right place to have our going to reread those paragraphs but members have them incinerator? I think it is. I spoke against Stoney Mountain and I will not do that. Bearing in mind all the issues in that because I felt at that time it was too far away from the letter, I cannot, and I still cannot, accept that the claims large areas of population of Onchan, Douglas and Braddan. for compensation are a proper reason to put public moneys In the Mott MacDonald report it said it had to keep within towards, and in this respect I believe that the order is correct a radius of five kilometres. in not giving allowance for compensation. I think it is I do not want to go on. As far as I am concerned this is correct also regarding the area to be zoned and the the right place for the incinerator and it should be rezoned surrounding area, and I respectfully ask hon. members to and we should get on with it. agree. With regard to the compensation issue there were two The President: Reply, minister. issues, really: the site itself and the surrounding area and the letter that was circulated, I believe, clearly explains Mr Corkill: Mr President, a word muttered in my ear: both issues and that the conclusion is that compensation is `Keep it brief.' My count is that 17 people have contributed not appropriate. Now, a number of members have made to today's debate and I thank them all for their views. It the same points and the Lord Bishop was first to his feet in was perhaps with more than a little trepidation that I opening the debate once the petitioners had finished and accepted the invitation of the hon. member for Ayre to take he asked three questions, and unfortunately the Lord on this responsibility, and when the inspector's report Bishop is not in his seat at the moment but I do believe arrived, some months ago now, along with the four boxes that the Minister for the Department of Local Government of evidence on a luggage trolley, my trepidation increased. has addressed the first question which was asked, which Hon. members, I have been through most of that was with regard to open ground, the openness, and that documentation, some of it several times, and I decided was fully taken account of during the public inquiry and early on, in terms of how to view the matter, that I would the documentation is there. do it with a sceptical eye. Initially I thought the best way A number of members have also mentioned the second is probably to put myself in the position as if I were one of question of the Lord Bishop, which was the health hazard, the objectors to see whether the case was proven. I mention and I think the contribution that Dr Mann, the member of this in order to assure hon. members, and members of the the Council, put forward, that there is more than one set of public and those petitioners who have come today, that as eyes looking at this, is a very helpful one and, as a

Braddan (Middle Farm) Planning Scheme Order 1998 — Debate Concluded — Motion Carried T128 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 pharmacist, I can tell you that it is something that occupies incineration. One can hardly blame them for that if that is my mind, and during the summer months I have read a their view, and we saw today that a number of petitioners number of journals regarding the issue of incineration and were not in the normal planning sense actually directly the dioxins that come from the stack and, quite rightly, the involved in the impact of what is proposed but had views DHSS and the director of health will have an eye to the and were from different parts of the Island. fact that those have to be minimised as much as possible. The issue of property devaluation I have already I think members in this hon. Court have also made the covered, but of course I do believe one must not just look same commitment. at this in the eyes of the proposed incinerator, because There was another issue too that the Lord Bishop whatever solution is put forward to our waste management mentioned, and that was the structural inadequacy, as he issues, whether that be a landfill site, a recycling plant or put it, of the site, and one of the petitioners also made that whatever drives the policy within Tynwald, then it has to point quite strongly. It is not a case for planning, the be near someone. We have heard of the 'NIMBY' structural inadequacy, and my information is that the site syndrome, 'not in my back yard' - it is very difficult for is adequate. It is an engineering issue, it is not necessarily, people who are that close to something which has an impact and I do not believe it is, a planning issue. So I hope that on their lives when it is for the benefit of the whole Island, that actually explains the Lord Bishop's three questions. but if one gives in to that situation every time as a Now, another issue that has come forward - and I think government then you go to the next stage, which is build Mr Speaker was the first to mentioned this - was the visual absolutely nothing near anyone, and one cannot progress impact at Richmond Hill of such a structure and that is a waste management policy on that basis. something that has been on my mind throughout the whole I would thank hon. members for all their contributions. process, because there is no way that people will go past I think it would be an error on my behalf to actually go Richmond Hill and not notice this structure. That was in through all the submissions of all the members. I have tried the inspector's report, it was acknowledged by the inspector to pick up on the major points, but what I would like to and he made quite a specific reference to it, but his say towards the end of my contribution is to thank those conclusion still, at the end of his process, was to approve petitioners extremely for being part of the Island's the use of this site for this purpose, and that was one of the democratic process, which we all guard very jealously. I factors that he took into account. So it is not something thank them for their comments and if this proposal is that has been forgotten about. It is being balanced out with successful I know that they will be disappointed, but I do all the other issues that go into rezoning a piece of land. hope that they are clear as to their rights for the way forward Now, why are we at Richmond Hill? The aspect of to the next stage, and certainly I hope that, if they still are political expedience has been mentioned. We are at not, they are touch with the Department of Local Richmond Hill for this discussion because of a political Government in order to make sure that their rights are clear process. That is what we are here for. It starts the process in their minds; I see no reason why they should be clouded rolling, and in his report the inspector clearly made now. reference to the fact that he was looking at this site alone I think they are the main points. I would ask hon. as to whether it was suitable for this purpose of land use members to consider the long history that we have in this and that if one gets into a scenario of saying 'Well, you area and that we need to make a decision some time. have to do a similar appraisal on every other site that may Members need to look at the information, think about the potentially be suitable for an incinerator everywhere on background and I do believe it is decision time now for the Island,' then we will never go forward. So by apolitical the zoning of this land and that the long list of reserve process this site was chosen, that was a decision some time matters which are there for all to see will safeguard the ago and now we are at this process of zoning. We are, future and the aspects as far as that is practicable. I beg to because of the process, narrowing down to a narrower and move, Mr President. narrower focus. That is the way the democratic process works and we are at this zoning situation. The President: Hon. members, I will now put the Mention was also made that it is no longer in the resolution set out at item 25 on the order paper, that the footprint. Now, it is technically possible, as I understand Braddan (Middle Farm) Planning Scheme Order of 1998 it, to put this incinerator on the footprint without the extra be approved. Will those in favour please say aye; against, land that has been the question of the compulsory purchase, no. The ayes have it. but it was with negotiation and with consultation with Braddan Commissioners that it was seen that the new A division was called for and voting resulted as follows: proposal, which is slightly different, not quite on the same footprint, was a far better solution and was more in the In the Keys - public interest, and that is why the footprint has changed. But of course that took us into the realms of compulsory purchase, but this hon. Court has made that decision and For: Messrs Gilbey, Quine, Rodan, North, Brown, should no longer form part, in my view, of the planning Houghton, Braidwood, Shimmin, Downie, Singer, Bell, decision to be made today. There has been, of course, the Corkill, Cannell and Gelling - 14 opportunity taken by a number of members and people from the public who are anti-incinerator, and they have Against: Messrs Henderson, Duggan, Mrs Hannan, taken whatever opportunity occurs to speak against Mr Karran and the Speaker - 5

Braddan (Middle Farm) Planning Scheme Order 1998 — Debate Concluded — Motion Carried TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 T129

The Speaker: Mr President, the motion carries in the Mr Duggan: Come on, kid! House with 14 votes cast for, sir, and 5 votes against. Mr Cannell: Mr President, I beg to move: In the Council - That this Court views with great concern the For: Messrs Lowey, Waft, Dr Mann, Kniveton, frequency and quality of passenger services provided to Mrs Christian and Mr Crowe - 6 and from the Island by the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company Limited. Against - None It is not without considerable thought that I table the The President: In the Council, 6 votes have been cast motion before you this evening. My family and my wife's in favour of the resolution, no votes against. Hon. members, family have a long connection with the Isle of Man Steam I declare the resolution carried. Packet Company, and for much of the time its passenger services were the butt of undeserved criticism regardless of the standards of service which they offered at the time. Isle of Man Steam Packet Company Limited The Steam Packet and Manx Radio in the Isle of Man are `Aunt Sallys'. The Steam Packet Company has an — Frequency and Quality of Services - unequalled record of wartime and peacetime service, and Amended Motion Carried - even today preserving a regular Irish Sea operation is both Select Committee Appointed demanding and costly. However, almost straight after it celebrated its 150th The President: Now, hon. members, turning to the next Anniversary, in an emotional annual meeting at the Castle business of the day I understand the hon. member for Mona Hotel in Douglas the company was plunged into a Onchan, Mr Karran, has to get off the Island in a hurry - set of circumstances it was not prepared for. Hon. members nothing to do with the past resolution (Laughter and will be relieved that I do not intend embarking on a interjections) - and I wondered if the Court would consider chronological history of what happened then, which is now assisting him in accepting consideration of item 42 at this amazingly almost two decades ago, but it is essential to stage. Now, I have a suggestion to make if the Court agrees recall that following the ill-fated Manx Line venture the to debating this that we put a five-minute speech limit on main port of the merged companies was Heysham rather each speech other than the mover's. Would you accept that? than Liverpool and passenger services became coupled with an element of freight by the Manx Viking, the Mona's Members: Agreed. Isle, the Tynwald and the King Orry. In the summer there were the side-loaders, and the Lady of Mann remains within The President: I do not think it will in any way impede the fleet today, thank goodness. (Mr Houghton: Hear, on the democratic process. hear!) As I say, I did not seek the support of this hon. Court Mr Singer: May I say that there are a lot of people this evening without thinking long and hard about the who have expressed dissatisfaction and would wish their consequences. If the resolution is accepted, it would be views to be known, and certainly I could not within five kicking in the teeth those such as Hamish Ross who have minutes express the views that have been expressed to me done sterling work to try to drag up to modem standards a to this hon. Court, which have to be taken into account if shipping line run wholly for private commercial gain. I discussions go ahead with the Steam Packet Company, Mr am reluctant to do that. Mr Ross and his colleagues have President. proved receptive to ideas from many areas of input and can hold their heads up high when it comes to commitment, The President: Right. Can we go on then, hon. but there is no doubt whatsoever that the present set-up members, bearing in mind there is the time factor and that for passenger services does not offer what is required by frankly I hope to be finished by 9 o'clock today. the local population wishing to travel to the United Kingdom nor, perhaps even more importantly, visitors Members: Hear, hear. wishing to travel to the Isle of Man. The truth is that the main vessel deployed is not suitable The President: The hon. Mr Cannell. for the job. The Lady of Mann is of course seaworthy but is coming to the end of its usefulness. More disturbing, Mr Cannell: Perhaps I could just crave a moment's the King Orry has been sold. That leaves us with the Ben indulgence. I am not certain whether we are intending to my Chree. An investment of £24 million is not to be sniffed have a sitting of the Court tomorrow, Mr President. at, even in these days of colossal sums needed to build big new ships. It is, of course, paltry when ranged against the The President: Please proceed, sir. There is no sitting cost of super-liners and cruise ships on the stocks. The tomorrow if I can help it if I can advance the programme, choice of the name Ben my Chree followed four previous which I am confident I can, to conclude tonight by 9 o'clock Steam Packet boats of the same name, the third of which and the Court agrees to that. So please do not waste time, is probably recalled by us with the fondest affection. Along sir. Get cracking! with her post-war counterpart, the Lady of Mann, it had a

Isle of Man Steam Packet Company Limited — Frequency and Quality of Services - Amended Motion Carried — Select Committee Appointed T130 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 quality now sadly lacking except on up-to-date cruise ships. that they were not answering public criticism we do now I fully understand that today's Irish Sea travellers would have the prospect of considerable interior work on the Ben probably be aghast at white-jacketed waiters serving four- my Chree, the contracting of the Super SeaCat until course meals on silver platters in walnut-panelled dining Christmas and the back-up of the Lady of Mann. That is rooms. Modern cafeteria appear to serve the purpose these all a long way from the RoPax performing the service days. alone. However, it is not matters such as the choice of So is what is going to be offered with the modifications refreshment which need concern us here. What we are sufficient to see this motion fail? I certainly doubt it and considering at the moment is this hon. Court sending out a appeal for support. To carry this motion would show the firm message that services such as those of the Ben my Steam Packet Company and Mr Sherwood in particular Chree just will not do. It may be said in some places that that they went too far this time. We have seen the Tynwald Court is not the place for private companies to headquarters of a once proud company decline to little more be told how to run their organisations, and in general I than an Island satellite. Port street services were forced would agree. If I ran a private company I would resent into major change, and even more unacceptable was a outside influence in the mode of obtaining the best possible decision to transfer seafarers statutory pay and conditions profit. However, when we talk of the Isle of Man shipping to a rival offshore finance centre while expecting it to be operations we are not within the general parameters, we accepted that the Manx taxpayer would continue to fund are into something which affects nearly every family in health benefit without the employer's contribution. To that the land. As politicians, and I am aware I am a raw recruit, end I envisage the appointment of a supervisory committee we surely do not need reminding of our responsibility to on the lines of Guernsey, where shipping services are the public, but outside of health and social security constantly monitored. The link bridge user agreement of requirements and the maintenance of law and order there July 1995 clearly states in paragraph 4(9) assurances about can be fewer areas likely to embrace such wide concern. quality of services, and at paragraph 32, which are alleged Concern is exactly what there is over the Steam Packet to be other advantages of the agreement, 'The vessels used passenger service as at present. Despite the best endeavours by the company shall be of a high standard of quality.' I of the company to pretend otherwise, the record clearly shows that what was intended was for the Ben my Chree respectfully submit that sleeping bodies being stepped over, to be given responsibility for the entire Heysham and kids running round inside a public bar, the prospect of noisy Liverpool service this winter. This is, as I said yesterday, students half-cut running round on public display and confirmed by reference to the House of Keys Hansard for seasick and chips are not what we expect of our major October 28th when the Minister for Transport, the hon. shipping line. member for Castletown, said in response to a question from Hon. members, so much we can stand. This situation is the hon. member for West Douglas, 'During the winter too much. Let us say here and now we will not put up with period of 1998 the new RoPax vessel will be the only Steam our main lifeline being treated in such a fashion. We are Packet vessel in service.' He went on, 'We are satisfied concerned and, as the highest authority, owe it to our people that the increased frequency that the RoPax will operate, to tell Mr Sherwood he should run better passenger service that of 13 return passenger sailings a week as against the than is now operating, even if the cracks of the Ben my seven returns provided by the King Orry, will meet that Chree are papered over. demand.' Further to a supplementary the hon. minister said, `My understanding is that the King Orry will cease to be The President: A seconder? The hon. member for in service soon after the RoPax comes into operation, as Ramsey. will the Bellard. A year on, and admittedly with the wonderful benefit of hind-sight we are a long way from Mr Singer: I am pleased to second, Mr President, that position. The Ben my Chree duly came on line and because the saga of the Ben my Chree has certainly inspired appeared ready to satisfy the requirements as detailed. the people of this Island to come forward in force to be However, it became immediately obvious that her heard, and I think this is quite an unusual situation. The specification was such that it would prove difficult. so-called 'silent majority' have been so incensed by the Criticism came not just from the usual quarters where, as way in which they and so many other people have been someone said, if the QEII was sailing to Heysham some treated by the Steam Packet Company that they have come people would not be satisfied, but it a very short time it forward by letter, by telephone and the media, and they became clear that the poor Ben my Chree would not do are clearly saying 'We will not be treated in this fashion. even for the very modest requirements of the average We will not have our views ignored. We expect to be treated passenger. Complaints centred on its accommodation, as intelligent, caring people, people who will not be held which is obviously a mainstay of any winter sea voyage to ransom by the Steam Packet's miscalculations, its quest likely to last around five hours and our regret that the of profits before service and its clear decision to purchase Packet's designers got it wrong, not just for the so-called a vessel which does not meet the expectations of either the experts but wrong for nearly everyone, and I am sure I am people of the Island or the visitors who wish to come here not alone in receiving many calls of concern even from and who contribute considerably to the economic viability shareholders as recently as one delivered to my home this of our holiday and retail trade.' The people are correct and lunchtime. I congratulate them on making their stance and saying 'No'. To be fair, the response from the Steam Packet Company We read a couple of weeks ago that the Steam Packet has been immediate. Even if clothed in the doubtful claim were making minor changes, as the mover said, not after

Isle of Man Steam Packet Company Limited — Frequency and Quality of Services - Amended Motion Carried — Select Committee Appointed TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 T131

criticism, of course, but after receiving customer comment. who went to the launch of the vessel what a wonderful How can anyone believe that? If the company had thought flagship this was, how the reputation of the Isle of Man anything of the passengers, if the company had thought of would be boosted. That hype disappeared within a few the obvious over-crowding and lack of space, if the days. When I visited the ship on the open evening, not company had thought of the lack of facilities, they would having been privy to seeing any plans of the ship, I was never have purchased this vehicle, hoisting such discomfort shocked. I remember remarking to the hon. member for on the people who have no choice but to travel on it. Middle what a good restaurant area this was, and which There is no argument that this is a freight vessel, but to way did I go to see the rest of the ship? Of course the the people who are made to feel as if they are travelling on answer was 'Nowhere.' A case of 'what you see is what a cattle boat at times the support for this vessel's prowess you get.' When I voiced these views publicly I was as a passenger-carrying ship by senior ministers and the reprimanded by the Steam Packet representative. I feel senior management of the Steam Packet Company rings sorry for that poor employee having to publicly depend very hollow, especially with those who have had to the indefensible, because within a few days the public experience a busy crossing or in bad weather. Comparisons began to realise what was going on and they began to cannot but be made with the King Orry and, without any clearly speak out. They wrote to the press, they spoke on doubt, the Ben my Chree has received a thumbs-down from the radio and I started to receive letters of support, as no the public, the people who matter and the people that the doubt did other hon. members. The furore became even Steam Packet Company should be caring about. worse when the public had to start to use the vessel, and I The announcement that alterations are to be made of a and other members are still receiving letters and phone relatively minor nature for the winter period does not calls relating to the anger of passengers and the way they suddenly make the vessel acceptable. The travellers are are being treated. I have not received one letter in support still in the same room. There is still the same area with of this vessel. The Isle of Man Examiner phone-in recorded people eating and drinking with the smell of food, which over 450 people with eight votes for, less than one vote is repulsive to those who are poor sailors. There is still no for each member of the Council of Ministers. It is no escape from the noise or for those wishing to sleep, unable wonder the Steam Packet management went into hiding. to escape from those who may be a little raucous or from The people I feel sorry for are the company employees on bored or crying children. the Ben my Chree who receive the brunt of the travelling Certainly a silly argument has been put forward that, passengers' complaints. after all, this is a freight ship and not a cruise liner. It is I have expressed to this hon. Court my views, but it is quite clear that this is anything but a cruise liner, but it is also a fact that the people of the Island wish to be heard also not a ship that is being used for a short cross-channel and need to be heard by those of us here today and by the trip of an hour-and-a-half. Basic comforts and an acceptable people at the top within the Steam Packet Company. What environment for all passengers are the expected norm. And is also worrying is that critical views have been expressed whilst the Steam Packet Company say the alterations are across the water, particularly in the Liverpool area, in the being introduced for the time of the year when there are local paper and radio phone-ins, criticising the general level less passengers, what about the Christmas and New Year of service by the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company, views period and what about next year, when large numbers of which can damage the perception of the Isle of Man and people wish to travel? We will be back in the same position, discourage visitors. I do have just a selection of some of a position which is unacceptable. the views which I would like to read out, because they The real answer and the true answer is to sell the ship, a make clear the scope of a public's dissatisfaction, and in ship which was not the first choice of the Isle of Man Steam some case disgust, of the cavalier way in which they feel Packet Company but, as I understand it, a cancelled order. that they are being treated by the Steam Packet Company. To me it is quite clear that the people of the Isle of Man I have a letter here which says, 'We feel we are going to will never take to this ship, nor will the visitors from across be trapped on the Island. We very much like to take our the water. There will be a swap to aircraft by certain car across and are very bad sailors. We would not consider travellers - an excellent boost to the airport - but not going without a guaranteed cabin and have no wish to have everyone can do that, and there is no alternative at present a good car on deck, which we believe can happen. We for the many people who have to travel midweek with a could fly but we are too old to rent a car across. We so car. look forward to the occasional trip to the UK. Several of If the Steam Packet Company were to take a fresh and our friends have had the most appalling experiences and honest view of the situation and if they were to make the there have been letters from tourists saying they are not travelling public a priority, they would stop their back-to- coming again. On October 3rd we travelled to Liverpool the-wall defensive attitude, accept that the public are right by the SeaCat and we had booked a return, Sunday October and that they have made a big, big mistake. Perhaps then 11th, for the 6.45 sailing from Liverpool on the SeaCat. there could commence a sensible dialogue as to how this We duly arrived at Liverpool, October llth, to be told the disastrous sea transport situation in which the Island now sailing of the SeaCat was cancelled owing to weather finds itself could be rectified. The Steam Packet bosses conditions. We were then informed we had to travel to refer to the Ben my Chree as a new ship for a new age. All Heysham for the 2.15 a.m. sailing to Douglas. We were I can say is, 'Thank goodness for the good old days.' told we could leave our car in Liverpool until Friday, The unacceptable situation was obvious as soon as the October 16th, and then they would freight it to Douglas Ben my Chree docked in Douglas. We heard from those and we could travel by coach to Heysham at 10.00 p.m.

Isle of Man Steam Packet Company Limited — Frequency and Quality of Services - Amended Motion Carried — Select Committee Appointed T132 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998

As our car is fairly new and we had many items of value me kept dropping to sleep she lolled over towards me and along with our luggage and also our pet dog, we found I had to keep waking her up to move back. I knew my son this impractical. We were also told our dog would not be would want to sleep and therefore took from our vehicle allowed on board. Having to travel approximately 170 to the lounge his buggy. What a waste of time! There was miles to the two ports and half the journey in pouring rain not even enough room to put the buggy up for him. There we arrived at Heysham at approximately 7.00 p.m. to find really is nowhere to go for a walk. Just what do you expect no facilities open. We had to hang about there until 1.00 people to do for four hours? I thought that in this day and a.m. for boarding time for 2.15 a.m. sailing. My husband age each time something is bought new it is better. This is 87 years old and I am 82. When we did actually board new boat is just far worse than any I have travelled on in the vessel it was so busy with people and actually some of my life. To think, of all the boats the Isle of Man have had them lying on the floor, making the journey most before this one, the Steam Packet seems to be going uncomfortable.' backwards.' And that is from somebody in Preston who `On 16th September I had the misfortune to travel on says `I will definitely not come to the Island again if I the Ben my Chree from Heysham. The boat was late have to use that boat.' arriving, late departing and took an extra hour on the `Having recently returned from a return trip to the UK crossing. It was very rough, force 8 to 9, and everyone travelling on the Ben my Chree I am only ready to agree was herded into the one room, which contains a fast-food with the criticism voiced. We had a thoroughly facility, a bar and as shop. Almost everyone was sick around uncomfortable journey - nothing to do with the weather, us, which made for a very, very unpleasant journey. I asked which was perfect, but due to the appallingly for a cabin, none were available and asked if we could go uncomfortable seating on the boat' - the majority of which outside. We were unable to do so because of the weather. is not being changed, Mr President. `The seating provides In my opinion the boat is not suitable for passengers and no proper support for the neck and head apart from bench- the freight arrangements are not perfect either, especially like very upright seats of unbelievable hardness where one if you are parked on deck.' is condemned to sit for three-and-a-half to four hours cheek `On 13th August myself and family travelled on the Ben by jowl with snoring strangers.' my Chree ferry from Heysham to Douglas at a cost of £80 There is one here from a disabled person who single fare, travelling as foot passengers. This was my first encountered great difficulties in climbing to the passenger time on the ferry and I have to say I was disappointed. We accommodation and `walking across the so-called lounge were unable to sit down for the whole journey due to the proved to be impossible.' ferry being overcrowded. My children had to sit on the Just one or two more. `Oh dear! After our expectations, bar floor for the duration of the trip. The televisions were what a let-down! I saw her come into the harbour on the turned on but there was no sound. If the ferry is first day and immediately said, "She is a freighter", which overcrowded, there should be some kind of discount and is right. My godson recently travelled both ways on the an explanation of this before boarding. We were told before same day and ended up bitterly disappointed, telling me, boarding to expect the trip to be uncomfortable and to hand "Never again". I'll take a plane and hire a car the other in all hand luggage due to lack of storage space. All staff side. The lounge was full and cramped, tannoys asking were apologetic and were in total agreement that for £24 people to remove luggage from the seats.' No passageway million it was a pathetic attempt of a passenger/freight ferry. to get to the toilets, but he had to sit in discomfort for fear The ferry was overbooked. It is more than a little clear of losing his seat; nowhere for children to play; no relaxing that in designing this ship passengers were not a chairs to sit in; bar facilities and children in the same area consideration.' - 'Surely we are entitled to something better than that.' This is a copy from a person living in Preston, somebody Finally this one is also disturbing about the lack of who travels to this Island: `I have just this day' - this was booking facilities and the unwillingness for booking, which on 29th September - `arrived in the Isle of Man and have seems to be putting a preference on people with vehicles never travelled on a ferry in such conditions in all my life and ignoring foot passengers. 'I think you may be interested as the Ben my Chree. Just what is going on? My husband in my experience. On August 17th I phoned the Steam came over last weekend for the Manx Grand Prix practice Packet to book a passage for a relative, one foot passenger, week' - this will be in August, actually - `and rang home on Thursday, September 10th or 17th on the afternoon with disappointment and disgust at the new boat that he sailing from Heysham, returning the following Monday. I came on. I could not believe what he was saying about the was told the boat was fully booked on those dates and all ferry. Everywhere was packed and conditions were awful they could offer was a night passage both ways. This I and uncomfortable, and he hoped I was not travelling on refused, knowing the bad seating arrangements on the Ben the same boat. You have got it right. I did, along with my my Chree and lack of other facilities. I enquired when I parents and two-year-old son. We fortunately got a seat could book on a Thursday afternoon sailing, returning albeit not a comfortable one. The rest of the passengers Monday for one foot passenger. I was told the first date were herded in like cattle. There were not enough seats was October 29th. I took this booking, which was very for everyone. People were sat on the floor and asleep on difficult for my relative who has had to change his leave. I the floor. I know that at Manx and TI' periods people who phoned the Tourist Board to complain about the situation, travel a long way often do lie on the floor and sleep, but only to be told that the Ben my Chree was a cargo boat, not never in such cramped conditions on this boat. Most of a passenger vessel, and cargo had to have first the seats are bench seats and when the person sat next to consideration. Later I discussed this matter with a

Isle of Man Steam Packet Company Limited — Frequency and Quality of Services - Amended Motion Carried — Select Committee Appointed TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 T133

car and passengers. This I found hard to believe but decided chairman of the Steam Packet Company and he does assure to find out. So on September 14th I phoned the Steam me that the company's good will and good intentions are Packet and asked if I could book a car and three passengers there. Their latest and biggest investment has attracted on the afternoon sailing from Heysham on October 8th, adverse comment. The company are, however, returning on Monday on the Ben my Chree. I was told, endeavouring to respond to these comments and let us hope "Yes, that would be quite all right". I said I did not require that what they are proposing will overcome some of the the booking, I was only making an enquiry. I was amazed criticisms. to find one could book a car and three passengers at that I have tabled an amendment to the motion for two notice and yet from August 7th, to book one foot passenger, reasons. First, because the motion as it stands is purely there were no vacancies until October 29th.' declaratory and nothing specific flows from it as it is The user agreement was signed giving the Steam Packet presently worded. We need, I think, to add a specific Company a monopoly on sea transport to and from the purpose to ensure that it leads to action. Second, there is a Island, although it was opposed by certain members of need to have a debate on Steam Packet services, therefore this hon. Court. On reading the document it is obvious an authoritative statement based on enquiries and then it that many areas are quite wishy-washy when they could can considered, otherwise there is a danger that rumours and should have been more specific. However, there are and stories and half-truths will predominate and we will certain sections which are there, supposedly, to protect the end up with an ill-considered debate and an ill-considered public, and I particularly refer to section 3.13.3 which talks possible outcome. The amendment will ensure a report about the vessel, and part of this paragraph states, 'to back to Tynwald based on discussions with the company provide reasonable standards of service and facilities to and then we can debate the issue, I would suggest, in a passengers and passengers and accompanied vehicles.' proper manner. The amendment calls on the Council of There are many points made by the many complainants Ministers to enter into discussions with the company and which have justified, clearly prove, that the paragraph I to report back by February. This timescale allows us to go quoted is not being adhered to by the Steam Packet into things in depth but nevertheless to act quickly and Company. These complaints are so numerous and repeated certainly report well before next summer season. The by those people who have experienced these deficiencies Council of Ministers will, if the amendment is accepted, that there is a definite breach of the user agreement, in my appoint for the task a small committee, which will need to opinion. Yes, I know the government will maybe argue include, obviously, representatives from the relevant that the current situation is acceptable to them, maybe one departments. I hope members will regard the amendment reason being that they say without the Steam Packet what as helpful and constructive and I therefore beg to move: alternative do we have? Such an attitude only goes to prove how unwise it was to provide a monopoly to the company At the end add - to whom the Isle of Man is only a small cog in a company 'and requests that the Council of Ministers enter empire. The government, this hon. Court, represent the into discussions with the company on what needs people. The people have made their views abundantly clear to be done to address the causes of the concern and and I believe it is our duty to ensure that we do not tiptoe report not later than February 1999 sitting.' so as not to upset the company but that we demand necessary major changes in the Steam Packet Company Mr Downie: Mr President, hon. members, I do not want service in line with our interpretation as to what provides to go over the ground that my hon. colleague from Ramsey a true commitment which delivers a good, comfortable went over; I think we are all very well aware of the situation and acceptable solution for the people of the Isle of Man that has arisen by the arrival of the Ben my Chree in Manx and its visitors. waters. I have just got one letter to read out and it is from A user agreement means agreement with the user. The a long-serving member of the Isle of Man Steam Packet freight users may be extremely happy, the passenger user Company staff who is still employed and who writes, 'The is extremely upset and unhappy with the level of service staff and myself are very pleased to hear that members of deemed adequate by the Steam Packet Company. If the the House of Keys are waking up and asking questions in company are not prepared to provide the comforts that the the House as to the suitability of the flagship Ben my Chree people are fully entitled to, then it is surely our duty to and also the long-term effect it will have on the tourist ensure that someone else does. Thank you. trade. As I am in the front line for people's complaints, I am receiving approximately 100 per week both verbally Mr Gelling: Mr President, it is very clear from this and written and, bearing in mind that there is a system in month's Tynwald question paper and from the local media place in the Steam Packet where you have got to phone comment, from letters which we have all received and from for at least half an hour to try and get through on a line, I the appearance of this motion on the agenda that there are would say that is pretty good going and a lot of people serious concerns about the services being provided by the must get very frustrated and put the telephone down. People Steam Packet Company and in particular by the new vessel, are most disgusted with the Ben and disturbingly say they the Ben my Chree. It is sad to see these concerns emerge will definitely not come back to the Island if they have to because the company over recent times have shown their travel on that ship again. It is also felt that the Super SeaCat commitment to the Island in terms of increased and will not be able to sail very much during the winter months improved services and in terms of new investment both and what will happen to passengers and cars when they onshore and afloat. I have had discussions with the cannot all fit onto the Ben, as many sailings are already

Isle of Man Steam Packet Company Limited — Frequency and Quality of Services - Amended Motion Carried — Select Committee Appointed T134 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 cannot all fit onto the Ben, as many sailings are already light into the main circulating area on deck 5.' You can full and the Lady of Mann at the moment is berthed in read on yourselves. As far as I am concerned, hon. Liverpool? It is also felt that 200 people is the most the members, it is a pity, really, that at this stage in the day the Ben should carry both for comfort and safety.' And could Chief Minister's amendment has not been seconded, I say, I do not know whether members are aware of what but ... happened last night when, in what would be regarded as a fairly minor sea for the traditional vessels like the King The President: Hon. member, that I would regard as Orry and the traditional boats that have sailed these waters probably my responsibility, but I thought you were going for decades, the Ben my Chree just could not cope; she to second it initially. had to turn round and head for home. She went into Ramsey bay to secure items on the ship which had overturned and Mr Downie: No, I wish to propose an amendment in become dislodged including a lorry which turned over. I my own right, Mr President, which I have had circulated. am told that the lounge was in a diabolical state. There were people flying from one end of the lounge to the other The President: I accept that, but recognising the on the seats; there was food all over the place; a person similarity between the two, I thought there might have been went into the toilet, which was in an appalling state, and that possibility, so do not condemn the Chief Minister! It said to one of the crew, 'Can we not clean this up in here' is my fault. and his remark was, 'It is not my job, it is done by the contractors when we get to Heysham.' Now that, I suggest, Mr Downie: No, no, I am not doing that. What I am is not really the best way for this ship to operate in the going to say, hon. members, is that prior to the construction interests of the people of the Isle of Man. of this vessel and its launch, certain members of the Council I do not want to be negative. I think perhaps there is an of Ministers were given the task to liaise with the Steam opportunity to get some sense out of all this. Earlier on in Packet Company, they attended the launch, VIP guests for the day I did circulate to all members of the Court for the day, and what have we finished up with? Now, I accept information details of a very similar ship to the Ben my when we have these discussions with people we like to Chree which is about to go into service in New Zealand, think that we are dealing with honourable men and, as far and I would ask the Court to bear with me for a moment as the Council of Ministers is concerned, I think that to just to make a comparison with the type and level of some extent they have been let down and let down badly, standard of accommodation that this new RoPax vessel and that is the impression of the people of the Isle of Man, will have, bearing in mind she takes a train as well as cars, who think that this government has let them down. Rather trucks and buses and she has accommodation for 365 than have the Council of Ministers, or a delegation of the people. 'Aratere's passenger accommodation is set apart Council of Ministers, going in to talk to the Steam Packet, from other ships in the fleet through the addition of some in moving my amendment I would like to think that the new facilities. Perhaps the most interesting is the fact that Chief Minister, the transport minister and the tourism the ship has a forward, outdoor observation deck which minister should be backed up by three people appointed passengers will be able to enjoy. This is the first of the by this Court; it should be a Tynwald committee and then, fleet and it will be a big hit in summer especially.' Then rather than have the transport minister get up and say, as we go on to say, 'There is also ample seating inside for all he has said this week again, that everything is lovely and passengers in addition to the theatre, the television rooms `I do not know what you are complaining about', he has and the club class lounge. There are even sunloungers on travelled on the boat, no problem, we can put our points the uppermost outdoor observation deck. Deck 4, at forward and the members of this House who are boarding level, contains most of the passenger facilities backbenchers can fully understand, both from the Council including the forward observation lounge, the bar, self- of Ministers' point of view and the Steam Packet's point service cafeteria, movie theatre and children's play area. of view, and we have got the opportunity then to air our At this level will also be found the outside viewing deck views, as it were, and try and get some headway made and in the bows. On deck 5 above are two television rooms, some understanding from the Steam Packet that the vessel four small writing rooms for passengers who want to work in its present form is just not acceptable. during the voyage, the club class lounge and the Tavern Now just finally, some of the complaints that I have bar. This deck also contains crew space for the truck received: an inability to book; half-term this weekend, the drivers' accommodation. Other facilities on board include Ben my Chree is booked out solid; no chance round about a shop, gaming machines and video games parlour, luggage Christmas - she has been full for the last three or four lockers, lifts between all passenger levels, a kindergarten weeks; there is a distinct lack of capacity on certain sailings; and a nursery. As well as toilets for the disabled, the ship inferior lack of accommodation, passengers sitting on the offers for the first time showers for the passengers to use floor; no deck space; extremely poor port facilities. In fact, and there will also be an information centre providing if you go to Heysham on her the facilities are so poor, she information about the vessel and the journey as well as has to take on board a coach from Tours Isle of Man here visitor information, a network service with information to comply with the port regulations in Heysham because on tourism locations and products in New Zealand. The there is no provision for gangways there and the passengers information centre will be able to arrange onward travel are not allowed by law to walk up the car ramp. So she is and accommodation bookings and ticketing. An interesting actually carrying a bus from here to go to Heysham to feature is the large atrium or skylight which lets the natural take the people off. Now, how do you explain that to the

Isle of Man Steam Packet Company Limited — Frequency and Quality of Services - Amended Motion Carried — Select Committee Appointed TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 T135

travelling public? The linkspan they have got to use in department and the tourist industry was confronted with Heysham at the moment is the old one which was removed great regularity by the most negative, intransigent, from the South Edward which has been recycled in visionless board of directors I think it is anyone's Heysham, because she will not go on to the new linkspan misfortune to encounter. But, even having said that, I have in Heysham. She needs to be altered. So they have not to say that I have had more letters and verbal comments of thought that through either. Another complaint is that she complaint in these last few months than I ever had in the is definitely lacking in basic facilities, as yesterday proved. darkest days in the 1980s as Minister for Tourism, and I When there is a swell on the water and a rough sea, there think that is a pretty horrendous reflection on what we are are not enough toilet facilities for people; if somebody is facing today in terms of provision on our seas. feeling ill there is just nowhere to lie down. I have to say, again looking back, that although blame The operation of the vessel and the other vessels by the is being placed at the moment on Mr Sherwood and his Steam Packet seems to be totally inflexible and I would company for landing us in the situation we are in at the ask hon. members of this Court, if we are not prepared to moment, I am absolutely convinced that this decision was take this issue on now, is this what we are going to put up taken quite a long time before that, because on a number with for the next 20 years? Well, I think not. Last night we of occasions, once publicly, the previous chief executive had a storm, let us say that we have learned something had stated that he saw no future whatsoever for tourism, from that and hope the company have learned something he believed tourism was dead - and that was in public - from that and that you will support the amendment in my and that plans were already being investigated for precisely name and we can have a joint approach to this and get on the type of ship that we have at the moment. This is not and get the business done and the issue sorted out once something which has just appeared out of the blue, this and for all. Thank you. I beg to move: had been planned by the previous board of directors before Mr Sherwood and Sea Containers came on the scene or at At the end add - least took the company over. So this has been planned for "and that a select committee be appointed, quite a long time, which is all the more frustrating that as comprising the Chief Minister, the Minister for we have had a number of years in gestation we end up Transport, the Minister for Tourism and Leisure with such a diabolical public relations disaster for the Isle together with three further members, to enter into of Man that we are now facing. discussions with the company on what needs to be I believe not only members of Tynwald and the Manx done to address the causes of the concern and report public will feel let down by this but the tourist industry, in not later than February 1999 sitting." particular, who have endured so much over the last 10 or 15 years in restructuring, in massive reinvestment, in Mr Bell: Mr President, first of all it is my intention to upgrading, in trying to meet the standards required of a second the amendment which has been put forward by the modem tourist industry will feel let down that, after having hon. Chief Minister. I think his is a practical way forward gone through all this, invested millions and millions of which in no takes away from the purpose behind the pounds, as has the Manx Government - and we invested original resolution at all but, as the hon. Chief Minister another £1.5 million this morning in pictures which are all has said, the resolution in itself does not go far enough. It indirectly connected to tourism - after all these tens of does not actually take us into action, it merely enables us millions of pounds have gone into tourism, we suddenly to state an opinion and I, along, I think, with probably find that once again we have gone full circle and we are every other member in this hon. Chamber, believe that the back with the Steam Packet problem in front of us again time has come for action rather than for sitting in this in this Chamber, and that is the reason I am so bitterly Chamber spouting pious words. disappointed that we have to sit here tonight debating this I have to say, though, that I am exceptionally issue once again. I am sure all of those who endured those disappointed that we are having this debate tonight in the years with me would have thought it was something we first place, not in any way as a criticism of the resolution had put behind us and we would no longer have to face itself, but having been Minister of Tourism for eight years again, we could look forward to the future with some and endured the darkest days of both the Steam Packet optimism and at long last the tourist industry and the Isle and, I guess, Manx tourism, I had hoped that we had come of Man could start to reap a positive return on that out of that period into a more enlightened and far-sighted investment which we have put in over the years. era of co-operation between our transport providers and Government has led the way over the years in investing the business community and local population of the Island. in new facilities: there is £20 million or thereabouts We all remember, or at least most of us will remember, the committed to the National Sports Centre as well as a very troubled times the Steam Packet went through in the number of other investments in such things as the museum, mid to late 1980s to the extent that it teetered on the brink Peel Heritage Centre, and a lot of these investments are of bankruptcy at one stage and there was a danger of losing geared to group special interests, short-break weekend the shipping line altogether. It was understandable, though trips, but if these are going to succeed we have got to have massively frustrating, that the company at that time had to the travelling capacity to bring these people in, otherwise have taken a number of difficult decisions which did cause this investment is completely wasted and the difficulty we problems for the Isle of Man, but these decisions had to be are going to run into at the moment - and a number of taken to save the company from going under altogether. I particular pressure points have been referred to yesterday have to say, though, even allowing for that, the tourist in Question Time - things like the Student Festival of Sport,

Isle of Man Steam Packet Company Limited — Frequency and Quality of Services - Amended Motion Carried — Select Committee Appointed T136 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 the obvious pressure points of the TT, the Grand Prix, a believe it is the fault of this particular gentleman at all, for number of other events which tourism, I know, are working once, although I might not have said the thing about his at building up are going to be in jeopardy unless we can predecessor. I do believe it is the fault of the board of have a guarantee of capacity at the times when people want directors in failing to realise what the true needs of the to travel. Island are at the moment and their failure to respond to We have heard a litany of complaints from the travelling those needs. public but I think we also ought to bear in mind - I do not I do not want to go on any longer. I hope I have tried to know whether all the members have had it but I have put my views in some sort of context, but although I take certainly in recent days had - a severe criticism from one the point that the hon. member for West Douglas has made of the Island's major manufacturers about the cost of freight with his amendment, I think it is extending out too far to to Liverpool, to the extent that he has assured me it costs take it to six people, in fact, going along. I think a small him more to export his product from the Isle of Man to committee, at this stage at least, of the Council of Ministers Liverpool than it does to ship it onward then from Liverpool led by the Chief Minister will do the trick in imparting to to China. Now, this is from a bona fide, well established the Board of Directors, the management down there, our major company on the Island, and if we are getting very, very real concerns and concerns which are a reflection statements like this coming from our manufacturing leaders of the wide travelling population on the Island. So I would at a time when world recession is starting to build round like to second that amendment of the Chief Minister's, Mr us, particularly in manufacturing, we are going to find President, and I would urge hon. members to support it. ourselves that if in fact what I am told is true - and I have to qualify my statement there because I have not checked Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I think that we have got to it out yet - not only the problems that have been discussed have a little bit of soul-searching as far as this is concerned. here today with the tourist industry, with the local travelling I think the reason we have got problems with the Steam public, but we may well also find ourselves in major Packet today lies at the feet of all of us in this hon. Court - problems with the cost of importing and exporting goods Mr Bell: Not me. for our manufacturing industry, and that of course is also going to impact on retailing on the Isle of Man because Mr Karran: - and especially you, sir, you have been at they will be going through the same problem, presumably, the helm of the crazy policies that we have brought about in bringing in their goods. that has got us here in the first place. So I have to say I do believe that this issue, this motion that is put forward tonight, is timely; it does deserve our Mr Bell: You have a short memory, a very short support. I do believe, though, that - I hope I am not memory. sounding like it - we do not need to get too hysterical at this stage about it; it needs some rational thought and Mr Karran: I remember when I tried to put something rational negotiation and discussion and clarity, I think, with sensible up for a user agreement. Eaghtyrane, what I am the company to try and identify first of all to the company concerned about is, my heart lept when I heard some of and the directors themselves the very real concerns and my colleagues here who are ministers saying, 'Well, maybe alarm bells which are ringing throughout the Island at the the hon. member for West Douglas's proposal is a good moment so that they get the picture very clearly from the idea,' but then my heart sank again when I saw that 'Oh, top, and I hope that this sub-committee of the Council of no, we cannot go down that line.' And then we have the Ministers, which I hope you will support, when it goes to situation with the hon. member for Ramsey and my heart see the management will in fact be led by the Chief Minister lept when he said 'This proposal . . .' When I first looked to make quite clear to the company the weight of political at this item on the agenda paper I thought, 'Well, you have concern that exists on this matter, but I do believe we need heard of the horse bolting, but the horse has not only bolted, to go there so that we can enforce that argument and hear it has died, gone to the knacker's yard and has been their plans for restoring some faith back to this service. It recycled.' As far as this proposal is concerned that is on is extremely unfortunate we have got to this stage because the paper today, I believe it is of no benefit. If we have as I did believe that up until certainly a year or two ago that many declaratory resolutions on the table, they are not public confidence was in fact coming back in the company interested. The beneficial owner is not going to be again. I have heard very little comment one way or the interested in a motion in here today. It is going to be action other, which is usually a good sign, about the company's that is going to be needed to be taken. services until the new ship arrived. I thought we had finally I have to admit that I have made mistakes over this. I got over that hump of problems and we were into calmer remember the days when there used to be the good, the waters. It just shows how wrong you can be! bad and the ugly: John Orme, myself and , I have to just finally make one, again qualification I the member for Peel, (Laughter) and the bad and the ugly suppose, to what I have been saying, I have to say the voted against selling our shares and the good did. enthusiasm and ability and willingness to listen and help Unfortunately, I voted for getting rid of the shares, so I of the chief executive in the Isle of Man Steam Packet think it has been a catalogue of disasters over a number of Company, Mr Ross, is a breath of fresh air in comparison years that has led us to a situation where my hon. new to what we have had to deal with before, and I would hope colleague's motion has been put down. that any comments members make about the performance I think it is quite wrong for the hon. member for Ramsey of this company generally do bear that in mind. I do not to try and brush things under the carpet, even though he

Isle of Man Steam Packet Company Limited — Frequency and Quality of Services - Amended Motion Carried — Select Committee Appointed TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 T137 did highlight an important factor as far as the freight, and they are looking at 1,0871/2. and a half means they only it is a very, very worrying situation at the present time. I went one way and it was empty coming back for a would just say I hope that some of you read Hansard in reason - the past and read the fact that what we should have been looking at is some sort of 'Oftran' instead of running and Mr Cannell: They did that last night. rolling over and playing dead, and that is what we did with the user agreement, and then we threw in millions of Mr Downie: They went to Ramsey last night. pounds more into a linkspan and once again we have paid dearly for it and we have ended up with not getting what Mr Brown: Now, we are getting here about last night. we wanted. That is fine. You would think the Steam Packet never I would just like to say I will be seconding the hon. stopped sailing in bad weather. member for West Douglas, because I do not want another in-house committee of three ministers looking at their own Mr Downie: It has not started yet. mistakes and then 'Oh, surprise, surprise!' We never learn from them. I hope the three members can stand up and Mr Brown: Can I say, I have heard some bits said and support the hon. member for West Douglas. Let us have I know I am to some degree accused of being somebody three lay members and let us hope that we get three lay who is flying the flag for the Steam Packet - I am not. I do believe in being fair. I do believe there are some problems. members who are not ministers, who will look at the thing I do believe we have got the best chance ever for many with a broader approach, There is something fundamentally decades of getting something done here because of the wrong here. We have to get our act together. The proposal, professionalism of Hamish Ross, and I have to say it is all whilst well meaning of the original mover, is very nice, right having our Manx politics, but when we have got The proposal from but is absolutely useless. (Laughter) somebody who is on our side and is actually fighting to the Chief Minister, and seconded - well, they will cover it improve the situation, we should also lend our support as up and we will be trying to defend the indefensible and we well as criticise, and I have to say that we are in a position will spend more time in this situation of doing nothing. where we as an Isle of Man do not own the company. When Eaghtyrane, I will second the proposal of the hon. we had shares we had nothing. We were in a worse position. member for West Douglas. I think that is the most chance I remember being in here and because we had shares we of actually achieving something that will be of benefit to could not really criticise our company. We were tied down the general public if it is not nobbled by its membership. and members were saying 'Oh, let us get rid of our shares, for goodness' sake'. They were worthless to us and we Mr Shimmin: Mr President, very briefly, I too was got rid of them, and since then we have been in a better going to second the amendment in the name of Mr Downie. position. We know the issue. We have had the complaints. We now As far as the problems of the Steam Packet in bad have a way forward. The choice is which way we go weather, all I can say is that Captain Kinley, before he forward. I believe it will add political and public credibility died, who I would suggest had a lot more ability than any to the whole debate were we to have not just Council of of us sat in here, said to me on two occasions, because I Ministers representation, therefore I will be supporting Mr specifically asked him the question, once when we were Downie's amendment. at the launch and once when he got the ship into Douglas Harbour, 'What is it going to be like?' And he said, 'It is a Mr Brown: Mr President, just a couple of things. Really fine ship, it will take everything the Irish Sea can throw at I think that, because of what has been said in here and it.' Now, that is what he said and last night was an exception elsewhere by members, it is important from our point of in terms of weather, and if you do not believe that look at view as the government of the Isle of Man and Tynwald what happened round the Island. Court that we get rid of maybe some of the myths as well. Now, you know, it is all very well us bright sparks in Yes, there are complaints about the Steam Packet and it here criticising other people's money but, quite honestly, depends what members determine as the level of complaint, we have got a job to do here for the people of the Isle of how serious it is. There have been complaints. There are Man, and that is that we have to be level-headed, we have people who are reasonably content with the ship and there to look at these issues fairly. I do not have a problem with are problems with the ship. We all know what they are. having a select committee. If that is the will of the Court it One thing we do know is that the new Ben my Chree is not will happen. I do not have a problem. I do not mind whether what we are used to, and we cannot get away from that it is the Chief Minister's amendment or whether it is the because that is how it has been designed. It is a private other amendment; it does not matter. I would say, though, company. It is an important link; I have always been one that if we have a committee of six of this hon. Court there who has been in favour of protecting that important link. may well be a real difficulty of getting the report back That is why I supported the user agreement, because here to the February Tynwald, not because people will not without it we would have absolutely nothing. We would do their work, but trying to get six people together because be hear stood today and have nothing even to tie to at all of all their other commitments, but I do not have a problem and, for example, under the user agreement we require, as with that, because what I do think is we need to get out of the Isle of Man Government supported by Tynwald, a the myths. minimum of 555 return sailings per year (Mr Downie Now, the hon. member for Onchan, Mr Karran, interjecting). Now, that is what we require, and for 1998 complained about the amendment from the Chief Minister

Isle of Man Steam Packet Company Limited — Frequency and Quality of Services - Amended Motion Carried — Select Committee Appointed T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 and complained about the other side that we are not maybe It is not going to come about because that user agreement going to support what is an amendment from another is in place - member. Again, I do not care where the amendment comes from or what the amendment is as long as it is what we Mr Brown: Hear, hear, or any other agreement. think is the right thing to do but, with the greatest respect, the motion on the agenda as it is, if we are minded to Mr Quine: Well, I am coming on to that. I tried for support that and none of the amendments, does nothing. It years to get through this Court a statutory franchise. We gives us the opportunity to debate the issue. That is what got it to within one vote, and that would have achieved the member has done; he has taken the opportunity, rightly, something, yes. I must disagree with the hon. member for to raise an issue that he thinks should be debated on the Castletown: that would have achieved something, because floor, but apart from expressing the opinion that is all it that would have laid down, as it has laid down and provided would have done - not criticising him, because that is what for in other places, a proper basis for regulation. One of he wanted. What we are saying is, let us go a bit further the arguments then was, 'This service is not economic. because of the natural interest from the public and let us People will not invest in it.' see if we can get round the table, as we do anyway, and talk with the company to see if we can help - that is how I Mr Karran: Of course they will. see it - to overcome some of the problems, and maybe we can get a better understanding of the problems, the Mr Quine: Now we know, they are investing in it now. difficulties. The investment and the commitment that is The trouble is it is a bad investment. That is the problem. going on of what is being suggested by the company we Well, I do not want to stay on the statutory franchise basis. would not have dreamed of three years ago. Three years That was the answer, that is the answer, but the truth is ago we were stuck with one ship. Who remembers the battle you are stuck with this user agreement and it is worthless, we had to actually get the old Steam Packet, as I call it, to and this committee, if it is going to achieve anything, is actually get a SeaCat, a fast craft? They were not interested. going to have to achieve it through dialogue and debate The last year of that company they were getting rid of it. with the Steam Packet and it will only have any effect if In fact, they got rid of it. the public get up and shout loud enough. Otherwise I am So do not forget what has just happened - not decades afraid this is going to be another pointless exercise and we ago, just happened. Yes, there are problems, and all I am get a few more cosmetic changes and we will slip back saying is, it is not all doom and gloom. Yes, there are again to where we were. We had the opportunity and we problems, I accept. There are people who do not like the threw it away because we did not have the commitment, new ship. There are hiccups in trying to get bookings and did not have the conviction, did not have the belief in I think we should do what we can to try and help the ourselves. company get out of those problems, whatever they may be. and if that is encouragement, if that is pushing them Mr Karran: Hear, hear. along, giving them support, criticising where it is wanted, fine, I do not have a problem, but let us at least be Mr Waft: Mr President, I do not think we should be reasonably level headed about it, because the public want talking about the debate we had over the user agreement. us to help sort it out, not just criticise, and that is why I do It is in being and, quite honestly, it is at least something not care which amendment it is, let us go and help try and we have got a hold of that we can use when we do go into resolve this problem for the good of the Isle of Man. discussion with the Isle of Man Steam Packet. The problem is as I see it, hon. members, we have got an angry public Mr Quine: Mr President, I just got to my feet, really, out there who will tell us exactly what the problem is with to point out a fact of life. We are talking about getting a the boat - we call it a ship or boat. I think it is exactly what committee, whether it be a committee of the Council of the company decided they wanted to put there and that is Ministers or a committee with the Council of Ministers what they put there, and it is doing its job it was built for. and time members to go and discuss with the Steam Packet. The problem is, it is not built for what we think it should You have got to live in the real world. You have given be built for and I do not think for one minute the Isle of them this user agreement now, and this user agreement - I Man Steam Packet Board of directors are the people to have said it many years in this Court, I have voted and blame for this, and certainly not Hamish Ross. He is trying fought against it - is useless; it is worthless; it is a cosmetic to do the best of a bad job, but the problem is, who is exercise. All right, other members will say that it gives us going to take any notice of anybody when they go down a basis to collaborate with the Steam Packet and it has to the Steam Packet to try and get something done? People produced changes. Perhaps that may come because of the have tried to do it before. People have tried from the improving relationship. It may come because of the Department of Transport, different members have tried with goodwill, but the fact is it is not going to come through all the PR men down at the Steam Packet. The public have that user agreement. You could drive a tank through that tried. They have rung and rung and rung, and you know user agreement (Mr Karran: Hear, hear.) and what I think how long you hang on when you ring the Steam Packet we should recognise is that whatever committee is going Company. to deal with the Steam Packet in this situation, if they are All these people understand is a bit of strength, and I going to bring about any changes it will come about think, just for the Council of Ministers to go and have a because of public pressure and they will be shamed into it. cosy chat with them, the strength of feeling outside from

Isle of Man Steam Packet Company Limited — Frequency and Quality of Services - Amended Motion Carried — Select Committee Appointed TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 T139

the public is much stronger than that. (Several Members: talking constantly about a RoPax vessel. What we have Hear, hear) They need to have a select committee . . . we got now is a PaxRo. We have got freight 90 per cent and have had select committees for much less important things passengers 10 per cent, and we are paying the cost of that, than this. I think the public are so strongly opposed to this and if, I am afraid, I lose some friends down at the Steam ship, they are so strongly opposed to the philosophy that Packet Company, that is hard luck. I am here to represent the Steam Packet has with regard to the public complaints, firstly the constituents of Onchan and the rest of the Island they are not responding quickly enough. Nothing is done and I have personally heard claims in this Court for years quickly enough. They come to us and what are we going about how I have had 800 letters; I have not had 800 letters, to do about it? I would certainly support Mr Downie's but I have certainly had a lot of telephone complaints, some suggestion that a select committee be, all right, members letters, and I have read everything that has been said in the from the ministers, but also members of ourselves as well, press about it, so this is no idle problem. This is no the general backbenchers, so everybody can have their say difficulty, this is a major snag to the Isle of Man both in and let us get something done about it. Thank you, Mr terms of our own population and in terms of our tourist President. industry, which we are just about to throw away unless we do something about it, because it will not be long before The President: Can I call on the hon. member to reply the TT will be here and you can put fast craft on until you now, hon. members? are blue in the face; what we need is volume traffic for the TT if we are to maintain the build-up we have had in that Members: Agreed. too, and we are bringing people from the continent and they are arriving at Heysham. Okay, some of them have Mr Cannell: Thank you, Mr President. I take no not got bookings; they just do not know the meaning of pleasure whatever at being at the centre of this motion, the word. They turn up thinking they can get on the boats even though it is nice but useless (Laughter), and I disagree the same way they can across the continent. Maybe that is that it is useless. If a motion on the agenda of the national a bit unrealistic, but we want everybody we can get to parliament, tabled quite properly, which says that 'The come to the Isle of Man as tourists and we want our own Court views with great concern' means nothing, what are people to go across, as they increasingly do with their we doing? This is the national parliament, the highest Court vehicles, to have a reasonable standard of reliability and in the land. My motion said, 'This Court views with great comfort, and I do not agree that last night's problems were concern,' et cetera. caused by an unmitigated storm. In fact, we have not even got to the worst of the storms yet and I know the claim Mr Karran: They will not hear that. was 'Oh, the old Steam Packet would have sailed in it' and we have all seen the photographs of the Lady of Mann Mr Cannell: If the national Tynwald Court is not to be standing on end that Stan Basnett took, going out round taken notice of then we are wasting our time on just about the back of Douglas Head, but those days too are gone and everything else. I do not believe that is the case. I believe reasonable standards of sailing in rough weather still can notice will be taken, We have a director here, sitting it out. be endured in the rest of the world, so why cannot we do it We could not get a quicker transmission to it. The press, I when we are popping across to a place we can see on a hope, will cover it too, but in general we are here for one good day? All this fuss! Yesterday you could see the hills purpose only, and that is to represent the public, and if I of Cumbria. All this fuss just to get a boat across. The Japs had not thought there was sufficient difficulty expressed could put a bridge across in five years, I do not doubt by the public then I would never have tabled the motion. It (Laughter). comes out of a sense of frustration and the hon. member What we have got here now is a motion on there telling for Ramsey hit on it the best, I think, when he said that the Steam Packet Company, if it is the original motion, after all the work that had been done to get everything `Mr Cannell to move - This Court views with great concern' modernised for tourism, what are we left with now? The - not that they are taking a passing interest, great concern prospect, not all that far away, of the Student Festival of from the national parliament. If you do not accept that, Sport, as it was eluded to yesterday. Already as I said you come onto the amendment by the Chief Minister, and yesterday, we could not bring the numbers of people who he has the Council of Ministers; he is volunteering the want to come to the Isle of Man. They are not people that services of the Council of Ministers to look at it, so he we are trying to woo over with subsidies, although the must be concerned. Then we come to 's event itself is subsidised, but these people wish to come to amendment, which is even better, and that calls for a select our Isle of Man, and our Isle of Man people wish to travel committee to be put up. to the United Kingdom and they wish to do it in a level of I am quite happy to accept the amendments. I prefer Mr reasonable comfort and reliability. There used to be the famous boat in the morning, at 9 Downie's to the Chief Minister's because I think it is o'clock. There was one from Liverpool that passed in the broader. It prevents the allegation also that there might be Mersey. Those days have gone, we know, and you have a cover-up or a whitewash. I do not think that is a fair got, probably, to have a RoPax service, one that will carry accusation. I am sure the Council of Ministers can be relied a reasonable amount of freight, and I do concur that the upon if their amendment is successful, but either way let previous executive launched that scheme. I can certainly us get something done before the whole thing finally does remember it from a media point of view, David Dixon vanish down the pan.

Isle of Man Steam Packet Company Limited — Frequency and Quality of Services - Amended Motion Carried — Select Committee Appointed T140 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998

Two Members: Hear, hear. Mr North: I will second Mr Cannell.

The President: Thank you, hon. member. Now, hon. Mr Singer: Can I move Mr Downie, please? members I have to put the resolution and we have to that resolution set out at item 42 on the order paper two Mr Lowey: I would second Mr Downie. amendments, one in the name of the Chief Minister and one in the name of the hon. member, Mr Downie. I propose Mr Gelling: I second Mr Rodan. to put those amendments to the Court in the order they were tabled. So those in favour of the amendment in the Members: Vote! name of the Chief Minister standing part of the resolution, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The President: Now, can we have the ballot papers circulated, please? Hon. members when you have your A division was called for and voting resulted as follows: ballot papers the learned Clerk will read out the names of those who have been nominated and you will vote for the In the Keys - three vacancies, please.

For: Messrs Quine, North, Brown, Mrs Hannan, The Clerk: Mr President, hon. members, the members Messrs Bell, Corkill and Gelling - 7 who have been nominated and seconded: in the Council, Mr Waft, and in the Keys in alphabetical order, Mr Cannell, Against: Messrs Rodan, Houghton, Henderson, Duggan, Mr Downie, Mr Rodan and Mr Singer. Braidwood, Shimmin, Downie, Singer, Karran, Cannell and the Speaker - 11 The President: For the Council will Mr Lowey act as teller, please? The Speaker: Mr President, the amendment fails in the House, 11 votes cast against, 7 votes cast for. The Speaker: For the Keys would Mr Houghton act as teller, please? In the Council - A first ballot took place. For: Dr Mann and Mrs Christian - 2 The President: Hon. members, the outcome of the Against: Messrs Lowey, Waft and Crowe - 3 ballot: Mr Waft, 13 votes; Mr Cannell, 16 votes; Mr Downie, 16 votes; Mr Rodan, 11 votes; Mr Singer, 13 votes. The President: In the Council, hon. members, 2 votes Two hon. members, Mr Cannell and Mr Downie, are have been cast in favour of that amendment, 3 votes against. elected. We have one vacant seat to fill from the remaining The amendment fails to carry. nominations and ballot papers are being circulated, please. I will now put the amendment in the name of the hon. Members will vote for one vacancy. The names will be Mr Downie. Will those in favour of that amendment please read out by the learned Clerk as soon as you have your say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. voting papers. I now put the resolution, as amended, for the endorsement of the Court. Will those in favour please say The Clerk: Mr President, hon. members, the members aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Now, remaining in the ballot are Mr Waft, Mr Rodan and Mr hon. members, the appointment of three members. Singer.

Mr Duggan: Mr President, can I move Mr Singer? The President: For the Council, Mr Lowey will again act as teller. Mr Shimmin: I second Mr Singer. The Speaker: The same teller, please, Mr Houghton. Mr Downie: Can I move Mr Waft, the hon. member of Council? A second ballot took place. Mr Karran: I second Mr Waft. The President: Hon. members, the result of the ballot: Mr Brown: Can I propose Mr Rodan? Mr Waft, 8 votes; Mr Rodan, 6 votes; Mr Singer, 9 votes. No hon. member has received the necessary majority. Mr The President: Steady, steady! (Laughter) Rodan's name will be dropped from the list and the Court will vote on Mr Waft and Mr Singer. If all members have Mr Duggan: We will be here all night! got ballot papers, the learned Clerk will read out the remaining two candidates. Mr Brown: I propose Mr Rodan, Mr President. The Clerk: Mr President, hon. members, the remaining Mr Corkill: I propose Mr Cannell. candidates for the third ballot are Mr Waft and Mr Singer.

Isle of Man Steam Packet Company Limited — Frequency and Quality of Services - Amended Motion Carried — Select Committee Appointed TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 T141

The President: Hon. members, the result of the ballot: Mr Gilbey: Mr President, I beg to second and reserve Mr Waft, 13 votes; Mr Singer, 10 votes. Mr Waft is duly my remarks. elected. Hon. members, the committee now will consist of the Chief Minister, the Minister for Transport, the Minister The President: Hon. members, I will put the resolution for Tourism and Leisure, the hon. Mr Cannell, the hon. Mr standing at item 30 on the order paper. Those in favour Downie and the hon. Mr Waft. please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

Value Added Tax (Osteopaths) Order 1998 — Approved Export of Goods (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) (Control) Order 1998 The President: Item 28, value added tax. The Treasury (Application) Order 1998 — Approved minister to move. The President: Item 31, the Minister for the Treasury. Mr Corkill: Mr President, I beg to move: Mr Corkill: Mr President, I beg to move: That the Value Added Tax (Osteopaths) Order 1998 [SD No 426/98] be approved. That the Export of Goods (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) (Control) Order 1998 (Application) Order I will endeavour not to whip up too much enthusiasm 1998 [SD No 462/98] be approved. about VAT and osteopaths and I simply move. I believe this is self-explanatory by the notes that have Mr Gilbey: I beg to second, Mr President, and reserve been circulated and I beg to move. my remarks. Mr Gilbey: Mr President, I beg to second and reserve The President: Hon. members, I will put the resolution my remarks. standing at item 28. Will those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. The President: Hon. members, I will put the resolution standing at item 31 on the order paper. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes Betting Act 1970 (Amendment) Order have it. 1998 — Approved

The President: Item 29, the Minister for the Treasury. Travelling Allowances Order Mr Corkill: Mr President, I beg to move: 1998 — Approved

That the Betting Act 1970 (Amendment) Order 1998 The President: Item 32, the Minister for the Treasury. [SD No 425/98] be approved. Mr Corkill: Mr President, I beg to move: Mr Gilbey: I beg to second and reserve my remarks. That the Travelling Allowances Order 1998 [SD No The President: Hon. members, I will put the resolution 487/98] be approved. standing at item 29 on the order paper. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes It is Treasury policy to undertake an annual review of have it. travelling allowances. As a result of this year's review it is proposed to increase the mileage rates for the first 6,000 miles of travel for vehicles with an engine capacity of up to 1299 cc from 38 pence per mile to 42 pence per mile - Banking Business (Compensation of that is, 10.5 per cent. In respect of vehicles with an engine Depositors) (Amendment) Regulations capacity of 1300 cc and over, the proposed increase is from 1998 — Approved 46 pence to 48 pence - that is, 4.4 per cent. Rates for usage above 6,000 miles are increased accordingly. The total cost The President: Item 30, the Minister for the Treasury. to government in respect of mileage allowances is not available, but the overall cost of the proposed increase is Mr Corkill: Mr President, I beg to move: not considered to be too significant. Mr President, I beg to That the Banking Business (Compensation of move. Depositors) (Amendment) Regulations 1998 [SD No 510/ 98] be approved. Mr Gilbey: Mr President, I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

Value Added Tax (Osteopaths) Order 1998 — Approved Betting Act 1970 (Amendment) Order 1998 — Approved Banking Business (Compensation of Depositors) (Amendment) Regulations 1998 — Approved Export of Goods (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) (Control) Order 1998 (Application) Order 1998 — Approved Travelling Allowances Order 1998 — Approved T142 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998

Mr Duggan: Mr President, I am against the order and I Mr Corkill: Thank you, Mr President. I think there is, will be voting against it. at this late hour, a danger of rushing presentations of orders and certainly I rushed the presentation of this one. I would Mr Brown: You get a taxi home! like to make it clear that this mileage allowance order, if approved, does apply to members of Tynwald, although in Mr Shimmin: Mr President, I have spoken with the my instance, and I know of a number of members who do Treasury minister regarding this matter. I fail to see why not claim expenses in this respect, but I do stand up for the we perpetuate the same old pattern that members' transport right of those who do claim, depending on distance from allowances are tied in with the Civil Service. I believe there this hon. Court and so these things have to be looked at is scope for those to be separated; also, why we continue from time to time. It applies to members of Tynwald, to give an inflated rate of travelling allowance for engines statutory boards and other specified bodies and it does not over a 1300 cc capacity and have failed as yet to take any specifically include officers or other employees. However, account of those persons who may go about their business the order is used as the basis for calculating employees' for travelling by using a push-bike. I therefore raise those mileage allowances and, for example, it is applied to civil issues with the Treasury minister and hope that this time servants by Civil Service regulation, section 0, paragraph next year something will be done to change them. 57, and so this is the starting point for calculating those Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I have to agree with the two expenses to our civil servants and to others. Therefore, by previous speakers. I am concerned about this. I am glad not approving this order today, you would in fact, hon. the press is not in. What I find very upsetting about this is members, be freezing that situation and I think that would that it goes against green policies. If you own a big car be unfortunate. you get the same rate as a small car, and I think this proposal During the debate in Treasury, when we were looking should be thrown out. I think 10 per cent increase on it is at this order and subsequent to it coming on the agenda, it wrong. I would be interested in how much it costs. I find it seemed clear to me that there was certainly an interest from particularly offensive, not because of its members and civil the environmental point of view with regard to encouraging servants; I personally think that this is used a lot more by smaller engine use, and I certainly think for the future that the civil servants than it is by the members, but what does aspect needs to be taken on board. We did discuss that concern me is the fact of the inconsistency. I get the Value during Treasury during the consideration and we decided for Money Committee complaining to me about taxis for for this year to go with the status quo formula, which is the sick going to the airport, how we have got to save based on the current Automobile Association technical £20,000 and here I bet you we are going to spend more services motoring costs, and so there is a process to identify than £20,000 on this order. I feel it is absolutely scandalous. these costs. It includes vehicle duty, insurance, driving I am glad there is no press in here so that there are no licences, garage parking, petrol - that is, unleaded petrol - accusations. What concerns me about this is the oil, tyres, servicing, repairs, depreciation. It is a complex inconsistency. It seems that we have the Treasury and the formula and all these things are fed in. But obviously Value for Money Committee screaming about, 'Oh, we members will take a view on whether they think it is have got to save money here', 'We have got to save money appropriate or not, and we have heard one or two responses. there', and here we have an order and I find it embarrassing, I would ask members to support it but there is that the fact that I am forced to bring in these proposals to save proviso that in the coming 12 months we will certainly £20,000 so that people . . . I have to be honest, I admit that look at it more from the environmental point of view to if you can find your way down there I think you should do encourage small engine usage and I hope that members and I have no problem with this, but it does rub salt in the will appreciate that commitment. I beg to move. wounds when I am told we need to save money. Here is a way of saving £20,000 and the next thing is we see an The President: Hon. members, I will put the resolution order in here to increase something that basically cannot be policed, basically goes against any policies as far as set out at item 32 on the order paper. Those in favour please green is concerned even though what will be the surprise say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. is that the lower vehicle capacity is going up by 10 per cent and the higher vehicle capacity is going up by 4 per A division was called for and voting resulted as follows: cent, and - surprise, surprise! - we will do away with it, In the Keys - but we will do away with it when we get it up to that level. That is what concerns me. I hope hon. members will not support this because I For: Messrs Gilbey, Quine, Rodan, Brown, Henderson, think it is wrong; I cannot support this under any Braidwood, Downie, Singer, Bell, Corkill, Gelling and circumstances and I think it is totally wrong when other the Speaker - 12 departments of government are being told they have got to save money and we have got to pull our horns in and Against: Messrs Houghton, Duggan, Shimmin, then the next thing is we are giving out money on this, Mrs Hannan and Mr Karran - 5 willy-nilly. The Speaker: Mr President, the motion carries in the The President: Reply, minister? House, 12 votes cast for, 5 against, sir.

Travelling Allowances Order 1998 — Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 T143

In the Council - out of economy class. I think it is absolutely absurd if we are an international finance centre. So it is simply the point, For: Messrs Lowey, Waft, Dr Mann, Mrs Christian - 4 Mr President, that when abroad on official business, as a matter of course, our head of government and the President Against: Mr Crowe -1 of Tynwald should travel with the dignity that befits the two posts. The President: In the Council 4 votes have been cast in favour of the resolution, 1 vote against; I declare the Mr Singer: Including the Ben my Chree! resolution carried. The President: Reply, hon. minister.

Subsistence Allowances — Approved Mr Corkill: Thank you, Mr President. I fully appreciate the point that the hon. member for Garff makes but I do The President: Item 33, the hon. Minister for the believe that 4(b) does actually cover that opinion, because Treasury. it does leave it up to each board or department to decide what that exceptional status situation is. I think it probably Mr Corkill: Mr President, I beg to move: does vary from situation to situation, but I do have to confess that on the recent South Africa roadshow I did That the Subsistence Allowances [GC No 29/98] travel business class and it was quite a treat, but then we be approved. slept overnight going each direction and it was certainly very beneficial to arrive reasonably fresh and not having Subsistence allowances, payable to members of had the ability to check into a hotel overnight. So I think it Tynwald, officers of the Civil Service and other officials depends on the journey but I take on board the hon. in respect of absence on official business were last reviewed member's point that certainly with regard to the Chief in July 1996. Since then the cost of hotel accommodation Minister I would imagine that the Chief Minister can well in the UK has increased by approximately 6.5 per cent decide for himself the appropriate times for or against that and restaurant meals by about 7 per cent. The revised particular thing, and I think that applies to each department. allowances take these increases into account, and I beg to So I beg to move. move, Mr President. The President: Hon. members, I will put the resolution Mr Gilbey: Mr President, I beg to second and reserve set out at item 33 on the order paper. Those in favour please my remarks. say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

Mr Rodan: Mr President, I have a point I wish to make relating to section 4 of this circular, on page 4; this relates Criminal Legal Aid Order 1998 — Approved to foreign travel outside of the British Isles and Ireland. `Flights must be booked economy class. If exceptionally a The President: Item 34, the Minister for the Treasury. higher grade of flight is considered appropriate by the minister or board when approving the travel then the Mr Corkill: Mr President, I beg to move: reasons for that decision should also be minuted.' I just wish to make an observation. It does not affect the order, That the Criminal Legal Aid Order 1998 [SD No but the point I wish to make is this: it should be the rule 530/98] be approved. and not the exception that, as far as our Chief Minister is concerned, I think it is very important for the image of this Mr Gilbey: I beg to second and reserve my remarks. Island that when he travels abroad on official business, automatically he should be travelling first class or whatever Mr Houghton: Mr President, I rise to oppose this class other than economy class it is now called. This is to motion as I believe I am sure that other members of this reflect the status of the Isle of Man and the position of the Court believe that the system of legal aid for recidivists in post when our head of government is travelling on official particular is being abused at the cost of the government. business. I could make exactly the same argument for the The hon. Minister for the Treasury will be aware that I head of our parliament, the President of Tynwald, likewise have been in correspondence with him on this subject and when travelling abroad on official business. It is very have previously tabled questions to him, and indeed he important that the status that we choose to confer on these kindly referred my proposals to the Legal Aid Committee two posts is recognised because it says much about the for consideration and report in May of this year. My way we regard ourselves as a nation, and I believe people proposals were to order the repayment of criminal legal abroad will draw their own conclusion on the way we aid by the offender with effect from the second conviction choose to regard these two posts. I think it is ridiculous onwards. This would allow persons who committed one- that the Chief Minister should arrive at a foreign airport, off crimes to be covered by legal aid, and of course those especially when he is being met by an official car and persons who may be innocent of an offence, where they official dignitaries, to have to carry his own bags and come were being prosecuted, would be able to get legal

Subsistence Allowances — Approved Criminal Legal Aid Order 1998 — Approved T144 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 assistance. However, those persons who continue to offend The President: Reply, minister? time and time again and wish to claim legal aid in an attempt to have an advocate to get them off at the Mr Corkill: Well, certainly, Mr President, I would government's expense is an unacceptable waste of public concur with the comments of the last two speakers with funds. regard to this issue. Specifically with the order, this order The Legal Aid Committee refused to even consider my specifies the levels of costs and expenses payable to proposals and consequently did not prepare a report. The advocates representing clients who are entitled to legal aid information was related to me by the minister and a follow- in respect of criminal matters. It is Treasury policy to up letter from myself to the hon. minister dated 27th May review these rates annually, and they have been increased 1998 still awaits reply. This correspondence requested the by the rate of increase in the retail price index since the minister to instruct the Legal Aid Committee to undertake order was last reviewed - that is, 3.3 per cent. There is an a simple exercise and report back. I am still awaiting a additional sum which is payable to an advocate. The sum reply from the Legal Aid Committee via the minister. May has been set at £10 for the last 10 years. This order also I therefore, Mr President, ask the minister to look into this increases that sum to £20. So that is the mechanics of the matter of principle, and I would be pleased to hear his order but I would reiterate that these are advocates comments in his reply today. representing clients who are entitled to legal aid in respect However, I would urge members of this hon. Court to of criminal matters. Certainly I apologise to the hon. vote against this motion in principle. Until those offenders member for Douglas North with regard to not answering who are damaging the fabric of our society get the message his last letter. It seems that he did not get the hint with that this Court means business and will no longer tolerate regard to the first letter. (Laughter) There does come a the actions of recidivists who then go on to waste public time when letters do not become answered, and I am afraid money, only to be found guilty eventually, then I believe we reached that point with that particular situation. It was that we are sponsoring criminals at the cost of the public referred to the Legal Aid Committee. They made it quite purse. This is outrageous, Mr President. Thank you. clear that this is not an issue they wish to pursue -

Mr Brown: Mr President, I am absolutely flabbergasted Mr Houghton: Are they a higher authority than we? that a member of this hon. Court, a democratic institution, should say a person is guilty even though they may not Mr Corkill: I am certainly not in a position and do not have been proven to be guilty. wish to be in a position, Mr President, where I, as Treasury minister, make instruction with what is a judicial process, Mr Houghton: No, I am not saying that. and it is not for a politician to be involved, I believe -

Mr Brown: They way well have been guilty of two Mr Houghton: It's time it is. offences. They may well have been arrested for a third offence but they may not be guilty of it, and to take away Mr Corkill: - in interfering with the courts' processes, the right of them to have that support, if they require it - I which is effectively what I feel I would be doing. So I have to say I certainly am one who would not have anything understand where the hon. member from Douglas North to do with that. I just make the point: we are not here as is keen. It is not the first time it has been raised in this judge and jury, we are here to provide people with the House with regard to recidivism and one or two strikes ability. I am not saying the legal aid system is perfect and you are out with regard to legal aid. What I would also because there are people who I think, in certain say is that that amount of moneys paid out in legal aid has circumstances, should get support from the legal aid been declining in recent years and it is not an ever growing system, but the principle of what the hon. member has just budgetary problem. So it does not trouble me from that put forward, I have to say, leaves me cold. point of view, and I beg to move.

Mr Bell: Mr President, just following that tone I have The President: Hon. members, I will put the resolution to say there is no more frightening sight than populism in set out at item 34 on the order paper. Those in favour please full flow! I would just add one rider on this point. For any say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. member who may be tempted into supporting such a move, there is such a thing as a Court of Human Rights, and if we were to be seen in any way inhibiting the ability of a defendant to get legal assistance we would be hauled up Financial Supervision Act 1988 (Definition before the Court of Human Rights in no time at all, and of Collective Investment Schemes) for those of use who have been in this hon. chamber for a (Amendment) Order 1998 — Approved number of years and have had to suffer the embarrassment that has been heaped on the Isle of Man because of its The President: Item 35, the Minister for the Treasury. reactionary views, I would have thought the last thing we want to do, particularly with Edwards and all the other Mr Corkill: Mr President, I beg to move: public scrutiny that is hanging over us at the moment, is to enter into a battle with the Court of Human Rights because That the Financial Supervision Act 1988 (Definition we want to deny people, the accused, the right of legal of Collective Investment Schemes) (Amendment) Order defence. 1998 ISD No 522/98] be approved. Financial Supervision Act 1988 (Definition of Collective Investment Schemes) (Amendment) Order 1998 — Approved ® _. TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998 T145

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

The President: Hon. members, I will put the resolution The President: Hon. members, I will put the resolution set out at item 35 on the order paper. Those in favour please set out at item 38 on the order paper. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

Customs and Excise Acts (Application) Insider Dealing (Regulated Markets) Order (Amendment) Order 1998 — Approved 1998 — Approved

The President: Item 36, the Minister for the Treasury. The President: Item 39, the Minister for the Treasury.

Mr Corkill: Mr President, I beg to move: Mr Corkill: Thank you, Mr President. I beg to move:

That the Customs and Excise Acts (Application) That the Insider Dealing (Regulated Markets) Order (Amendment) Order 1998 [SD No 524/98] be approved. 1998 [SD No 536/98] be approved.

Mr Gilbey: I beg to second, Mr President, and reserve Mr Gilbey: Mr President, I beg to second and reserve my remarks. my remarks. The President: Hon. members, I will put the resolution The President: Hon. members, I will put the resolution set out at item 36 on the order paper. Those in favour please set out at item 39 on the order paper. Will those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Customs and Excise Acts (Application) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order Legal Aid (Panel of Advocates) Regulations 1998 — Approved 1998 — Approved

The President: Item 37, the Minister for the Treasury. The President: Item 40, the learned Attorney-General.

Mr Corkill: Mr President, I beg to move: The Attorney-General: Mr President, I beg to move:

That the Customs and Excise Acts (Application) That the Legal Aid (Panel of Advocates) Regulations (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 1998 [SD No 525/98] be 1998 [SD No 384/98] be approved. approved.

Mr Gilbey: Mr President, I beg to second and reserve The legal aid panel of advocates regulations make my remarks. provision for the continuance of a panel of advocates who are willing to give legal aid and advice and assistance in The President: Hon. members, I put the resolution set civil cases. The regulations impose a duty upon the Chief out at item 37 on the agenda paper. Will those in favour Registrar to maintain a list of advocates who are members please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes of the panel and, inter alia, enable the Legal Aid Committee have it. to remove an advocate from the panel if there are good grounds for doing so. Mr President, I move that the Legal Aid (Panel of Advocates) Regulations 1998 be approved.

Value Added Tax Act 1996 (Amendment) Mr Lowey: I beg to second, sir, and reserve my remarks. (No. 2) Order 1998 — Approved Mr Karran: Could I just ask one thing on this? I am The President: Item 38, the Minister for the Treasury. concerned about legal aid and the fact that a number of advocates do not do any legal aid work and I just still Mr Corkill: Mr President, I beg to move: maintain that I feel that they should all have to do it. It is a That the Value Added Tax Act 1996 (Amendment) licence to print money in the Island, to have the ability to (No. 2) Order 1998 [SD No 526/98] be approved. practise in the Island and I think it should go with the job; all advocates should have to do a certain amount of legal This order amends section 36 of the Value Added Tax aid work because I am concerned that maybe the standards Act 1996, which is concerned with bad debt relief, and I are not as good as they should be because only certain beg to move. advocates do legal aid work.

Customs and Excise Acts (Application) (Amendment) Order 1998 — Approved Customs and Excise Acts (Application) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 1998 — Approved Value Added Tax Act 1996 (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 1998 — Approved Insider Dealing (Regulated Markets) Order 1998 — Approved Legal Aid (Panel of Advocates) Regulations 1998 — Approved T146 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER 1998

The President: Reply, Mr Attorney?

The Attorney-General: Mr President, these regulations deal only with civil cases. I do understand the hon. member's point in respect of criminal cases where there is a small number of advocates who, however, specialise in criminal cases and I think that is good for the accused person, it is good for the administration of justice in criminal cases. As I say, these regulations deal with civil cases. There is an existing panel of advocates and it is my recollection that there is quite a number of advocates who do civil cases and are pleased to do so. These new regulations actually will have the effect of expanding that panel. So I do not think that the administration of justice will suffer.

The President: Hon. members, I will put the resolution set out at item 40 on the order paper. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

Witnesses' Allowances Order 1998 — Approved

The President: Item 41, the learned Attorney-General.

The Attorney-General: Thank you, Mr President. I beg to move:

That the Witnesses' Allowances Order 1998 [SD No 492/98] be approved.

The Witnesses' Allowances Order 1998 enables the deemsters to make orders which prescribe the fees and the expenses payable to persons who attend as witnesses in court proceedings, and this order makes provision accordingly so that the fees and the expenses so payable are brought into line with those currently payable in the United Kingdom. Mr President, I beg to move that the Witnesses' Allowances Order 1998 be approved.

Mr Lowey: I beg to second, sir, and reserve my remarks.

The President: I will put the resolution, hon. members, set out at item 41 on the order paper. Those in favour please say aye; against no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Hon. members that concludes our business. Thank you all very much for your patience in getting through a very heavy programme. The Council will now withdraw and leave the House of Keys to transact such business as Mr Speaker may place before them. Thank you, hon. members.

The Council withdrew.

House of Keys The Speaker: Hon. members, the House will stand adjourned till Tuesday next, the 27th, at 10 a.m. in our own chamber. Thank you, hon. members.

The House adjourned at 9.22 p.m.

Witnesses' Allowances Order 1998 — Approved House of Keys