Printed (by Authority) by CORRIE LTD., 48 Bucks Road, Douglas, Isle of Man
REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF TYNWALD COURT
DOUGLAS, Wednesday 21st October, 1987 at 10.30 a.m.
Present: The Lieutenant-Governor (His Excellency Major General Laurence New, C.B., C.B.E.). In the Council: The President of the Council (the Hon. J.C. Nivison, C.B.E.), the Lord Bishop (the Rt. Rev. Arthur Henry Attwell), the Attorney-General (Mr. T.W. Cain), Messrs. R.J.G. Anderson, A.A. Catlin, Mrs. B.Q. Hanson, Messrs. E.G. Lowey, W.K. Quirk and J.N. Radcliffe with Mr. T.A. Bawden, Clerk of the Council.
In the Keys: The Speaker (the Hon. Sir Charles Kerruish, O.B.E.) (Garff); Brig. N.A. Butler, C.B.E. (Ramsey); Mr. R.E. Quine (Ayre); Mr. J.D.Q. Cannan (Michael); Mrs. H. Hannan (Peel); Mr. W.A. Gilbey (Glenfaba); Mr. B. Barton (Middle); Messrs. P. Karran, R.C. Leventhorpe, and D.G. Maddrell (Onchan); Mr. B. May and Mrs. J. Delaney (Douglas North); Messrs. A.C. Duggan and D.C. Cretney (Douglas South); Messrs. D.F.K. Delaney and P.W. Kermode (Douglas East); Messrs J.C. Cain and G.V.H. Kneale (Douglas West); Mr. J.A. Brown (Castletown); Mr. D.J. Gelling (Malew and Santon); Mr. M.R. Walker, Dr. J.R. Orme and Mr. J. Corrin (Rushen); with Prof. T. St. J.N. Bates, Clerk of Tynwald.
The Lord Bishop took the prayers.
PETITION OF THE MAYOR, ALDERMEN AND BURGESSES OF DOUGLAS RE PUBLIC STREET LIGHTING SCHEMES - APPROVED
The Governor: We turn, hon. members, to petitions and first item 40 on the main Agenda. I call on the Minister for Local Government and the Environment to move.
Mr. Delaney: Your Excellency, with respect to the petition of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of Douglas to borrow £63,000, repayable within 15 years, to defray the cost of public street lighting schemes, I beg to move:
That the prayer of the petition be and the same is hereby granted.
Petition of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of Douglas Re Public Street Lighting Schemes — Approved T122 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987
This petition is in respect of on-going scheduled works to improve the street lighting in the borough within the requirements laid down by the British Standard. The department fully supports this petition, as we hope will this hon. Court.
Mr. Lowey: I beg to second, sir.
The Governor: Then, hon. members, I put to you the motion at item 40 on the Agenda standing in the name of Minister for Local Government and the Environment. Will all in favour say aye; those against say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.
PETITION OF THE MAYOR, ALDERMEN AND BURGESSES OF DOUGLAS RE REWIRING OF DWELLINGS ON THE WILLASTON ESTATE - APPROVED
The Governor: Item 41. I call on the same minister.
Mr. Delaney: Your Excellency, with respect to the petition of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of Douglas for authority to borrow £126,804, repayable within 20 years, to defray the cost of rewiring 162 dwellings on the Willaston estate, I beg to move:
That the prayer of the petition be and the same is hereby granted subject to the redecoration allowance being increased to a maximum of £100 where circumstances dictate with any consequent expenditure in excess of the petitioned sum being included in the petition for phase III of this scheme.
This petition covers the rewiring of 162 dwellings on the Willaston estate, Douglas, and the petition sum can be divided into two amounts. The electric rewiring will be carried out at a total cost of £117,894, such sum having been obtained by competitive tender. The additional sum of £8,910 represents a payment of £55 to each householder for redecoration of the premises after the rewiring element has been completed. The average unit cost is £782. During the hearing of this petition to my department it became clear that under 0 certain circumstances the redecoration element may need to be greater and therefore, if this Court is in agreement, the department has agreed that the redecoration element be increased to a maximum of £100 where circumstances dictate, any excess expenditure of the petition sum being included in the petition of phase III of this scheme. The petition before us today represents the second phase of a programme that will lead to the whole of the Willaston estate of 640 housing units being rewired over a five-year period. The original wiring is coming to the end of its useful and safe life and my department is satisfied, Your Excellency, that these works are desirable and accordingly I move this petition.
Mr. Lowey: I beg to second, sir.
Petition of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of Douglas Re Wiring of Dwellings on the Willaston Estate — Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 T123
Mr. Brown: Your Excellency, just a question. The hon. member has just said that it has been increased to £100 where necessary. Could he just confirm that that will apply throughout the Island?
Mr. Cretney: Also on that point, Your Excellency, I can confirm that the other hon. member for South Douglas and I have both found problems on a previous scheme at Springvalley and I welcome the move that is now being made available to people in Willaston under special circumstances to increase the amount available for redecoration because we have both encountered problems (Mr. Duggan: Hear, hear.) on previous job.
Mr. Delaney: Your Excellency, in answer to my hon. colleague, the Minister for Health and Social Security, it is not the policy of my department to be discriminatory against anyone in the Isle of Man in relation to any public funds and we will take into account any problems that affect any local authority on housing and if we find just and need for such increases to be made we will make them. I thank the member for South Douglas for his support. This obvious error, Your Excellency, in no differential being allowed came to light to me and my colleagues of different types of houses involved in the rewiring where some people it was costing more, some people possibly less, Your Excellency, but we have to cover for those people who are worse off because of our actions.
The Governor: I put to you the motion standing in the name of the Minister Local Government and the Environment at item 41 of the Agenda. Will hon. members in favour say aye; those against say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.
PETITION OF DOUGLAS CORPORATION RE REFURBISHMENT OF DWELLINGS ON THE UPPER PULROSE ESTATE — APPROVED
The Governor: Item 42. I call on the Minister for Local Government and the Environment.
Mr. Delaney: Your Excellency, with respect to the petition of Douglas Corporation for authority to borrow £432,033, repayable within 20 years, to defray the cost of refurbishing 24 dwellings on the Upper Pulrose estate, being phase II of a scheme, I beg to move:
That the prayer of the petition be and the same is hereby granted.
Your Excellency, this petition is in respect of phase II of a scheme to refurbish r the dwellings of the Upper Pulrose estate which were built around 1935, one of the older estates under the authority of Douglas Corporation. The proposed works are similar to those carried out on phase I, approval to which was granted at the sitting of Tynwald October 1986. Mention may be made of the fact that the unit cost of this phase has risen to
Petition of Douglas Corporation Re Refurbishment of Dwellings on the Upper Pulrose Estate — Approved T124 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987
£18,000 compared with £15,000 for phase I, which is a matter of some concern to my colleagues and myself. This large increase, of course, reflects the present state of the building industry in which only two suitable contractors were prepared to tender for work in this £400,000 range of work scheduled. Notwithstanding this high unit price, my department is satisfied that these are necessary works and it would of course be particularly unfair if the tenants of phase II were to be denied the refurbishment of their homes which tenants of phase I have already received and of which the refurbishment is a general policy and has been of this Government, Your Excellency. I beg to move.
Mr. Cannan: I beg to second, Your Excellency, and in doing so I would like to say to this hon. Court that the Treasury support this petition but with certain reservations. The Treasury, as I said yesterday, are fully in support of housing and refurbishment, building of new houses, service plots, and the provision of loans, V.3 but in all these matters, Your Excellency, there must be, or the Treasury feel there must be both financial responsibility and financial discipline and, as the hon. minister has already said, Douglas Corporation obtained only two competitive tenders, the lowest of which was 19 per cent. higher than phase 112 months ago and at £18,000 per dwelling the viability of refurbishment may be questionable. The Treasury would also ask the Corporation why they elected to obtain fluctuating tenders when Government departments obtain fixed-price tenders for projects of greater value and duration. Thirdly, the Treasury show concern that this project did not appear in the Corporation's estimates for '87/88 and is not scheduled to commence until the start of 1988, some three months' time, and we wonder why perhaps the Corporation would not, on second thoughts, seek new tenders on a fixed-price basis. Having said that, the Treasury do not oppose this petition, but would wish to take this opportunity to make the Court aware that in all these matters the Treasury are quite certain to require financial responsbility.
The Governor: I have caught the eye of Mr. Kermode and Mr. Duggan and then Mr. Speaker and of course if we wish we may hear the Clerk of Douglas Council who I presume is representing —
Mr. Peers: Yes, Your Excellency.
The Governor: Right. Mr. Kermode.
Mr. Kermode: Your Excellency, I have sat and supported the other two petitions and indeed I will support this one here today, but in view of the past problems that we have had with refurbishment on other estates I would like the Minister for the Local Government to please press home to the Corporation, and now they are listening here today, that we will not tolerate the type of work that has gone on in the other estates. We will not tolerate the complaints that we have had and we will not tolerate the lack of supervision, because my phone had never stopped in the whole of the time the Pulrose job was going on, Lower Pulrose, about complaints about workmanship and to this day there are still some of the defects not put right, and I am afraid that if we are going to spend this kind of money on this kind of
Petition of Douglas Corporation Re Refurbishment of Dwellings on the Upper Pulrose Estate — Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 T125
refurbishment the people that move into them have a right to see the job is done proper with the least inconvenience. So, please, it must be pressed home today and not at a later date till our phones start getting red hot with complaints.
Mr. Duggan: Thank you, Your Excellency, on the same theme, being a member for South Douglas along with Mr. Cretney, I can assure you that we have had complaints regarding the houses not being done properly, especially Lower Pulrose. But even in the top houses, Your Excellency, people have been put back in the houses, their gardens have been left like a tip and no fences erected. But this is a point, I believe, which I would like to ask the Minister of the Environment: are there going to be gates and fences erected on the second phase? And possibly if they could look at the first phase because there are people, Your Excellency, living on a busy bus route with children and there is a concern, when they go back to the house, there are no fences or gates on lots of these houses. But the supervision is the most important thing. Another point which Mr. Cannan did raise, Your Excellency, he was a former member of the Local Government Board with myself and when we heard the first petition for the first phase we did include in this petition of the first batch central heating, sir, and that does contribute quite considerably to the cost of the petition; I think it is £1500 to £2,000. But I feel, Your Excellency, that all council houses in time should have central heating fitted and it was a thing I pushed hard for and I think this is what should happen in other cases. Thank you.
The Speaker: Your Excellency, I support the petition, while acknowledging the warnings of the hon. Finance Minister. But I would like to be assured that there will be proper provision for alternative accommodation for the tenants where that is involved, that the time involved in the contract will be honoured by the building contractors, and I make this point because of the unfortunate experience of people on the Ballacannell estate in Lonan where in fact those assurances were given by your own department, sir, and were never capable of being honoured, which led to total confusion, total upset, and I would not wish to see that happen to the tenants involved in this particlar development.
The Governor: Hon. members, is it agreed that the Clerk to Douglas Council be heard and be subject to questions? (It was agreed.) Have you anything you want to say to us?
Mr. Peers: Not at this stage, Your Excellency, but I am quite willing on behalf of the Corporation to answer any questions of hon. members.
The Governor: Have any hon. members got questions?
The Speaker: Yes, Your Excellency. The straight question would be, are you making proper provision for alternative accommodation for the people involved in this refurbishment programme?
Mr. Peers: Yes, through you, Your Excellency, to the hon. Speaker, we are arranging, we have transit accommodation to move the people in while the work
Petition of Douglas Corporation Re Refurbishment of Dwellings on the Upper Pulrose Estate — Approved T 1 26 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 is done and then they move back.
The Speaker: Thank you.
Mr. Peers: So the arrangements are made.
Mr. Kermode: Can I ask the Town Clerk, are you satisfied that in the Borough Surveyor and Engineer's Department you have got the necessary staff to give the necessary supervision, so we don't get the same reoccurrence of problems we have had in the past?
Mr. Peers: Yes, Your Excellency, I can assure the hon. member on that. The mistakes that have been mentioned by hon. members today, we will make sure that the same sort of things do not happen again. The complaints that we have received, the people are now entirely satisfied with the remedial works that have been done. We will do everything we can to ensure that there is not a repetition, Your Excellency.
Mr. Cannan: Your Excellency, may I ask the Town Clerk if perhaps he would answer the points I raised, which I thought perhaps he might have done in replying, as to what was the reason for the Corporation electing to obtain fluctuating tenders as against fixed-priced tenders and are they satisfied that they only received two tenders?
Mr. Peers: If I may Your Excellency, that is rather a complicated one. It is over the period of the contract that it takes. If we had asked for a fixed-price contract I think we are all sure that in fact the contractor would have taken a gamble and upped the price. This way it may ultimately, but I mean we cannot be sure, work out cheaper, but we have penalty clauses in to ensure in fact that the contract is completed by the due day, otherwise liquidated damages will be claimed.
Mr. Cretney: Could I ask the Clerk, if it is necessary that the penalty clauses have to be enacted can I have an assurance that they will be?
Mr. Peers: They will be, Your Excellency.
The Governor: Are there any other questions from members of the Court? Then I invite the minister to reply.
Mr. Delaney: Your Excellency, first of all, in reply to my hon. colleague, the Minister of Finance, the same questions he asked obviously I asked and my colleagues asked and we do accept the particular position in relation to the cost of construction nowadays. We do not see, as it could be argued, why not wait until things get better? Can anyone in this hon. Court guarantee me it will be cheaper this time next year to do this work if we intend to do it? I do not believe so, Your Excellency, and, as I say, we have this on-going refurbishment, it is a commitment we have to the people of the Isle of Man who we have housed and therefore we should carry it out, and I have no doubt whatsoever that in three months' or six months' or twelve months' time this work would be more costly.
Petition of Douglas Corporation Re Refurbishment of Dwellings on the Upper Pulrose Estate — Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 T127
I accept the point about the fixed-price tendering, if you can get anyone to tender. Would anyone in this Court like to tell me, if you were in the construction industry with the amount of work available, you would be putting fixed-price tenders in? I doubt very much, Your Excellency, whether that would occur, even though we would wish it. In relation to Mr. Kermode and Mr. Duggan I want to clear up something, Your Excellency, which has been haunting this town and haunting this Government, certainly the local authority, for a number of years. It is in relation to the contract in Lower Pulrose, Your Excellency. I was challenged by my hon. friend, the member for South Douglas, on a radio programme to visit this particular area because of the complaints that were coming in, a ridiculous challenge as I probably know personally every person that lives in the estate and I am regularly up there trying to handle some of the problems they bring to me, although they are his constituents, and I can say this, Your Excellency — you get what you pay for in this life. Local authorities and Government are no different. We paid £5,000 for a certain set of works to take place in those houses. That was not the decision of this man; it was not the decision of a lot of people, but it was a decision that was taken and I say categorically here now: even though it might not have been the right decision and it might not have been done as much as we wanted, as much money spent, for the £5,000-odd that was spent you got what you paid for. That is a political decision that was taken by the Douglas Corporation and this Court. To snipe at the people who carried out the works and make them responsible for the errors of judgement of politicians is totally wrong. I visited that site. I went round to see the people who complained on the radio, I spoke to them personally with the Town Clerk. I am prepared to go any time and talk to them, and the fact of the matter is that they have been goaded up by inefficient people who are prepared to pass the responsibility on someone who cannot answer for themselves in this Court and in other places. Your Excellency, I think not enough work was done. If I had my way they should have been demolished and rebuilt, but the decision was taken by the controlling authority to refurbish, not by me and not by the people in the houses. So to try now to blame the problems on the contractor and the people that work for him is totally wrong, Your Excellency, and I want that cleared up and I think it is wrong to snipe. Your Excellency, Mr. Speaker asked the questions about the situation in relation o people leaving. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, I am as interested as you are, rightly so these people have to catered for, and if you look in the schedule you will find that a lot of money in this contract in actual fact is for the moving of tenants, some £12,500, and we have had assurances these people will be looked after; 1 hope a very high standard of responsibility will be used. What does concern me, Your Excellency, is the question about the fencing which was raised by the member, I think, for South Douglas. In relation to the fencing, what is the point of doing a wonderful refurbishment at £18,000 or at £15,000, the " first phase, and then leaving a mess around? (Members: Hear, hear.) So we intend, and I have had assurances from the Borough Engineer, that these works will be done, including the first phase, they will be tidied up. But I will say this also, Your Excellency — there is a responsibility of tenants, not only of us and the local authority. Now on my visit to Lower Pulrose and Upper Pulrose 1 believe that some
Petition of Douglas Corporation Re Refurbishment of Dwellings on the Upper Pulrose Estate — Approved T128 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 of the tenants are letting down their neighbours by not keeping a standard in the area they are responsible for, and I am not afraid to say that because I might lose a few votes. There is a responsibility on each tenant to their next-door neighbour and I believe that it is imperative in actual fact that the Douglas Corporation, any local authority make sure their tenants, particularly as the taxpayer underwrites at the end of the day, the rents in those places, that they carry out their responsibilities and even an out-and-out communist, socialist, call them what them what you will, can not deny that situation and I believe just blaming everything on the Corporation or on the Government is wrong. The tenants themselves have responsibilities for the area and once it has been improved at this sort of cost the Corporation must send out an inspector to make sure every so often that the place is kept in a reasonable condition and those bad tenants are told that it is not acceptable. Your Excellency, that will make a little bit of rumpus outside, but I am sure that the majority of this hon. House with any sense will support my view.
Mr. Kermode: Your Excellency, under Standing Order 92 by way of personal explanation under names mentioned, the hon. minister said 'Don't blame the contractor'. Hon. members, I have proof of a house that I went to where the window heads on that job were not complete and not finished in a proper manner. Now that was the contractor's problem.
The Governor: Mr. Kermode, I am sorry but you are out of order.
Mr. Delaney: Can I, just to help the hon. member -
The Governor: Just one moment, please. Mr. Cretney, do you have a point of order?
Mr. Cretney: I do. My point of order, sir, is that my name was mentioned and I wish to make it clear that at no time have I made reference to the contractor. At all times I have said that the contractor adhered to the specifications that were provided by the Corporation and they may have been deficient in my opinion.
The Governor: Thank you, Mr. Cretney.
Mr. Delaney: I claim my right under Standing Orders, Your Excellency —
The Governor: You may finish your reply.
Mr. Delaney: Right, Your Excellency. Well, the situation is -
Mr. Brown: Name names (Laughter).
Mr. Delaney: I say this, as a member of this Court I will always, under Standing Orders I have to name the person I refer to either by the constituency and the position he holds in that constituency, senior or junior, or the hon. member and I so do, Your Excellency, so I have no worries there. But I say this to my hon. colleague who I know has the interests of the people down there at heart — really. (Laughter)
Petition of Douglas Corporation Re Refurbishment of Dwellings on the Upper Pulrose Estate — Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 T129
I ask him to bring the information he has to my department. That is the place to complain when you are member of Government, we are responsible for local authorities if there is any negligence been taking place, but no one at this moment in time, after all these years, has done so. It is all innuendo. The member has said he has proof and I challenge him now to bring that proof to me, even though we did not do the refurbishment so we can go back to the Corporation and ask the member to justify that statement.
Mr. Duggan: I have a point of order too, Your Excellency, I will just clarify briefly. When I was on the Council, sir —
The Governor: Under which Standing Order, Mr. Duggan?
Mr. Duggan: Ninety-two, sir.
The Governor: Well 92 really is only by the indulgence of Tynwald (Laughter) and I am afraid you have exhausted the indulgence of Tynwald. Hon. members, I put to you the motion standing in the name of the Minister for Local Government and the Environment at item 42. Will hon. members in favour say aye; those against say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it and therefore all three petitions are granted by this Court. Thank you, Mr. Peers.
CUSTOMS DUTIES (APPLICATION) (NO. 3) ORDER 198IXPORT OF GOODS (CONTROL) (AMENDMENT NO. 8) (APPLICATIO ) ORDER 1987 - APPROVED
The Governor: Item 8 of the main Agenda, hon. members, Customs and Excise Acts (Application) Act 1975. I call on the Ministry for the Treasury to move.
Mr. Cannan: Your Excellency, I beg to move:
(a) the Customs Duties (Application) (No.3) Order 1987, made by the Treasury on 12th August 1987, be and the same is hereby approved; and
(b) the Export of Goods (Control) (Amendment No.8) (Application) Order 1987, made by the Treasury on 23rd September 1987, be and the same is hereby approved.
The Governor: Is that agreed?
It was agreed.
Customs Duties (Application) (No. 3) Order 1987 — Export of Goods (Control) (Amendment No. 8) (Application) Order 1987 — Approved T130 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987
CUSTOMS AND EXCISE MANAGEMENT ACT 1986 (AMENDMENT) ORDER 1987 — CUSTOMS DUTIES (QUOTA RELIEF) (APPLICATION) ORDER 1987 — CUSTOMS AND EXCISE MANAGEMENT ACT 1986 (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) ORDER 1987 — APPROVED
The Governor: Item 9, Customs and Excise Management Act 1986. I call on the Minister for the Treasury to move.
Mr. Cannan: Your Excellency, I beg to move:
(a) the Customs and Excise Management Act 1986 (Amendment) Order 1987, made by the Treasury on 12th August 1987;
(b) the Customs Duties (Quota Relief) (Application) Order 1987, made by the Treasury on 23rd September 1987; and
(c) the Customs and Excise Management Act 1986 (Amendment) (No.2) Order 1987, made by the Treasury on 23rd September 1987, be and the same is hereby approved.
The Governor: Is that agreed?
It was agreed.
DOUGLAS BAY OUTFALL — INVESTIGATION PHASE 2 - MOTION CARRIED
The Governor: Item 10, Douglas Bay Outfall, Investigation Phase 2. I call on the Minister for Highways, Ports and Properties to move.
Mr. Catlin: Your Excellency, I beg to move:
Whereas —
(a) on 15th July 1986 Tynwald authorised the Local Government Board to engage consultants and incur expenditure not exceeding £50,000 on phase 1 of survey and investigation work as a preliminary to a scheme for improving sewage disposal arrangements in the Douglas Bay area; and
(b) the functions of the Local Government Board relating to sewerage are now exercisable by the Department of Highways, Ports and Properties.
Now therefore Tynwald approves of the Department of Highways, Ports and
Customs and Excise Management Act 1986 (Amendment) Order 1987 - Customs Duties (Quota Relief) (Application) Order 1987 - Customs and Excise Management Act 1986 (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 1987 - Approved Douglas Bay Outfall — Investigation Phase 2 — Motion Carried TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 T131
Properties incurring expenditure not exceeding £70,000 to determine the condition of the on-shore sewerage infrastructure in both Douglas and Onchan.
Firstly, Your Excellency, I will briefly recap on the background giving rise to this resolution. The Local Government Board during the early 1980s had under consideration the need for a long-term strategy in regard to Douglas Bay sewer outfall, in particular, the Conister outfall and in accordance with that resolution of Tynwald of 15th July 1986 consultants were engaged to provide professional services in connection with the carrying out of a desk study together with such additional survey, investigative and/or modelling works as will be necessary to provide a costed programme for the various stages of this scheme. The consultants appointed for this work were John Taylor and Sons, their engagement being limited to the past financial year. The foul sewerage systems of Douglas and Onchan can be split into three main drainage areas, each discharging through a separate outfall into Douglas Bay. Firstly, we have the Conister and then there are two at Port Jack, one servicing North Douglas and the other from Onchan. During the summer and autumn of 1986 the consultants undertook marine survey work to assess the performance of the present outfalls and locate a more suitable discharge point. At the same time available details of the existing sewerage systems served by these outfalls was outlined and a limited amount of sewer survey carried out. The information on record with Douglas Corporation, and I emphasise this point, the information on record with Douglas Corporation, Onchan Commissioners and also the Highways Authority of the foul and storm water sewerage systems is by no means comprehensive and there were large areas without records of any sort, with available information often contradictory and confusing. The hon. Court will recall that my department arranged with John Taylor and Sons to make a presentation of their desk study report at the Postgraduate Medical Centre on 11th May this year to which hon. members were invited. So those members who attended will be fully aware of the contents of the consultants' phase 1 report, the cost of which amounted to £49,813. The recommendations contained in the report for the next phase of investigations was to include sewer surveys, hydrographic investigation, bacteriological and biological sampling, geo-technical investigation and further computer modelling of both the tidal regime and the sewerage systems of Douglas. The resultant information together with relevant planning and population forecasts will enable definitive disposal schemes to be costed. Hon. members will recall that a financial resolution seeking an approval to a sum not exceeding £300,000 for the aforementioned purpose appeared on the Agenda of the July sitting of Tynwald and at the sitting held on 14th July I withdrew that resolution for the reasons given in my statement which is recorded in Hansard. I made mention in that statement to discussions having taken place on the consultant's report, the results of which did require time to enable further consideration to be given before proceeding with the next stage of the investigation. The culmination of these deliberations, which has involved as well as professional officers from my own department, it has involved those of the Treasury, Local Government and the Environment and the Public Analyst, is that there is no problem
Douglas Bay Outfall — Investigation Phase 2 — Motion Carried T132 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 with the Conister sea outfall other than the damage which is currently under repair and which, when these repair works are completed and we hope that this will be before the winter, will result in the discharge being some 150 metres further off shore. The effect of the repair and restoration of the outfall should result in an improvement to the visual actual nuisance on the beach, but this will require to be identified over a reasonable period of time after which the question of whether or not the Conister outfall should be extended will be considered. Now the original length of the Conister outfall was 680 metres but it currently discharges at a distance of 530 metres offshore. The repair is being carried out by members of our own division and it involves a section of some 75 feet. It had been clearly identified by the Public Analyst that there was in fact pollution from onshore sources and it was also possible by visual inspection to see the pollution on the beach from within the sea wall. As to where this pollution came from and what was in fact the condition of the sewers could not be answered and clearly research is required to identify the extent of this problem. Coupled with this, it is necessary to establish whether or not the existing sewers could cope with future development within the town. Now, Your Excellency, I am seeking the approval of this hon. Court to expenditure by the department of up to £70,000 for the purpose of having undertaken further investigation and feasibility studies to determine the condition of the existing infrastructure of the Douglas and Onchan sewers, that is, the main sewers. The department does not have the resources to undertake this investigation themselves and consultants will have to be engaged on our behalf, and again it may be of interest for hon. members to know that the total number of staff of our sewage and drainage department numbers 21 and that is made up of four salaried officers and 21 manual and that is to cover the Island, 21 staff. Now there are six main elements of work to be undertaken which are, very briefly, a sewer survey and mapping, which will involve, as I have said, the main sewer runs, estimated cost £15,000; closed circuit television survey, £15,000; flow monitoring, £15,000; mathematical model, £5,000; planning and other consultations, £5,000; feasibility and report, £15,000, totalling £70,000. Now, Your Excellency, hon. members, the obtaining of this information will then, we hope, provide the necesary base for forming a considered opinion as to the need for further repair or construction of new works, and I beg to move the resolution standing in my name.
Mr. Barton: I beg to second and reserve my remarks.
Dr. Orme: Your Excellency, first I would like to remind members that this comes under the heading of a solemn duty, as we agreed yesterday. I cannot support this resolution in its present form because it proposes to us what is to me a ridiculous assertion, that we can consider the land environment in a completely separate compartment to the sea environment and the basis of this proposal we have before us is 'Let us consider the land environment in isolation and let us hear how we can patch it up so its present malfunctioning ceases'. Now there are three issues that I wish to point out. First, we only have one environment and that includes the lot, everything. We cannot separate it into compartments and conveniently decide that if we have got it right in one area we can chuck it into another. We have a situation where we pour raw sewerage into
Douglas Bay Outfall — Investigation Phase 2 — Motion Carried TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 T133
the ocean. We must accept that. Second, the existing systems are under considerable strain. For many years future growth and expansion of the system has not been considered. No knowledge is available of the hydrokinetics — I am sorry — the flow patterns around Douglas Bay following the modifications which we are already aware have occurred after the construction of the breakwater. Third is the chronic problem now. We have a situation where since 1976 there have been directives from the E.E.C. which are slowly being put into operation. I gather that there are a number of parameters in these directives but we do not have to worry about those because our system fails on the most primitive of all: visible evidence. If you wish to swim in floating excreta, used contraceptives and sanitary towels, come to Douglas. I am afraid that the nature of the resolution to me continues an established behaviour pattern in this House which involves a number of factors. First, we make excuses for ourselves; second, we set poor standards and third, we do not plan for the future. If these are acceptable, then we can live in isolation in this Island. But whereas we may prefer to allow our own people to immerse themselves in this dangerous pathogenic soup, we have to consider another business and that is tourism. Tourism is one of the most competitive businesses of all. Tourists are very well informed consumers; very few consumption decisions are as well researched as a decision as to tourism consumption. We have to constantly pay attention to our what our competitors are doing. I have already mentioned the E.E.C. regulations. The U.K. has responded to these regulations, admittedly with some reluctance, by designating a series of beaches. These beaches have been the subject of some intense activity, an example of which is one that I visited to take a look at this year which was Bridlington which has spent £7 million on the construction of an outfall control system. The incentives have been that the U.K. Tourist Board has offered, through the Government, additional backing in . terms of other schemes and Bridlington was awarded £2.3 million assistance in the development of its water leisure facilities as a result of winning the Tourism 2,000 Award for 1985. Italy is spending £1.6 billion over the next ten years on cleaning up its sewerage discharge systems to the oceans. England is considering, under some pressure from a number of groups, the introduction of the blue flag system which is going to be awarded to beaches which reach the minimum necessary standards which are required for safety of population who wish to immerse themselves, safety from such items as colliferm, salmonella and other entero-viruses, all of which can produce quite serious disease.
This plan we have before us will enact repairs to the existing system before we can even consider the issue of treatment and the issue of sea pollution. Very soon, before those three years are out, there will be ratings of all the beaches in the United Kingdom. The tourists who might consider visiting the Isle of Man will be well aware of the rating of every beach in the United Kingdom and they will be very well aware of the rating of our beaches. If we have a commitment to tourism it has got to be applied from the tip of Snaefell to the bottom of the ocean at the 14-mile limit and it is no good pretending that we can live in isolation in the matter of these sort of standards, and every issue that faces us in this House has a tourism dimension and
Douglas Bay Outfall — Investigation Phase 2 — Motion Carried T134 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 and if we are prepared to put into operation bodged plans such as this, then we will, in time, be reaping the benefits, which is that no-one will come. As an aside perhaps in my complaints, I suppose, in this issue, it came to my notice that we have actually passed a Marine Pollution Act of 1983 which seems to me in a very broad sense to cover many of the issues of which I am talking. I would like to ask perhaps previous members of the L.G.E. and perhaps the present minister why this Act has not been yet put into operation. In conclusion, I beg to move an amendment:
That the motion be referred back to the Department of Highways, Ports and Properties for further consideration of the future protection of the marine environment from pollution.
Mr. Duggan: Your Excellency, I am a former member of the Local Government Board, and as the Chief Minister will substantiate, I was more than concerned about the out falls of the sewers. As a matter of fact, Your Excellency, Mrs. Hanson and I took a trip out one time in a boat to actually see it for ourselves and it was considerable, the effluent that was coming out. Unfortunately, what Dr. Orme has said about what was on the beach — I will not describe them again — it is quite right at times because I have seen them myself and that is why I have continually lobbied the Local Government Board and all the other members too, sir; we are very concerned. There is only one thing I would like to ask, Your Excellency, of the minister concerned. I would like to seek an assurance that this would be a lasting job because the figures that were quoted — rough figures, no doubt, at the time — would be, if the two outfalls were replaced and repaired suitably, it was between £6 and £8 million. So would this work, which is only costing very little, I can see, to replace the sewer extension here and repair it, will it be a lasting job, Mr. Callin, I ask you?
Mr. Cain: Your Excellency, I would like to second the amendment proposed by Dr. Orme, and would ask the minister if he would kindly give this hon. Court an assurance, in investigating this very important public health issue, in terms of the remit that is given to those firms or individuals who will advise his department as to what action should properly be taken, that the definitive disposal schemes to which he referred will comply with the best standards that are recommended either by the comparable authorities in the United Kingdom or indeed, as Dr. Orme has ® said, by the European Community itself.
Mrs. Delaney: Your Excellency, I too was going to second because I think it is time we began to get it right and, while there maybe an urgent need to do something immediately, I certainly would not stand in the way of correcting what is unacceptable at the moment. But having said that, I think there is a need to have an overall look, as has been stated, and indeed to begin to put the whole sewage system into the 1980s not into the 1880s as it stands today. I will endorse the amendment.
Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, could I just start by saying that if Mr. Duggan, the member for Douglas South, is surprised that effluent comes out of the end of
Douglas Bay Outfall — Investigation Phase 2 — Motion Carried TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 T135 a sewer pipe I am not.
Mr. Duggan: I am not surprised. I used to lobby you all the time to do something about it! (Laughter)
Mr. Walker: I am absolutely certain that if anybody sat in a boat at the end of a discharge sewer pipe they would find effluent coming out of it (Laughter) and —
Mr. Duggan: They should have lengthened it, obviously.
Mr. Walker: — I think that if the situation does prevail that my hon. colleague Mr. Orme has spoken of, and I do not believe th^t it does, but if that situation did exist, then he should be supporting, (Members: Hear, hear.) as I am going to, the resolution that is on the Agenda Paper because that resolution says that there is a problem — and I would accept there is a problem; I do not agree with the extent my hon. colleague suggests that is there, there is a problem — but this resolution is a way of quantifying the problem and that is the first thing that has got to happen before then you take the next step and say 'What is the best way to deal with it?'; that I have got no doubt about at all. Seventy thousand pounds we have spent on doing a survey, on doing a T.V. display of the inside of the system, flow monitoring, a mathematical model, planning, feasibility. This is groundwork that has got to be done and the sooner it is got on with the better and I would ask members not in fact to go for the amendment because it is doing just the thing that I was accused of yesterday: treading water, if you like, and not getting on with the job. (Laughter and interruptions) Clean water. My colleague also refers to bodged plans such as this' and I think in no way could those remarks be referred to the way that the resolution was described by my hon. colleague Mr. Callin. (Mr. Kermode: Hear, hear.) The Marine Pollution Act in fact does not deal with sewerage as we know it; it deals with minerals and toxic waste and chemicals that are put down and discharged to the sea, and I agree with my hon. colleague that that ought to be enacted. The reason that it has not been enacted before now was perhaps a wrong impression that that Act was more stringent than the Act that the U.K. have and by passing that Act it would mean that businesses would be stopped operating within the Isle of Man that would be allowed in the United Kingdom, and I thought that that was ,nacceptable. However, the main problem with the Marine Pollution Act was as a first step we ought to know as a Government what is going down our sewers, what is being discharged, and that exercise was being done at the end of last year, I assume it is now completed, and once we have that knowledge, then I believe we ought to effect the terms of that Act. I was in fact the one that put that Act through the House of Keys and I did so because I believed in it and 1 thought it was something we should do. But it is separate, I would suggest, to the problem that we are talking about today which is sewerage, which is the waste of our community. What we actually do with that waste at the end of the day, I think, remains to be seen. My own feeling is that we will continue to discharge to the sea but we will do it in a proper and controlled way out of an outfall that is long enough, that has been subject to all the computer tests that can be established to make sure that the flow from the end of the pipe, and there will be a flow from the end of the
Douglas Bay Outfall — Investigation Phase 2 — Motion Carried T136 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 pipe, does not in fact come back and harm our shores in any way at all.
Mr. Duggan: That is the problem.
Mr. Walker: If we think about the alternatives which are dealing with it inland, dealing with the sewerage inland, just think of the problem and the possible costs of turning all the sewerage round that has found its way downtown in Douglas, down to the sea, turn all that round, pumping it back inland — I guess Pulrose would not be acceptable, I guess Snugborough, Union Mills would not be acceptable — where would we put a sewage farm of the size that would be necessary to deal with the effluent —
A Member: Rushen.
Mr. Walker: — from Onchan and Douglas? Rushen will deal with its own but it will not deal With Onchan and Douglas's, (Laughter) I can assure you of that. So there are massive practical problems if we think about the alternative ways of disposal. Those alternatives, I think, do have to be examined and we have to, one by one, decide which are not practical and which are practical. My own feeling is we are going to continue to discharge to the sea but it will not be in the unrefined state that we do at the moment, there will probably be a sieving out of the inert materials that have been described by my hon. colleague far more picturesquely than I could do; those will be taken out and probably some sort of maceration to ensure that the solids break up as quickly as possible in the sea. I guess that at the end of the day that is the situation we are going for but I would ask hon. members not to defer (Members: Hear, hear.) this first stage of the examination any longer.
Dr. Orme: May I make a point of information?
The Governor: The member for Douglas East. I will come back to you, Dr. Orme.
Mr. Kermode: Yes, Your Excellency, I would not wish to take anything at all away from my minister. I am very surprised at Mr. Cain from West Douglas, you know, because from time to time, we younger members, we like to take the advice of the older ones because we learn from their valuable experience and only yesterday he was telling me that we should in another of my department employ a professional person, a consultant to give us advice and, here we are, a resolution doing just that, but he does not agree with it. We are looking at this moment in time at the onshore situation, that is what this is for, not for the marine side of things and no marine work can be done until the Department of Local Government and the Environment determine what appropriate water quality or what standards that we have to work to and when that happens then we can work on the marine environment. But I support the Chief Minister in his observations and it is quite right in his knowledge that he has had in the past, and I have just returned from Guernsey where their sewer outfall is a mile away from their shores and ours, I feel, is far too close to the shore and that is why we
Douglas Bay Outfall — Investigation Phase 2 — Motion Carried TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 T137 are getting these problems of the pollution on our beaches. But let me say this, hon. members, Your Excellency, when we first came together as a ministry one of the things that came up on our Agenda was the fact that the sewer outfall, there were problems, there was a break, and the minister and my colleague, we agreed that this work should be done as a matter of urgency, to which end our divers went down, and at this moment in time they should be almost finished now, are repairing the broken pipe that was there, which should alleviate part of the problem. But I do agree that we have got to look at the overall problem which is going to mean a large capital outlay in the future but, remember, when we come back to this hon. Court and ask for their support, especially on something like this, it is for the future that we are planning, it is for the increase in the population that is happening and all the things that are coming to the Isle of Man that were planned for for the future, and I would ask members to support this resolution here today because it is a step in the right direction and it shows this department under the minister is trying to do something to alleviate the problems that we have.
The Governor: Dr. Orme, is it a point of order or explanation?
Dr. Orme: Of explanation.
The Governor: Yes, please.
Dr. Orme: I have in front of me, Your Excellency, a copy of the Marine Pollution Act 1983 and I would just like to correct an impression which I think was caused by the Chief Minister. Clause I reads: 'Any person who discharges or causes or permits to be discharged onto the seashore or into the sea or into any watercourse, pipe or sewer which drains into the sea by any means whatsoever any substance mentioned in Parts I, II or III of the Schedule shall be guilty of an offence.'. Without reading from the entire schedule I can read you the first part: `The allocation of substances to Parts I, II and Ill below takes account of the following criteria: (a) persistence; (b) toxicity or other noxious properties; (c) tendency to bio-accumulation.' All three apply to the question we have in front of us.
Mr. Corrin: Your Excellency, in my short term in Government I have been privileged to serve on the Public Accounts Committee and I think I would recommend that all new members and perhaps some of the older ones should have a recourse to it, is to see how before Government enters into a contract or whatever is that they get the advice first, professional advice, (Members: Hear, hear.) and take it from there. Now I did attend the presentation at the Noble's centre. I thought it was one of the most impressive presentations that I have ever been to and had perhaps my hon. colleague Mr. Orme, had he been there, I do not recall seeing him, and indeed I think had he been there he would not have said some of the things he has said this morning. The presentation was very impressive from the professional point of view. They have had markers in the sea; they did show a video of tidal movements, what is happening to the goods that discharge from these outflows; they are getting the
Douglas Bay Outfall — Investigation Phase 2 — Motion Carried T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 information. Even at this stage they were able to say that they are looking at the main sewer along Douglas promenade. They suspect that it is leaking anyway because when the tide goes out there are several places, apparently, where water is flowing back down to the tide. In one or two places they would acknowledge that it is fresh water from streams or whatever, but they also suspect that some of that water is polluted, therefore the present sewer is leaking. This has been looked at in its own right. They did go on to say — and here is where I would say that our colleague shduld take on board when he is making his case about discharging in the sea — they did say that it is possible that with certain land operations certain materials can be sieved out of the present sewerage and also the solids broken up and then if that is discharged into the sea out at a certain distance, then it is not injurious to marine life. This is the area that they were exploring. They did of course give the alternatives if all the effluent was treated on land. They gave instances of how many tankerloads would be leaving that plant every day and where would we dispose of that effluent on land? Now this was, as 1 say, a very impressive presentation and if I had not been there, to he quite honest, I would not know what I was talking about. Now they did give just some rough off-the-thumb guidance of what possibly a new sewer right from Onchan along the promenade would cost; they were talking somewhere in £10 million. Now I would say that this hon. Court has a duty to a minister of a department if there is a considered expenditure, and indeed I dare say if it is going to bring it up to the standards that my colleague Mr. Orme is wanting it will probably be in excess of that. Therefore I think this hon. Court has a duty and in the light of the Public Accounts experience, without mentioning what we were attending to, I would say that this hon. Court has a duty to grant this forthwith to the minister so that he can get and the department can get the professional advice that is needed before we embark on any expenditure as far as a project is concerned. I support the minister wholeheartedly, Your Excellency.
Mr. Brown: Your Excellency, the first thing I would like to say is that really before members make a decision they should read very carefully what the actual resolution says and the last part of the resolution is quite clear: it is to determine what to do, and therefore the amendment itself really is of no consequence whatsoever. I have to say that I am extremely concerned at the statements made by the mover of the amendments (Members: Hear, hear.) and I wonder if he had actually gone and spoken to the officers concerned or the department before he made such a radical and rash statement in this hon. Court, because that in itself can do immense harm to the very industry that he is involved in, the tourist industry, but also can concern unnecessarily many people who are resident in the Isle of Man. Now my experience when I was a member of the Local Government Board is that we took over the responsibility for sewerage in the Isle of Man I think from 1983, and therefore the Government has only had that responsibility a relatively short period. It was not long after that that we were informed of the problems with Douglas sewer and straightaway we were then saying 'We have to do something about this' and we started investigations, along with all the other work that was required to update many of the sewer systems in the Isle of Man, and now the Chief
Douglas Bay Outfall — Investigation Phase 2 — Motion Carried TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 T139
Minister who was then Chairman of the Local Government Board himself made many statements in this hon. Court saying that this Court could not ignore its responsibility with regards to sewerage disposal in the Isle of Man and this Court has made provision both on land and in some areas of disposal of sewerage to actually approve the situation. My understanding is that the seas around the Island are monitored regularly to ensure the pollution levels are not of an unacceptable level, and I think that we all are of the same opinion, and I certainly am, that I do not wish to have sewerage floating around beaches or whatever, and I can certainly say in the cases where I complained about what seemed to be sewerage at Douglas, which was investigated very quickly in both cases, it was found out that that was not the case, in fact it was nothing to do with sewerage. We all remember when we had the problem with the seaweed, the accusation not long ago was it sewerage, and in fact it was proved that by moving the seaweed from Douglas foreshore that in fact rectified the problem. I think what is very important, though, Your Excellency, while we accept that this problem has to be sorted out, is that we make sure the Isle of Man does not go overboard and go to an extreme that nobody else maybe goes to. We need to ensure that we dispose of our sewerage in a proper manner, that we ensure that pollution itself is not added to by the Island itself and make sure that our environment is a safe environment for our people to live in. But I do believe that some of the statements that have been made in this House really are going well out of context, and I think it is very important that we should understand the department are wishing to have this money to start a second phase of finding out how we can overcome this long problem and, I would just say, that the Government itself has only been responsible for in a relatively short period of time.
The Governor: As the member for Castletown sits down, it is pleasant to notice in the Distinguished Strangers Gallery a former member of Castletown we are very pleased to see. (Members: Hear, hear.) Mr. Maddrell, Mr. Quirk, Mr. Barton and Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Maddrell: Your Excellency, I give full support to the resolution and I would just like to have a little bit of a history lesson in this House. When the breakwater was built certain people were notified there was a break in the sewerage pipe leading out to the sea, the outfall, and that any explosions that were taken by the people who were building the breakwater would have to be noted and they could not be blamed and they were not blamed. Now it is a long time since that sewerage pipe has been leaking and I think you have got to congratulate the department that it is now acting, because what we mast bear in mind in this history story is that, as Mr. Brown from Castletown has said, basically the Government have only had the sewers for three years. That is not a long time, and what we are talking about here is investigation phase 2. So we have done phase 1 in three years by mending the out fall in three years and when we talk about sewers, we have many sewerage farms in the Isle of Man which are coping adequately but that does not say that we have not got problems. Oh, we have got them and we know them and what I would suggest to hon. members is support the resolution today and let us get on with the job. (Members: Hear, hear.) You put this amendment down for a further investigation
Douglas Bay Outfall — Investigation Phase 2 — Motion Carried T140 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 and in six months' time they will be back here telling you the same thing. We have not got that time to wait. Please support the resolution.
Mr. Quirk: I think it is significant, Your Excellency, that this item comes almost immediately after the debate we had yesterday when every member really wanted the Government to get on with it and do something about it, and here we have a department which is tackling one of the greatest problems in the Isle of Man, an environmental problem of sewage and drainage, and trying to get on with the job and, far from opposing it, I would like to support this wholeheartedly because I do feel too that the ministerial system is at last working. These problems were partly my problems until the ministerial situation was evolved and there was a great deal of difficulty in jelling together the works of the drainage department and the Highway Board. We did get together eventually, but now these are in the one sort of area and they can work together and are working together and I think this is a grand thing. These problems are not just in Douglas; they are all over the Isle of Man and they have to be tackled. This is our first priority. Even in a place as perfect as Peel we have our problems and, there again, we must see to it that this is done. I would like the minister to assure me that this is only a start in this area and that he will go ahead and get a survey, which is absolutely imperative, a survey of all the sewage disposal and waste and drainage, whatever in the Isle of Man. They are so imperfect at the present time that nobody knows just where to go or what to do in some cases and it has to be done for the good of the Isle of Man and for the department. I would like your assurance, sir, that you will continue with this project right through the Isle of Man.
Mr. Barton: Your Excellency, I would like to support what the Chief Minister says. This amendment put forward by the doctor is totally unnecessary. I am certain and I am surprised that Dr. Orme has tried to destroy the tourist industry by some very sweeping statements. (Members: Hear, hear.) I am also surprised, if he is so concerned, why he was not at the presentation. I take it a step further than that. When you look at the resolution, is he trying to water it down? Really and truly — (Laughter and interruption) If he had listened to the proposition this morning by the minister he answered in the proposition, if he had listened, he answered Dr. Orme's queries.
Mr. Kermode: He is all at sea!
Mr. Barton: Originally the department, in tackling this when it first came to it, was going to cover a very wide area. Now it is proposing a logical step and, if he looks at the motion, it talks about the preliminary; it is in there and therefore I urge you to support the proposal, the department, and I am certain all hon. members are concerned. There is a commitment. Let the survey go ahead.
The Speaker: Your Excellency, I have been astounded to hear the Minister for Health attack the comments of the hon. member for Rushen in the way he did because if anyone should have been supporting the theme put forward by Dr. Orme he should have been. If he is not aware that not only Douglas beach is polluted
Douglas Bay Outfall — Investigation Phase 2 — Motion Carried TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 1141
and the area around it but outside of Douglas, at Port Lewaigue, at Ramsey, go round the Island, you will find that same pollution described so vividly by Dr. Orme which is inimical to the health of the Manx people, then I think he should have been a little more wary of attacking in the way he did the legitimate proposals put forward by the hon. member for Rushen. • The minister, The Chief Minister has said to us this represents, the resolution, a step forward. So it does, but in a sense it is a step forward in isolation•and I think even the ministers will accept the truth of the contention of the hon. member for Rushen supported by the hon. member for West Douglas, and in consequence, Your Excellency, while I accept that progress on this issue must be made and I accept the resolution, I also accept the basic thinking and contention of the hon. member for Rushen and I have to try and reconcile in my thinking how those two can be brought together, because I am convinced that the ministry is right in going forward and I am equally convinced that the hon. member is putting forward a line which is acceptable to Government in the long term. But if it is done in the manner that the hon. member for Rushen is suggesting that will hold up progress and no one of us wishes to hold up progress. So consequently, Your Excellency, I am going to move a further amendment and if you look at the resolution it reads: 'Now therefore Tynwald approves', and if you stop at that point and insert, 'subject to the Department giving further consideration to the future protection of the marine environment from pollution, of the Department of Highways, Ports and Properties incurring expenditure not exceeding £70,000 to determine the condition of the on- shore sewerage infrastructure in both Douglas and Onchan.'. In that way the department will give further consideration to the environmental requirement without in any way holding up this particular proposal and I am quite convinced that the Court recognises there is a problem on both sides, and I would ask even those ministers who have said they cannot support Dr. Orme's amendment to accept his contention and accept, Your Excellency, an amendment in this form. Mr. Delaney: Could we have that seconded as soon as possible, Your Excellency? Mrs. Hannan: Your Excellency, we have heard today members speak about the E.E.C. levels and E.E.C. levels of pollution really only come into being depending on how many bathers there are and how many bathers at one time are recorded as being either in the sea or near the sea area and I do not think that Douglas comes under the description where E.E.C. levels can be used. Now sewerage and drains interest me greatly. I did attend the presentation by the Department of Highways, Ports and Property; I found it very instructive. I also called to see the personnel from the department when they were doing a small presentation on, I think, this very point on the Agenda, simply because it was removed prior to the sitting of Tynwald when I think that should have come up. But 1 think we have only got to look at the Isle of Man as a whole, and certainly if you have ever been on a local authority, to understand that we do not know where the drains are. The drains were put down 100 years ago when commissioners and local authorities were set up. They were not recorded and I know from my experience in Peel that until they brought along the television camera which they can insert in the drains they had no idea where the drains went to, they had no idea of the depth, they had no idea of the run of the drains and this, I think, is what this resolution today is saying, that we must look to find out where the drains are.
Douglas Bay Outfall — Investigation Phase 2 — Motion Carried T142 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987
There is also a problem on the Loch Promenade where the water from the sea actually goes in and it brings out pollution and I think this is not understood, where this pollution actually comes from, but it does cause an awful lot of problems on the beach. I am concerned about the infrastructure, not just for Douglas but for the whole of Mann and I think that we have to be aware that there is going to be a great deal of expenditure. It all comes back to planning, to proper consideration of the whole environment and I will be supporting the resolution as it stands on the Order Paper because I think,' after being to the desk presentation and also speaking with the officers, that they will take into consideration and are taking into consideration the marine environment, something which I am also very concerned about. But I see this as a step forward, a study of what is actually going on, and I can accept the intentions of the Speaker but I will support the resolution as it stands on the Order Paper.
Dr. Orme: May I make a point of information?
The Governor: A point of?
Dr. Orme: Information.
The Governor: Information, there is no such thing.
Dr. Orme: May I clarify?
The Governor: There is no such thing as a point of clarification, I am afraid, Dr. Orme. If you have a point of order you may make it. If you have a point of explanation personally you may make it but otherwise I am afraid you have had your ration. Mr. Bell. (Interruption and Laughter.)
Mr. Bell: Your Excellency, yesterday and today the Department of Tourism have had a film crew on the Isle of Man preparing the Isle of Man's television commercial for 1988. It is quite a big step forward for us to get back on television again, and it is also going to be a very expensive exercise and it is also going to be the main platform of our advertising for next year. After hearing the lurid claims that have just taken place in this Court this morning I wonder whether or not we should continue with this exercise, quite honestly.(Mr. Gilbey: Hear, hear.) We are fighting a very difficult battle reviving the tourist industry; we are making progress; I am quite confident we will win the battle in the long term. But we have to have a responsible attitude from members of this hon. Court if we are going to achieve that end, and irresponsible claims which have taken place in the Court this morning do none of us any good whatsoever, still less do they do any good for the 2,000-odd people outside this Court whose livelihood depends on the success of tourism. Your Excellency, I do not intend to repeat a lot of the claims which have been made this morning but I would like just to point out two things, that first of all no-one is denying that there is a pollution problem around the Isle of Man. It has been recognised certainly over the last two years while I have been on the Local Government Board. It is something we have been investigating quite thoroughly
Douglas Bay Outfall — Investigation Phase 2 — Motion Carried TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 1143
and this is the next step along that train of thought. If any hon. member is sufficiently concerned about any specific subject I would suggest he has a duty, rather than come to this Court and make such outrageous claims as have been made, that a degree of research and investigation should be made by that member on that subject within the department which is dealing with that particular problem. It would seem • to me that no research whatsoever has been done behind this particular amendment which is before us at the moment. If it had been, then the sum of the work which has been done to date would have been made available to the hon. member and ▪ these claims would not have been forthcoming this morning. I, like a number of other colleagues, Your Excellency, am at a loss to see why an amendment of this nature should come forward anyway. It seems quite clear to me that the hon. mover has not read the resolution before him in the first place. It is a resolution really without any logic at all, when one considers the implications of resolution 10, the one which we are considering, because if, as I say, the hon. member had done any research at all on this subject he would realise that the whole thrust of the investigation which is taking place is to achieve the very end that he himself is proposing here now. I find it very disappointing, Your Excellency, that a member of my department should come forward with public statements based on very little research, perhaps with the best of intentions, but having made statements which is doing damage to the very work which we are trying to achieve ourselves. I would a put a plea, Your Excellency, it might be slightly out of order but I would certainly put a plea to members of the press and the media here not to regale us with lurid headlines later on this week (Mr. Gilbey: Hear, hear.) claiming that everyone swimming in the seas around the Isle of Man will in fact be swimming up to their ears in pollution, certainly of the type which has been described to us this morning. (Members: Hear, hear.) Your Excellency, my department, my deputy minister shares the concern of, I am sure, every single person in this Court and I am sure every single person on the Isle of Man when they say we want a clean environment, clean waters round the Isle of Man. We are also very conscious of the E.E.C. regulations and the problems they may cause for us at some time in the future and therefore we are most anxious to see this sewage problem resolved at the earliest possible stage. We will, I am sure, be supporting this resolution wholeheartedly and in fact will be pushing the hon. minister as hard as possible to speed up a conclusion. But I would urge hon. members in future, if they do hold the success and the future development of tourism to heart, if they do genuinely support the tourist industry, to think twice before coming to this hon. Court and making very damaging claims which can only do harm to the very industry they purport to support.
• Mr. Delaney: Your Excellency, my colleague and myself could be in a position, particularly as it is this outfall and the problems that were so well illustrated this morning, unfortunately too clearly illustrated, affecting our constituency could be up on our feet could be up on our feet claiming all sorts of disquiet but I am delighted the Minister for Tourism has taken it upon himself to do that because I see no future for those people who are still surviving in tourism if the circumstances outlined here this morning are to get abroad. The member has a right, as every member has a right, to attack anything but from being in the tourist industry himself and from pushing forward the tourist industry, as his own minister has said, to then make
Douglas Bay Outfall — Investigation Phase 2 — Motion Carried T144 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 such statements here this morning to me is unjustifiable. We have difficulties, my colleague and myself, in trying to prop up without coming to this Court, and I certainly will never, as I have given that undertaking, criticise the policies even though I might disagree with them at ministerial level, what my colleague is trying to do. But I think that the damage has been done now. I hope the Press, as he says, will not push out the sort of statements being made. What worries me more, Your Excellency, is the idea that nobody except the minister who has put forward this resolution and his colleagues are concerned or they do not know what they are doing. I have, and my department before I took it over was originally responsible for sewerage, there are all the documents concerned; I have photographs recently taken; I have spoken to the people concerned, even though it is not my direct responsibility, about the problem and we are not the only ones with the problem, generally around Britain there is a problem of pollution. 1 cannot disagree with the Speaker's amendment really. I do not think it does anything except reaffirm our commitment to it and I could not find any fault if I was directed to vote against it because it might damage the Government policy; I would consider it, but I do not think it would. So I could support that amendment really. Your Excellency, I am surprised and concerned that when you actually try to attempt to do something so early on in the life of a new type of Government, as has been said, you are thrown back and go and think it out again. One twentieth of our time has already been spent. One twentieth of your time has already gone and there would be another twentieth gone by the time they came back again with any other situation. So when we would be actually getting anywhere would be the day we are walking out this door. That is what is going to happen if we keep doing this. I am not surprised at the amendment. You are always going to get these sort of things, but I hope there is some realism in this Court because if you want to finish up at the end of five years with nothing done this is the way to go about it because I have seen it happen for two Government terms, amendments put through which only held up the situation or policy which was not going anywhere, and that is what made up most of the Agendas. That is why the criticism came. Please, do not support the amendment. Let us get on with it and get some positive movement in trying to clear up the problems we have inherited because I have been struck, and I mentioned it yesterday, about who is claiming success for the wonderful upturn I am not interested. I am not interested, I am interested in curing the problems we have been given, I have been given, you have been given and this one is a problem tat going back 50 years, 60 years. Everyone is trying to pretend it was not there, even V27 though there are records that show there was a problem there. So those if those outside the Government who were here before claim the success of this Government, they also must claim responsibility for the problems that this Government is going to have to try and tackle. You cannot have it both ways. Let us get on with this and let the minister and his members get on with it. But I say to the Minister of Tourism, you have got to think out your position and you have got to think out the position of your members.
Mr. May: Your Excellency, when I first saw this item on the Agenda Paper I was delighted to see it because I thought there is one section of Government that is positively trying to do something and to do something that is very necessary and
Douglas Bay Outfall — Investigation Phase 2 — Motion Carried TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 T145
long overdue that action should have been taken in this particular area, and when I looked at it I had no intention whatsoever of contributing to this debate; in fact to be quite frank with you, Your Excellency, I would have thought that most hon. members would have seen the sense and the logic in what the Department of Highways, Ports and Properties are trying to • do here and that this particular item would in all probability have gone through on the nod. I was quite surprised and very upset to hear the comments of my hon. colleague, the member of the Department of Tourism, Dr. Orme, and I feel that I must stand up to make some comment and substantiate the remarks that have been made by my minister with regard to these comments. I feel that for an individual who is charged with defending and indeed trying to rebuild a tourist industry which has suffered enough problems in recent years, we have got a big enough uphill task that to make outrageous statements of the nature that have been made in this Court this morning is to me nothing less than the height of irresponsibility.
The Speaker: We were once told that when we had made statements about Sellafield.
Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. May: Your Excellency, I recall some years ago similar statements were made on a Manx Radio programme by the then presenter of the programme and at that time I was a member of the Douglas Corporation, and the Health Committee of the Corporation with the co-operation of the Local Government Board instituted a series of tests on the foreshore of Douglas beach that were carried out on a regular basis and proved scientifically and categorically that those statements were completely and utterly unfounded. I would say to the hon. doctor, if he feels that Douglas beach is as polluted as he tries to make out, take the trouble to have a walk down there himself, take the trouble to walk along and see how polluted it is. I have no qualms about bathing in the water off Douglas beach or allowing my children to bathe in the water off Douglas beach or many other beaches in the Isle of Man. But for a person to stand in this hon. Court and make statements such as have been made here this morning, Your Excellency, we have to question the reason behind that and I shudder to think the damage that that statement could have on our tourist industry.
The President of the Council: Your Excellency, speaking on the resolution before the Court by the Minister of Highways and Ports, I would say what a pity it is that every member of this Court was not at the presentation that was given by the consultants on this very subject. I am sure many of the amendments, I share the views of Mr. Corrin, the hon. member for Rushen, none of these queries would have been asked today had members been there. The consultants are well aware of the problems which are nowhere near as serious as what has been suggested by certain members, but they are aware of the problems and they have an idea of what should happen as far as solving the problems. But they want to carry their investigations further and all this resolution is about is asking for further moneys so that they may carry out more research and come forward with a solution to the problem that is before us. I know this is a very delicate subject to talk about. It
Douglas Bay Outfall — Investigation Phase 2 — Motion Carried T146 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 has been with us a long time. But I was very impressed by the knowledge and the work that had already been done by the consultants. They spoke to us at some length and they showed us films and gave examples of what was done in other places and so forth. It was very, very instructive and I think we should have no hesitation in supporting the minister with his resolution and there is no need at all for any of the amendments that are associated with it, and anyone who was at the presentation I am sure would agree with my sentiments.
The Governor: I call on the minister to reply.
Mr. Callin: Your Excellency, if I could then first of all go back to the beginning and refer to the contribution, if we can call it such, from Dr. Orme who said he cannot support the resolution for the reasons that the sea environment should be considered along with the land environment. Now I can assure Dr. Orme and every other member of this hon. Court that my department is aware of the problems and fully intend to deal with them in a systematic way. As my colleague Mr. Kermode mentioned, one of the first decisions that was taken at our department meetings after our appointment, when we learned of the problem of the Conister outfall, was to take steps to get it repaired. That was one of the first decisions that we took. Now I cannot comment on the Manx Pollution Act without notice and I think members would realise that, but I would ask you all, as I feel certain from what I have heard you will, to oppose the amendment which has been put forward by Dr. Orme. Now I too have been very disappointed this morning to hear some of the remarks that he has himself made, but I think that those remarks have been well and truly answered by the Minister of Tourism and his deputy minister, Mr. May, so I will refrain from making any further remark. Now Mr. Duggan he wanted an assurance that this would be a lasting job. Now I can again give assurance to members who have expressed concern that the department, our officers, the consultants, that is exactly what we intend to do and I would ask you, please, have some trust in the department and have some trust in those people we employ and I can assure you that we will do what we have to do. Now that is providing of course that finance is made available. Now if we do not get that that alters the situation. Now that again, I think, answers Mr. Cain, other than the fact that he spoke about E.E.C. standards. Now the E.E.C. standards are something that we are aware of and all I will say here is that the standards we will aim for will be standards which will be acceptable. Whether every T and every `d' will be dotted so far as E.E.C. standards are concerned I am personally not in a position to say, but the standards will be as high as anywhere else, we hope, at the end of the day. Now Mrs. Delaney wanted to get the whole sewage problems put right to comply with the high standards. I have answered that. The Chief Minister — I would thank him very much indeed for his contribution and he quite properly referred to the resolution which is in effect quantifying the problem and that is exactly what it is doing. Now he made reference to the fact that at the end of the day the recommendation may be that sewage would discharge into the sea. He may well be right. I am not in a position to say today; he may well be right. But I am certain that if it will be discharged into the sea it will certainly
Douglas Bay Outfall — Investigation Phase 2 — Motion Carried TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 T147 not be in its present form, it will be after some treatment of some kind, but there again this is what we are paying for, this is the advice that we are seeking. Mr. Corrin. Now I would like to thank him too for his support because he quite properly said that the first thing to do is to obtain advice and I would also thank him for his compliment, as did Mr. Nivison later on, his compliment for the presentation which was given at the Postgraduate Medical Centre by the consultants, and I too feel that there was an opportunity, it was put on for members, but in addition to that we did make available prior to the July Tynwald, a period of time — I think it was two hours which we hoped would be suitable to members when our officers attended in the Members' Room to present the report, to answer queries, and I understand there were only a very small number that took advantage of that opportunity. Had they done so they would have been in possession of information that they obviously have not got at the moment. Now he made reference to the Public Accounts Committee. I served on the Public Accounts Committee for quite some time and I can assure you that I appreciate the value of the Public Accounts Committee and I have no wish to see any of my officers or any of our members being brought before the Public Accounts Committee because we have gone down the wrong road without prior advice and again that is exactly what we are trying to avoid. I again would thank Mr. Brown for his contribution and it is true that sampling will indicate the pollution caused by sewage and again this is all part of the work that we intend to have carried out. Now I do not think as far as the water in Douglas Bay is concerned, and I am going to say this, is anything, anything like the problem that has been made out by some here today, (Members: Hear, hear.) and I took very careful note of Mr. May who said that he would have been quite happy to bathe in Douglas Bay, for his children to bathe in Douglas Bay and I think on evidence he has got every justification for saying that and if anyone wants to confirm what I am saying, if they were to contact the Public Analyst's Department I think he will confirm that. Mr. Quirk supported the resolution wholeheartedly. I thank him, and I can assure Mr. Quirk that this is the beginning, there is a long way to go and we intend to do all that we can to overcome the problems that we are aware of. Now Mr. Speaker — he referred to other problems besides Douglas. Now I will not make comment on that this morning. The only thing I will make comment on, now I appreciate what Mr. Speaker is trying to do, he is trying to be helpful in moving the amendment that he has put forward. But I can assure this hon. Court that that amendment at this time is not necessary, that the intention of the department is to carry through and establish where the existing main sewers are and the condition of these sewers both in the Douglas and Onchan area, and that is merely but the second phase and there will be further resolutions coming before this hon. Court in due course, of that there can be no doubt. Mrs. Hannan spoke about the E.E.C. regulations. I will not comment on those, other than I would like to thank her for her support and I would also like to say how pleased I was to know that she did take the trouble to go and to speak to our officers. It is a very complicated matter. I know that Mr. Garton is only too pleased at any time to meet any hon. member who has a question or who has a matter that concerns him with regard to this problem and I know he will provide the information. Mr. Bell I thank, Mr. Delaney I thank, Mr. May I thank. And again, finally Mr.
Douglas Bay Outfall — Investigation Phase 2 — Motion Carried T148 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987
Nivison did touch again on the presentation and he did say that he was impressed with the work done and the knowledge of the consultants and I think hon. members that is a very valid comment. I hope that you will support the resolution before you this morning wholeheartedly without amendments.
The Governor: Hon. members, may I first put to you then the amendment in the name of Dr. Orme, the hon. member for Rushen and seconded by Mr. Cain. Will hon. members in favour of that amendment say aye; those against say no.
A division was called for and voting resulted as follows:
In the Keys:-
For: Dr. Orme — 1
Against: Messrs. Gilbey, Cannan, Quine, Barton, Walker, Corrin, Brown, May, Mrs. Delaney, Messrs. Duggan, Cretney, Delaney, Kermode, Cain, Kneale, Mrs. Hannan, Mr. Bell, Brig. Butler, Messrs. Gelling, Leventhorpe, Maddrell and the Speaker — 22
The Speaker: Your Excellency, the amendment fails to carry in the House of Keys, sir, with one vote being cast in favour and 22 votes against.
In the Council:-
For: Nil
Against: The Lord Bishop, Messrs. Lowey, Radcliffe, Quirk, Mrs. Hanson, Mr. Callin and the President of the Council — 7
The Governor: Hon. members, in the Council, no votes cast in favour and seven against, the amendment therefore fails to carry in both branches. I therefore put to you the motion, unaltered, standing in the name of the Minister for Highways, Ports and Properties at item 10 of the Agenda. Will hon. members in favour say aye; those against say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.
CHESTER STREET CAR PARK — EXTRA DECKING - MOTION APPROVED
The Governor: Item 11. Chester Street Car Park — Extra Decking — motion approved. I call on the Minister for Highways, Ports and Properties to move.
Mr. Catlin: Your Excellency, I beg to move:
That Tynwald approves of the Department of Highways, Ports and
Chester Street Car Park — Extra Decking — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 T149
Properties incurring expenditure not exceeding the sum of £50,000 for the employment of consultants as necessary and the preparation of plans, specifications and other documents up to tender stage, for the provision of extra decking on the Chester Street car park.
Your Excellency, as background to my resolution it might be helpful if I reminded the Court that during the debate on 19th May last in respect of the petition of the Department of Local Government and the Environment for the compulsory acquisition of land and premises at Wellington Square my hon. colleague, the minister of that department, mentioned that in proposing their new shopping centre for Strand Street the Royal Insurance Group had looked to the Government for an assurance that a proposal would be put to Tynwald to increase the car parking capacity of the Chester Street car park. Now I am pleased to say that one of the earliest actions of my new department was to endorse an undertaking given to the Royal Insurance Group by the former Government Property Trustees that it would seek Tynwald approval to the construction of two additional half-decks on the Chester Street Car Park once there was clear evidence that the proposed shopping centre was to proceed, and the proposal will give approximately — the two decks — approximately 180 extra spaces. Members will be aware that demolition of the shopping centre site is well under way. The latest information from the developer is that these works are due to be followed by the diversion of the underground services so as to enable the main contractor to start in the first week of February 1988. The construction period for the shopping centre is anticipated to be in the order of 15 months which, allowing for an eight-week shop fitting period, should mean that the new centre will be open for trading by the beginning of June 1989. In the light of these developments my department is satisfied that the time is opportune for it to proceed with this submission for a sum of £50,000 for the employment of consultants as necessary and the preparation of plans, specifications and other documents up to tender stage for the provision of the two extra half- decks at Chester Street. The aim is to be in a position to seek Tynwald approval to the full scheme early next year so that the actual construction work might start in the early spring. The work itself is expected to take approximately 12 months to complete which would mean it coinciding with the completion of the shopping centre. The Court will be conscious of the fact that the shopping centre will act as a much- needed catalyst in rejuvenating retailing in the Douglas town centre. It will also generate a considerable amount of vehicular traffic with which present parking facilities will not be able to cope adequately and it is with this in mind that I seek the Court's approval to this resolution. Now, Your Excellency, for the further information of hon. members I would like to add that in August 1986 the developers of the Heritage Shopping Centre indicated that extra parking spaces were essential for the success of the shopping centre and that without an extension of the multi-storey car park they would not be able to proceed with the shopping centre, and I think this is understandable. Subsequently it was agreed, which I have already covered, that we would bring forward a resolution at the earliest opportunity. Now the work that is involved, it will include, obviously, additional ramps,
Chester Street Car Park — Extra Decking — Motion Approved T150 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 increasing the height of the stairways and lifts, remove cladding to access the structure and replace additional cladding panels to the new floor, services and drainage, back propping, new floor, waterproofing for the new roof. In addition it has now been decided to include a sum to carry out major remedial works to the existing structure. In particular there is a problem of water penetration through the flat deck above Presto's supermarket, and I wanted to mention this, and the expansion joints in the car park itself. Your Excellency, I beg to move the resolution standing in my name.
Mr. Barton: I rise to second and reserve my remarks.
Mr. Delaney: Your Excellency, I am much appreciated to the minister. There are malicious rumours, and they are malicious because I have checked what is going on there, about the height of this car park and about the loss of light to the people in Mona Terrace and surrounding areas. Would the minister on these two half-decks indicate to the Court and to the general public through the media what height this new structure on the original structure, which was designed to be increased, to the people in that area who may be affected by the works that go on there? Your Excellency, I do need that clear because malicious rumours are spreading by people for their own ends and I think the people in the area have a right to know exactly what the whole position will be.
Mr. Karran: Your Excellency, I just wanted to know that when the original car park was put up was there an assurance that it would not go any higher and I just wondered would the minister be able to clarify that, please?
The Governor: Then I call on the minister to reply.
Mr. Callin: Thank you, Your Excellency. Now in answer to the Minister for the Department of Local Government and the Environment, he asked me to confirm the height. Now the additional height that will be involved will be some 8ft 6ins. Now Mr. Karran asked for an assurance, was there an assurance given when the car park was built that there would be no extra decks. I think the reverse is true. It was always intended to build further decks and in fact I can say here this morning that the department was even requested to consider not one deck but either a deck and a half or two extra decks.
The Governor: Then is that is your reply?
Mr. Callin: That is my reply, sir.
The Governor: I put to you therefore the motion standing in the name of the Minister for Highways, Ports and Properties at item 11 on the main Agenda. Will Hon. members in favour say aye; those against say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.
Chester Street Car Park — Extra Decking — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 T151
HEATING CONVERSIONS, GLEN MOOAR, LAXEY - MOTION APPROVED
The Governor: Item 12, Heating Conversions, Glen Mooar, Laxey. I call on the Minister for Local Government and the Environment to move.
Mr. Delaney: Your Excellency, I beg to move:
That Tynwald approves of the Department of Local Government and the Environment incurring expenditure not exceeding the sum of £51,680 to carry out heating conversions at Glen Mooar Housing Estate, Laxey.
Your Excellency, the heating conversion of Glen Mooar, Laxey, just to remind members that I did withdraw this originally off the Agenda and I apologise to the people concerned for doing so, as hon. members will be aware, because of a serious damp problem at this estate arising from condensation, the previous Local Government Board determined to implement a district heating scheme. In the first instance the district heating scheme was envisaged to utilise solid fuel. However, the requirement of a 55-metre chimney stack meant neither solid fuel nor oil-fired installations were feasible due to the size of the stack if for no other reason than that. My department was therefore left with only one avenue left unexplored and this scheme for individual gas fired units from a communal storage facility is the one which we put forward to the Court today. Following advice from the British Gas Council we invited tenders for the installation of the storage tanks from both Kosangas and Calor Manx Gas; they are both local companies of course. Both firms submitted nil tenders. Now members could be amused but will see the difficulty that can come when we are all used to spending money and when you actually get nil tenders, you get companies who are supplying no quotations, they just wish to do it, it left my department in somewhat of a dilemma and me in a certain dilemma because which one do you take if both are nil? So we had to get down to certain specifications and I want to say here today, Your Excellency, I find nothing advantage or disadvantage of any of those two companies and I actually decided in my own mind the only way to decide it was to call the two managers into my office and toss a coin to see which one would get the contract because they are both, as far as I am concerned, excellent companies and that is a difficulty I hope a number of ministers might not get involved in for nil tenders in the future. The department after due consideration determined to accept the nil tender of Kosangas and the lowest tender for the works to instal the units from Douglas Heating and Engineering Company Limited. The total estimated cost of this scheme to update the heating of the estate at an acceptable level and eliminate condensation is, I believe, a justifiable expense of some £52,680. Your Excellency, I did apologise, when I withdrew this because of the problems I had inherited, to the people there because I hoped to have this in for this winter. With the support of this Court at least I will be making a start that is overdue on these works. I do believe that my officers and I do believe that the technical advice given to me is the best and I can only take the advice of my officers as I am no
Heating Conversions, Glen Mooar, Laxey — Motion Approved T152 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 expert on gas central heating installation.
The Speaker: Your Excellency, I rise to second the resolution and I welcome it because it will lead to a marked improvement in the lives and living conditions of the people involved here. This particular estate was developed by the then Local Government Board with a total opposition of the local authority and the local people who pointed out all the difficulties but the Planning Officer of the day and still the Planning Officer insisted he was right. He has been proved totally wrong. Living conditions have been unacceptable ever since the estate was erected and I am delighted that the present ministry is moving to try and do what it can to alleviate the problems that these people are encountering in being forced to live in this environment. I would like his assurance that the tank I welcome Kosangas as the contractor and I would like his assurance that the tank will fit into the environmental requirements of the area which, as you can appreciate, is on the access to the Laxey Wheel sector.
Mr. Gilbey: Your Excellency, a very small point. Mr. Speaker referred to the Planning Officer as if he decided the estate. Surely the estate was decided by the appropriate board at that time and to put the blame on an individual civil servant is entirely wrong because the board at the time decided it on the advice they received, no doubt, but it was their decision.
The Speaker: How right the hon. member is, Your Excellency, but all too often in this Court we have a situation where people walk away from their mistakes and this was pushed forward incessantly by the then Planning Officer, accepted by his board against all the local advice and all the local opposition. He has not had to live with it —
Mr. Gilbey: I am sure, Your Excellency, Mr. Speaker —
The Speaker: — and I brought it back to this Court time and time again.
The Governor: I think both gentlemen are out of order, however strong the feeling may be. The member for Peel.
Mr. Kermode: Point made.
Mrs. Hannan: Thank you, Your Excellency, I would like to ask a question on gas and has the costing been done for the use of gas for central heating because it is expensive? What form of heating was used in the past, was it not satisfactory, and what will happen if this system fails?
Mr. Maddrell: Your Excellency, I have known when I was in another place that there were great problems down here. We built houses down below the level of what you would call the road, so obviously when the wind blew it went down and over the top of chimneys and people could not get the smoke from their fires out and this was critical. So then we took some action then on the advice we could where
Heating Conversions, Glen Mooar, Laxey — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 T153
I was and we hoped we had cured the problem but the problem was still there, and the only thing I would beg of the minister, in standing on my feet to question him is whereas there is a problem with the flue and we have now got gas, would he be very careful, please, to ensure that the heating of the gas gets out of the flue? Otherwise we are going to get that back in the house the same as we did with the smoke.
Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, if I may, just referring to the hon. member's contribution, the hon. member who has just returned to his seat, in fact this is not the estate where there were flue problems because, because of their situation in the valley, it was in fact a planning requirement that they were not to be fitted with chimneys and open fires, and it was because of that planning condition that electric storage heaters had to be installed and it is the replacement of those storage heaters that is now taking place by a gas system. So I think that that point should be made. I think I could also refer to the comments made by the hon. member Mr. Gilbey about the Planning Officer, and this may have been a scheme that was promoted by the Planning Officer, I do not know; it was certainly before my time on the Local Government Board, but as far as the planning was concerned that would have been heard by a Special Planning Committee and the Local Government Board would have been able to give their evidence to it, as were the local people and the local authority. Now if the Special Planning Committee then decided that the scheme should go ahead, I do not see that as a fault of the Planning and Architectural officer of the L.G.B., sir.
Mr. Gilbey: Hear, hear.
Mr. Maddrell: Your Excellency, may I apologise to the minister that I have got the wrong estate, sir.
The Speaker: Not very far wrong.
The Governor: Does any other hon. member wish to speak to this motion? Then I call on the minister to reply.
Mr. Delaney: Thank you, Your Excellency. First of all, as I said, can I give certain assurances to Mr. Speaker. I mean to say the people have suffered enough. I am sure he has had enough telephone calls about this, and while I am on my feet, Your Excellency, although the Speaker has said he knows I am trying to do my bit, there was one question earlier in the day when I did not answer to him in relation to certain contracts taking place in his constituency. I am well aware of the problems and in recent weeks my officers have been to the site. If I can be very crude, Your Excellency, I am kicking backsides. Can I use that? I am kicking backsides to try and get the thing straightened out and my chief officers are kicking backsides. We know that problem and, Your Excellency, I give Mr. Speaker the assurance we will look after that particular job to the best of our ability. We will give the assurances on the tanks; we will try and make sure that certain things, specification are carried out with little eyesore to the area. Mrs. Hannan, the Chief Minister who I am fortunate to have as the ex-department
Heating Conversions, Glen Mooar, Laxey — Motion Approved T154 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 head, political department head here, he knows the history of this and the only thing that I will say is in relation to the planning, that it was as he says, so therefore it was a political decision and although I might have arguments with my Planning Officer from time to time, he cannot carry the can. At the end of the day we are put in the position of carrying the can for these decisions. Unfortunately that is our wont, Your Excellency, the people will get to us before they get to the officers. If you have got a bad officer all I can say, if you can prove it, get shut.
The Governor: I put to you the motion standing in the name of the Minister for Local Government and the Environment, item 12 on the main Agenda, hon. members. Those in favour say aye; those against say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.
VACCINATION AND IMMUNISATION (HEPATITIS 'B' VACCINE) - APPROVED
The Governor: Item 13. Vaccination and Immunisation (Hepatitis 'B' Vaccine). I call on the Minister for Health and Social Security to move.
Mr. Brown: Your Excellency, I beg to move :
That Tynwald authorises the Treasury to apply from the Government revenue of this Isle during the year ending 31st March 1988, a sum not exceeding £20,240 being the additional amount required for the purpose of vaccine and immunisation.
The Governor: Is that agreed?
It was agreed.
AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (LOANS) SCHEME 1980 — MOTION APPROVED
The Governor: Item 14, Agricultural Holdings (Loans) Scheme 1980. I call on Mr. Maddrell: Your Excellency, I beg to move:
Whereas —
(a) Tynwald approved the sum of £300,000 in the 1987 Budget for loan assistance under the Agricultural Holdings (Loans) Scheme 1980; and
(b) consequent upon the March 1985 ending of a three-year moratorium on the operation of that scheme the loan assistance being sought by applicants is now in excess of that sum.
Vaccination and Immunisation (Hepatitis '13' Vaccine) Approved Agricultural Holdings (Loans) Scheme 1980 — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 T155
Now Therefore Tynwald —
(1) authorises the Treasury in respect of the year ending 31st March 1988 to apply from moneys borrowed additional sums not exceeding £400,000 in respect of loans under that scheme; and
(2) hereby approves of borrowings not exceeding £400,000 being made by Treasury for this purpose, such borrowings to be repaid within a period of 30 years.
Your Excellency, the Agricultural Holdings (Loan) Scheme and under the provision of the scheme capital was made available at a rate of interest which was agreed between the department and the Treasury and currently is at eight per cent. It is to farm tenants and to prospective residentially qualified farmers, and I repeat that, residentially qualified farmers, who have proven agricultural experience and ability to enable them to purchase agricultural land for their own occupancy. From the commencement of the scheme in 1978 to the end of the last financial year, which was 86/87, a total of 73 applicants have been considered of which 50 were progressed, involving Government expenditure of £1,755,510 in respect of the purchase of the property. The applications have included sitting tenants buying their own farms, farmers who were buying additional land in order to improve the viability of the existing holding, and particularly young farmers buying their own farm or agricultural land. It is therefore very pleasing to note that the scheme is proving to be successful in achieving its purpose which is ensuring an increasing area of agricultural land remains in Manx ownership. It appears to have been particularly beneficial and advantageous to sitting tenants and in that connection it is pleasing to note that many landlords have preferred to agree a reasonable purchase price rather than put the farms on the open market where they might well have achieved prices much higher than those that were agreed between them and the tenants. Consequent upon the constraints on Government expenditure a three-year moratorium ending in March 1985 was placed on the operation of the scheme. This was sad to say but it was one of those cuts that were taking place when the recession was on. The take-up of the scheme was low in the 1985/86 and again in the 1986/87 financial years, but in anticipation of a continuing increase in interest and applications the department requested in 1987 and 1988 a vote of £450,000 which was reduced by the Treasury in preparation of the Budget to £300,000, the reduction in the vote being influenced by the under-expenditure in the previous years. In recent months there has been a very sharp increase in interest and in applications. To date in the present financial year the department has considered nine applications of which six have been progressed for payment, involving a total of £205,200 and that is in respect of 441 acres of land. In summary the department has already progressed or has in hand 11 further applications, involving loan expenditure of approximately £545,200 against a Budget of which they have in the vote of £300,000 and this does not take into account any further applications which might be received before the end of this financial year and of which the department obviously have no knowledge.
Agricultural Holdings (Loans) Scheme 1980 — Motion Approved T156 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987
In view of this on going situation as outlined I have to earnestly seek hon. members' approval to this resolution, noting that the additional funds will not only enable some young farmers to acquire their own farms but will ensure that agricultural land remains in Manx ownership. There is approximately a 28 per cent. to 72 per cent. tenancy to owner occupancy and with 85 per cent. of agricultural land in Manx residential ownership. This is different in the U.K. in so much as the tenant to owner occupancy ratio is only 35 65 per cent. To obtain a loan no acreage limitation is laid down. The eligibility primarily is determined by the agricultural ability of the applicant and the viability of the proposed purchase and the security to the Government for the loan which might he advanced. Hon. members, may I conclude, please, by saying I am stating the loans are for,, the tenant receiving them and he has to work very hard on the farm to succeed to repay them. Our security, as far as Government is concerned for the loan is in the land and our future is in the hands of the young Manx farmers who we wish to retain the land and I beg your support on that ground alone. Mr. Corrin: Your Excellency - The Governor: Do you wish to second, Mr. Corrin? If you do not, I believe . . . Mr. Corrin: I beg your pardon, Your Excellency. Mr. Radcliffe: Your Excellency, I have been asked to second the resolution —
The Governor: Right. Thank you, then Mr. Corrin, then Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Radcliffe: — and if I can, in so doing, say that I was a member of this hon. Court when this scheme was introduced. I said at that time it was a good scheme and it certainly has turned out to be a very successful scheme in that it gives a Manx farmer a fighting chance of owning his own land. The hon. minister did not point out in his preface that this is a scheme for purchasing land and not, as was said in the media recently during the course of this week, a scheme for improving buildings and so on; it is purely a purchase scheme, and indeed, as the minister has said, invariably or at least a lot of those who apply for assistance are tenant or young farmers who would have little hope of competing against the huge amounts currently being offered by prospective buyers for land on the open market. As sitting tenants they have to be offered first refusal when their landlord does decide to sell, and I think to the credit of most landlords they are usually prepared to settle for a fair offer from the tenant. If there is a criticism to be made against the scheme, Your Excellency, the only real grounds that one could find is that it usually takes a fair bit of time between the initial application and the final approval. If this could be speeded up a bit it would help both seller and buyer, and indeed in one case that I know of the buyer would not have been gazumped in that an estate agent persuaded the owner to abandon the local man's offer and go for an extra £3,000 or £4,000 and sell it to a person who was not on the Island, and all this happened, unfortunately, just over the last week or so that the application was in the pipeline. The farm is now owned by an absentee landlord whose only interest probably is to make some thousands
Agricultural Holdings (Loans) Scheme 1980 — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 T157 of pounds' profit by selling the land again within a short period of time and, Your Excellency, unfortunately by a majority decision in a certain department there will not even be land speculation tax to deter him. I support the resolution, Your Excellency, and I am sure that other members of the hon. Court will do likewise.
Mr. Corrin: Your Excellency, I support the resolution for the reasons given by the proposer and the seconder but I do recall some misgivings, and I may be incorrect in what I recall now. There was perhaps some abuse of the intention of the scheme some three or four years ago where it was used as a facility to sell or do a transaction between father and son. Now this may well be perfectly legal to do this but it was felt that perhaps there was some responsibility between the father and son and not use this facility for that transaction, and I wonder perhaps, if perhaps the hon. member, the minister is not particularly aware because he is new to the job, perhaps the seconder could enlighten on that area, please.
The Speaker: Your Excellency, I support the resolution wholeheartedly. I believe it is a very worthwhile scheme and without this scheme undoubtedly very, very few young farmers indeed would be able to take over holdings perhaps on which they have worked as members of a family or indeed as tenants of a holding, and it is interesting to note here from the minister's comment that, frankly, the majority of people applying are coming into those two categories: they are either the sons of farmers or indeed tenants with a holding. When you get to the stage that the farm is in fact on the open market without any protection whatever you then find that you have a value situation which is far in excess of what the local market can stand, because in fact the fortunes of Manx agriculture are well and truly behind those of the United Kingdom. This is not said in a critical mood to the minister but it is true that the Manx farmer cannot compete with the man who stopped farming in England because there is a roadway or motorway gone through his property and wishes to move over here; he cannot compete at all, and you are finding your applications are coming from the source of protected tenancies and I would support the continuation, obviously, of a situation where not only the tenant farmer but the son of a farmer might take up a father's property because at the end of the day the father may only have that property as an asset, nothing else. The son, logically, takes on and perhaps half his life he has not been paid wages either. Now this is the situation in Manx farming: half the labour force in the Isle of Man are not getting the wage structure because they are the family. So you have got to have the benefit of an exercise such as this to maintain a degree of continuity and a degree of holding of Manx character in the agricultural industry and to that end I welcome this as being one of the best schemes that Government could possibly produce, to maintain a Manx fabric in the countryside.
Mr. Quine: Your Excellency, I rise but briefly to support this scheme. I think it is a very valuable one. I have no wish to repeat what other hon. members have said today but there are two or three points I would make which I think members should be aware of. The terms of this scheme, the actual provisions of this scheme lay down quite strict criteria as to what or what type of person will qualify and it also lays down
Agricultural Holdings (Loans) Scheme 1980 — Motion Approved T158 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 criteria as to those persons who should be excluded. So I think it is important to recognise that it is drawn up in such terms as to ensure that those who need the assistance are those who will get the assistance. I think it has been very wisely drafted. The second point I would like to make is that we are of course talking about or we spoke yesterday of the problems which the farming community are experiencing, and we also spoke of the matter of finding ways and means to helping those in the traditional industries who are not as well off as other parts of the economy at this point in time, and in some small measure this scheme offers some help or some relief in that respect. So I think it is a very worthwhile scheme and I am very pleased to support it.
Dr. Orme: Your Excellency, 1 rise in support of the scheme. During my campaigning in 1986 a number of the people who I talked to in the farming community of Rushen mentioned this with some favour and some concern over the moratorium which had been put into operation, as has been mentioned by the proposer, in 1985 and they were concerned as to whether it was going to be continued. I do not think, though, that we should allow ourselves to be deflected away from the reasons for this scheme which is, as Mr. Speaker has pointed out, that the profitability of Manx farming does not equal the profitability of U.K. farming so a U.K. farmer may be able to pay a higher price for something in the Isle of Man. We have to think very hard about how we are going to improve the profitability of farmers and that would seem to me, in the absence of export possibilities, to depend upon internal consumption and internal consumption is going to depend upon a population and tourism.
Mr. Kermode: Your Excellency, I rise to support the resolution here today but with certain reservations, only the assurances the minister can give me is that it has not been unusual in the past, and I know we have an Island Development Plan, of somebody suddenly acquiring land and all of a sudden it has got planning permission for development and that is not unusual in the Isle of Man in years gone by. I am not saying it would happen with our Planning Committee today but are there any safeguards built in that this land, on acquiring the money that it would be just agriculture and in the future it would not be used for speculation'. Is there anything built into that?
Mr. Karran: Just two questions, Your Excellency. Could the hon. minister inform the Court how long it generally takes to complete a transaction as far as under this scheme is concerned from beginning to end, and is there a problem as far as the young Manx farmers coming as far as speculation and have they been gazumped?
The Governor: Does any other hon. member wish to speak? I call on the minister to reply.
Mr. Maddrell: Your Excellency, answering Mr. Radcliffe and thanking him for his support, he quoted that the Manx farmer, the young Manx farmer has a chance to own the land on which he worked or which his father worked on or which he is a tenant of and I thoroughly agree with him and that in a nutshell is his basic
Agricultural Holdings (Loans) Scheme 1980 — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 T159 argument. His other argument was the speed-up of the sale. Well, to my knowledge, but I will check this because I will not go out of this Court without giving that guarantee, as far as I am concerned the sale is carried out as quickly as possible. But when you are carrying out a sale, before you do it you have certain investigations to make. Now if those investigations are slow no doubt the sale will be slow, but bearing in mind what the hon. member said, I think that I will look at that very carefully to make sure if that mistake has happened once that it does not re-occur again. From Mr. Corrin from Rushen abuse by father and son. There was a case, which I heard about, where there was a transfer from the father to the son and I cannot remember the details of it but I can tell you that every care was taken by the previous Administration to make sure that it was fairly done and in the end I think it was fairly done. There could be abuse, it could be worked in a certain way within the family and that is not what the scheme is about. The scheme is about passing the land down, if it is in a family, to the next person in the family to ensure that there is continuation. To Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your support with the scheme. You fully understand this; you have heard about it for years, sir. Like me you will be disappointed that the moratorium lasted for three years. What happened during those three years, what farms were lost to young Manx people, I do not know. To I am glad to say it is back and I hope that we will consider it favourably this morning. To Mr. Quine, the terms of the scheme and the criteria yes, thank you for pointing that out, sir. They are strict; they have to be strict. If anyone is concerned this morning about the way the money is given out, by all means I will get that information to you. I gather on information that has been sent to me, and I do not know this, the one lost was because we have had to wait for this Tynwald vote. Well that is what I was talking about, the moratorium, and what I am talking about here is that when we came from the moratorium into asking for the first money we could not get the size of money we wanted, it was like looking in a glass ball, you did not know what was coming. When we did get that sum of money it is inadequate and we are here again today asking for more. We could not tell we wanted more but now that we do know we want more we are very disappointed that even one has been lost. To Dr. Orme, thank you for your support. 1 am glad that you have met certain people that feel that it should be returned. To Mr. Kermode, the reservations on planning. No, there are not reservations on planning. Any planning reservations there are are within the planning Development Plan and I am sure if it is good agricultural land there is very little chance that the planning board, I hope, or this Government will allow good farming agricultural land to be used for building. Everybody likes to speculate. I do not think it is anything but a human being's feelings that he would like to speculate. I would not say that it is not impossible to do it but there are safeguards in so much as we try to protect the land and this department which I belong to does not want to see any agricultural land which is available for growing produce into the future years going for any building anywhere and I will state that now so you will know where I stand in the future. To Mr. Karran, how long the transaction I think I have tried to explain that it
Agricultural Holdings (Loans) Scheme 1980 — Motion Approved T160 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 is as long as it takes to get the details we need; other than that decisions can come quite quickly. If they fall within the criteria, if they give us the information they want it will come quite quickly. The answer to Mr. Kermode about speculation is the same answer to you, sir. Your Excellency, I beg to move.
Mr. Radcliffe: Your Excellency, could I just clarify for ...
The Governor: The question has been put, Mr. Radcliffe. Is it essential?
Mr. Radcliffe: Well, Your Excellency; the minister said or made mention of the farm which I said had been gazumped. This was certainly not whilst the hold- up has been on the extra additional money at this time. This happened more than 12 months ago, sir.
The Governor: I am sure —
Mr. Radcliffe: 1 am sure if Your Excellency would permit, if it would help the minister and the hon. member for Rushen, family transactions in farm deals carry an enhanced rate of interest.
The Speaker: One more, Your Excellency. Is there one rule on clarification for the Council and one for the House of Keys? (Laughter)
Mr. Delaney: That is all right, Your Excellency, you will not be worried about that much longer. (Laughter)
The Governor: As member of the Court who got away with a flagrant breach of Standing Orders just now, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take your point.(Laughter) So, hon. members, I put to you the motion standing in the name of the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry at item 14 on the Agenda. Will hon. members in favour say aye; those against say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.
ISLE OF MAN LOANS ACT 1974 — SALE OF FACTORY BUILDING TO RONALDSWAY SHOE COMPANY LIMITED — MOTION CARRIED
The Governor: Item 15, Isle of Man Loans Act 1974. I call on the Minister for Industry to move and he is not here, and that is for a very good reason, incidentally, hon. members. Is the vice-chairman of that board able to move?
Mr. Corrin: Your Excellency, the Council member is the vice-chairman; we are a bit thin on the ground here. But I will be pleased to carry on with the remit with your permission, sir. I beg to move :
That Tynwald approves, pursuant to Section 2(1) of the Isle of Man Loans Act 1974, of the sale by the Department of Industry by private treaty of a parcel of land in the Parish of Malew together with the factory and other
Isle of Man Loans Act 1974 — Sale of Factory Building to Ronaldsway Shoe Company Limited — Motion Carried TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 T161
buildings erected thereon and known as the Ronaldsway Shoe Factory to the Ronaldsway Shoe Company Limited for the sum of £90,000.
Your Excellency, the sale of the Ronaldsway Shoe Company property, this company rented the factory premises from Government under the terms of a 42-year lease which had commenced in March 1965. During negotiations with the company in late 1986, concerning possible plans for a major extension to more than double the size of the building, they expressed their willingness to purchase the existing factory, having already purchased in 1974 the land adjacent to it on which the extension would be built. The purchase price is a figure agreed with the Government Valuer and reflects the favourable terms of the lease which the company previously enjoyed. The Ronaldsway Shoe Company is one of the Island's leading industrial concerns with a workforce of around 200 people. It is part of the Lambert Howarth Group whose headquarters are in Birmingham. Your Excellency, the new building has now been completed and is now in operation. The company is well established. The favourable terms which have been mentioned were negotiated in those days favourable to encourage the company in what was a very difficult year for Government and employment. The Industry Board has no wish to be a big landowner or big property owner where a company has established itself and indeed it could be said that carrying on under the present arrangements our responsibilities under the agreement could well outweigh any company could get. Therefore the recommendation is, on item 15, for the sale of the factory building in line with the recommendation and with the approval of the Government Valuer. Your Excellency, I move.
Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, I am pleased to second and would reserve my remarks.
The Speaker: Your Excellency, I am not in any opposition whatever to the sale but I noted in the policy document a reference to the development of the airport at Ronaldsway and if Ronaldsway is to develop, where is it going to develop? Is it going to go out to sea or is it going to cross the road, as to Prestwick, and go inland? And my question really relates to whether or not the land or estate we are selling is possibly going to be in the flight path of a development if Government is foolhardy enough to place it at Ronaldsway as opposed to Jurby. But, (Interruption) Fair enough. But I would like an assurance that in future any property in that area belonging to Government will be closely looked at against a possible need on the part of the airport.
Mr. Lowey: Rising to support the Industry Board, could I perhaps say to Mr. Speaker the industrial site, this is the existing building that was originally put up and it is in the very heart of that particular industrial site, so the point that Mr. Speaker makes about where does the airport extend, I think we have already got in situation an industrial site, this is a key element in it and I would endorse every word that has been said by the hon. Deputy Minister for the Industry Board. This is one of the blue-chip companies of the Isle of Man that make a welcome contribution to our coffers, not only in taxes but in particular in investment and
Isle of Man Loans Act 1974 — Sale of Factory Building to Ronaldsway Shoe Company Limited — Motion Carried T162 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 also jobs.
Mr. Kermode: Your Excellency, I rise to congratulate Mr. Corrin on putting this before us today. It just shows that non-members of Executive Council do have a brain sometimes.
A Member: Some of us. (Laughter and interruption). You may laugh but my turn will come. I would like to ask the hon. member if he could tell us whether the Government Valuer, Mr. Ennett, put the value on this property when we sold it because I would like to know exactly what value, you know how did he arrive by the valuation?
Mr. Maddrell: We know which have the brains.
Mr. Collin: Your Excellency, just to be helpful to the hon. mover, I can say, in answer to the question raised by Mr. Speaker, that there is no intention of the department or the Airports Committee to extend Ronaldsway across that road so it would not interfere with the property in question.
Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, if I just can support the hon. member in moving this resolution. I was pleased to second and I think that the final two lines on the explanatory memorandum that has been circulated really are very relevant and they say that 'The capital investments by the companies involved are tangible evidence of their firm commitment to future development plans for the Isle of Man operation' and I think that in itself is worth supporting; it shows that these companies, and there are others, are prepared to be with us for a long, long time and I think we should welcome that as a Court. As far as the development of Ronaldsway is concerned and the question posed by Mr. Speaker, I think the reference in the policy document to the development of Ronaldsway is very much to do with the development of the airport buildings in line with modern-day thinking rather than in 1946/47 thinking when they were built, and the flight path is in fact clear of these buildings and it does not inhibit the future development of Ronaldsway in any way, sir.
The Governor: Does any other hon. member wish to speak? Then I call on Mr. Corrin to reply.
Mr. Corrin: Your Excellency, I do thank the members for their support. I would confirm what the Chief Minister has replied to Mr. Speaker, is that the industrial estate is not in line with the main runway, 2709 runway, the main runway at Ronaldsway and, in reply to the member for East Douglas, I am not aware of the inner thoughts of the Government Valuer other than I am assured that he has approved it and I understand Treasury are happy with that situation. Your Excellency, I beg to move.
The Governor: I put the motion to you standing in the name of the Minister for Industry at item 15 on the Agenda. Hon. members in favour say aye; those against say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.
Isle of Man Loans Act 1974 — Sale of Factory Building to Ronaldsway Shoe Company Limited — Motion Carried TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 T163
ISLE OF MAN LOANS ACT 1974 — SALE OF FACTORY BUILDING TO AMERICAN BIODYNAMICS (I.O.M.) LIMITED — MOTION CARRIED
The Governor: Item 16, Isle of Man Loans Act 1974. I call on Mr. Corrin to move.
Mr. Corrin: Your Excellency, I beg to move :
That Tynwald approves, pursuant to Section 2(1) of the Isle of Man Loans Act 1974, of the sale by the Department of Industry by private treaty of a parcel of land in the Parish of Malew together with the factory erected thereon and formerly known as the Egatube Factory to American Biodynamics (I.O.M.) Limited for the sum of £200,000.
The Governor: Is that agreed.
It was agreed.
ISLE OF MAN LOANS ACT 1974 - SALE OF PREMISES IN MILL ROAD FISHYARD, PEEL - MOTION CARRIED
The Governor: Item 17, Isle of Man Loans Act 1974. I call on the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to move.
Mr. Maddrell: Your Excellency, I beg to move:
In accordance with Section 2(1) of the Isle of Man Loans Act 1974, Tynwald approves of the sale by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry by private treaty of part, comprising 686 square metres or thereabouts, of a fish processing building in Mill Road Fishyard in Peel at a price of £37,000.
The Governor: Is that agreed?
It was agreed.
PAYMENT OF MEMBERS' EXPENSES ACT 1975 (AMENDMENT) (NO.2) ORDER 1987 — APPROVED
The Governor: Item 18, Payment of Members' Expenses Act 1975. 1 call on
Isle of Man Loans Act 1974 — Sale of Factory Building to American Biodynamics (I.O.M.) Limited — Motion Carried Isle of Man Loans Act 1974 — Sale of Premises in Mill Road, Fishyard, Peel - Motion Carried Payment of Members' Expenses Act 1975 (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 1987 - Approved T164 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 the Chief Minister to move.
Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, I beg to move:
That the Payment of Members' Expenses Act 1975 (Amendment)(No.2.) Order 1987 made by the Governor in Council on 29th September 1987 be and the same is hereby approved.
The Governor: Is that agreed?
It was agreed.
PAYMENT OF MEMBERS' EXPENSES ACT 1975 (AMENDMENT) (NO.3) ORDER 1987 — APPROVED
The Governor: Item 19, Payment of Members' Expenses Act 1975. I call on the Chief Minister to move.
Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, I beg to move:
That the Payment of Members' Expenses Act 1975 (Amendment)(No.3) Order 1987 made by the Governor in Council on 29th September 1987 be and the same is hereby approved.
The Governor: Is that agreed?
It was agreed.
TRAVELLING ALLOWANCES ORDER 1987 — MOTION CARRIED
The Governor: Item 20, Payment of Members' Expenses Act 1975. I call on the Minister for the Treasury to move.
Mr. Cannan: Your Excellency, I beg to move:
(1) That the Travelling Allowances Order 1987, made by the Governor in Council on 24th September 1987, be and the same is hereby approved; and
(2) that the terms of the order as approved above shall apply to civil servants and Government officers, including the Deemsters.
The Governor: Is that agreed? (It was agreed.) Then, hon. members, I suggest we break for lunch, meeting again at half-past two to take item 21, House Purchase
Payment of Members' Expenses Act 1975 (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 1987 - Approved Travelling Allowances Order 1987 — Motion Carried TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 'T165
Scheme.
The Court adjourned at 12.58 p.m.
HOUSE PURCHASE (AMENDMENT) SCHEME 1987 — APPROVED
The Governor: Item 21, House Purchase Scheme. I call on the Minister for the Treasury to move.
Mr. Cannan: Your Excellency, I beg to move :
That the House Purchase (Amendment) Scheme 1987, made by the Treasury on 18th September 1987, be and the same is hereby approved.
Your Excellency, members will appreciate that since the early 60's the Isle of Man Government has operated two types of housing loans. There was the Building by Private Enterprise scheme, which was designed to encourage demand for low value new houses, assistance being provided by way of grant and loan, and the Housing Advances and House Purchase Scheme, designed to encourage home ownership whether the property was a new dwelling or an existing dwelling, and for many years the two schemes ran side by side but were merged into the House Purchase Scheme in 1978. Over the years, hon. members, approximately £62 million has been lent under these various schemes, of which £59 million has been advanced under the Housing Advance Purchase Scheme. At the 31st March this year about £1.2 million was still outstanding on the Building by Private Enterprise Scheme, £5.2 million on the Housing Advance Scheme and £25.2 million on the House Purchase Scheme. The Government House Purchase Scheme provides for interest at ten per cent.a maximum loan of £21,000 and limits assistance to the applicants whose income does not exceed £8,500 a year. Assistance is also limited to properties with a purchase price value or valuation less than £30,000, and it is two years since these specific limits were reviewed. The Treasury, some two or three months ago, on a continuing basis have been reviewing the House Purchase Scheme and I am sure, as has been said yesterday and even today, that house prices, after many years of no movement at all, have commenced an upward movement, and so has therefore reviewed both its housing policy and the present terms ofof the scheme. The purpose of the order laid before the Court today is to increase the maximum loan available under the scheme from £21,000 to £25,000 and, at the same time, by administrative action, the Treasury will alter the maximum purchase price of a property eligible for a loan from £30,000 to £35,000 and the maximum approved income for applicants shall similarly be altered from £8,500 per annum to £10,000 per annum. These changes, as I have said, are in line with the Treasury policy of easing financial requirements of the House Purchase Scheme to enable more first-time home buyers to take advantage and encourage the private sector of the building industry to construct sufficient low-cost homes to meet market demand. As was said yesterday
House Purchase (Amendment) Scheme 1987 — Approved T166 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 in our debate on the Chief Ministers' speech at Question Time, the Treasury is fully committed to encouraging home ownership and a supply of housing for first-time buyers. I beg to move, Your Excellency.
Mr. Radcliffe: I beg to second, Your Excellency.
Mr. Duggan: Just one point, I have got, Your Excellency, — I support the order before us — is, I feel, Your Excellency that there should be some structural surveys carried out in the interests of the Government investment and also especially for the first time buyer, Your Excellency. I have had cases of constituents who have purchased properties, and generally the chap is a bus driver all he can afford is something about £18,000/£20,000, maybe a small terraced house. Mrs. Hanson, the member of Council, will recollect certainly one or two cases which her department has helped me in and what has happened, Your Excellency, they bought these properties, there had been no structural survey and then it has been found the place is riddled with dry rot, the problem then being, sir, even if the Treasury extends the loan there could still be further problems, which is happening in one or two cases, and then again the payments go up and the person is owing maybe £22,000/£23,000 fo'r a very old property and this is real concern, Your Excellency. I feel, in the interests of Government and the purchaser, that we should have some form of structural survey.
Mr. Leventhorpe: Your Excellency, I naturally welcome this move which follows on a question that I have raised in Tynwald, but I would like to ask the Treasury to consider very carefully the question of applying this to flats again. I know they have had trouble with this, they have burned their fingers, but to change the matter further it is not the time to bolt the stable door. Properly surveyed, as the hon. member for South Douglas has said, there is no reason why these flats should not be good value for both the new owner and for the Government, and I would particularly suggest that with the change in use of a great deal of property in Douglas the ideal answer is first-time buyers' flats. It would help to revitalise the town centre in accordance with all our plans, it would prevent further urban sprawl into the green fields and it would tend to put people near their jobs, near the shops and where in fact they would want to live. So I would particularly ask the Treasury to go back and look at this for two reasons: first of all, there are some good flats under the old scheme where, at the moment, the occupiers are caught in what I would call the' property trap' they cannot sell them but they need to move on, they have got a family now, they want to get to a better house, but they are finding it difficult to sell theirs without the opportunity of the loan being available to the new purchaser. In particular, as I say, I would like to see it extended to new flats of good quality that are being put up in the old buildings in Douglas which I think would answer a great many of our housing problems and help the first-time buyer and the young Manx people.
Mr. Cretney: Your Excellency, just one question for the Treasury Minister. In his speech concerning this matter he refers to the Housing Advance Scheme also and I wondered I contacted him or his department, some time ago, when I heard that the review was to be instituted and I requested that consideration should be
House Purchase (Amendment) Scheme 1987 — Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 T167
given to the rate of interest that is paid on the Housing Advance Scheme being equated with that which is paid on the House Purchase Scheme, and I wondered, as I have not had a reply if he would be prepared to tell me if consideration has been given and will it be given to that, please?
Mr. Karran: Your Excellency, I must say that I am delighted to see there is some movement from the Treasury as far as this, and we are doing quite successfully with the fact that we have seen there is going to be a commitment to building more • local authority houses which should help the bottom end of the market anyway, but I feel that on the same question as the hon. member for South Douglas is on about the cost, the percentage, we have seen in this hon. Court today that we have given a £300,000 supplementary vote for the Agricultural Holdings Loan Scheme of 1980 and that is at eight per cent. if I am not correct. I fully supported that move as far as that is concerned and I feel that eight per cent. for farmers why not eight per cent. for homes which are a basic, fundamental need of every person in the Island? I think that the Treasury, as much as increasing the costs are concerned as far as this is concerned, must not allow themselves to delude themselves that this is the overall answer because, when you look at the amount of repayments, you are going to be talking about, over 25 years at £25,000, somewhere in the region of £228 a month and that means a salary of £684 or £8,200, which a lot of ordinary working people cannot afford, and that is over 25 years. But when you allow for the fact which has been pointed out by the other hon. member for South Douglas about the state of some of the properties and the way that the first-time buyer is being forced into buying the less structurally sound properties and of course the Treasury wants to secure its money, wants shorter repayments, so you have the situation where you get a £25,000 loan from the Government, you are still having to pay somewhere in the region of £60 a week for that loan over 20 years. Now ordinary working people simply cannot afford that and I would rather see us have a real commitment to helping these people, and I would repeat my claim that ever since I came into this hon. Court of cheaper percentages when the loan is first started; that is when the initial problem is, when you first buy the property and I must say that as far as the idea of allowing us to go back to flats again, I am sorry, the cheap option is not good enough as far as I am concerned. I have seen far too many people who are in misery because they are trapped between a flat they cannot get rid of and a local authority that do not want them on their lists because they own a property, and one thing we have done is learn from the mistakes. As far as this item is concerned, I do support it but I would like to see the Treasury come back with something a little bit more positive, a little bit more revolutionary in order to show that it has a commitment to the people at the lower end of the scale. I do not need members to jump up after me and tell me that there will always be a need for local authority houses. I do not question that. What my point is is the fact that we must, wherever possible, help the people who are at the bottom. Eight per cent. for farm loans great; eight per cent. for homes should be the same as well, Your Excellency.
Mr. Bell: Your Excellency, there are only really a couple of points I would like to make on this, apart from obviously saying that, I am sure like other members
House Purchase (Amendment) Scheme 1987 — Approved T168 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987
here, I support the Treasury move as a step in the right direction, but the one point which does bring me to my feet first of all in fact follows on from the comments made by the hon. member for Middle, Mr. Leventhorpe, in relation to his plea to allow first-time buyers flats to be developed in the centre of Douglas. By that I am assuming he is talking primarily, perhaps, about flats in the promenade areas. I would like to make another plea to hon. members, and that is, if in fact any steps at all along that line of thought are taken they should bear in mind the experience of Ramsey before they jump into this course of action. We had a desperate housing problem in Ramsey in the 70s when we were caught up in a similar boom to what we are experiencing now; we also had a fair amount of obsolete tourist accommodation on the promenade in Ramsey. These were seized on by a number of get-rich-quick merchants who converted these buildings into cheap and really quite disgusting flats in many cases, they were sold off at what appeared to be bargain prices to the gullible young people of Ramsey, there was no maintenance agreement on the property, there was no attempt at all to provide any sort of finance to maintain the fabric of the buildings,and what we have ended up with slowly we are coming to terms with it, but what we certainly have endured for the last ten years are nothing short of slums on the promenade at Ramsey. That, in itself, as Mr. Karran has also said, has caused a considerable amount of financial misery and hardship, in fact, in a number of cases amongst these very same young people who have been lured into what appeared to be an attractive proposition of having their own home. It is now an enormous albatross around their neck which they cannot get rid of and in fact a number of them have lost their properties, they have been foreclosed on because they could not keep up the payments and in fact now are being housed by the local authority. We are heading rapidly into the same situation in Douglas. Now I am not saying that we should not consider the conversion of flats on the promenade or in the old guest house properties, but what I am saying is that if any conversion is in fact going to take place, then it is incumbent upon the Planning Committee above all to make absolutely sure they have got good quality flats that we end up with and not slums, not only from the point of view of the householder itself but in terms of the promenade re-development in terms of the general appearance on the promenade. There will always be a tourist industry living alongside these properties and the last thing I certainly will ever supportis the thought of these decaying slums starting to develop along Douglas promenade in the same way as they have blighted Ramsey for the last 10 or 15 years. My second point, Your Excellency, stems from the obvious acceptance that there I* is a shortage of houses currently, there has been without doubt a substantial increase and in some cases a quite frightening increase in house prices. Now the question I would like answered by the Treasury is in fact, when an application is received from a prospective buyer, what advice is given to that particular buyer as to whether or not he or she should take on that particular debt? I am quite convinced that whilst house prices over the last few months have risen through natural supply and demand they have also been deliberately massaged by the estate agents on the Isle of Man who themselves have created panic buying amongst young people, who are terrified of missing the band wagon and missing out on the prospect of buying their okvn homes altogether. I have no doubt at all this has caused a great number of the difficulties we are all experiencing at the moment. I think they have achieved this by their own shortsighted and, to be quite honest, in some cases, greedy ends
House Purchase (Amendment) Scheme 1987 — Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 T169 and it is the younger people, the poorer people probably in our community, who are going to suffer, and whilst they may think they have secured their foothold for the future now I am also quite convinced that within three or four years' time a number of these people will have realised that they have got in and in fact have been panicked into getting in way beyond their depth and will not be able to keep up the mortgage repayments which they are now committed to. Government at that time is again going to be expected to pick up the bill for the actions of the estate agents at present in massaging the prices of houses. I would like to know, first of all, as I say, what advice is given by Treasury when an applicant comes along who may be perhaps only marginal in his ability to repay the mortgages and, secondly, I would like to make a plea with Treasury that if these new first-time buyers do find themselves in trouble, they are dealt with in a more sympathetic manner than perhaps might otherwise be the case. I would also finally just make a plea once again to the Department of Local Government. It is a thought I raised two or three years ago which I think still has some merit in it, bearing in mind the present housing situation, and that is to ask them to look again at the possibility of developing a scheme which is a sort of 50/50 scheme, half-buy, half-purchase, half-rent in the price. There is plenty evidence about that on file within the Local Government Board. We did do a certain amount of investigation on it while I was on the department. Whether it was for a good reason or a bad reason, it was rejected by the Local Government Board at that time; I still believe it has a lot of merit in further consideration. It would be a half-way house between the outright commitment of a full blown mortgage and in fact the applicant falling back entirely on council housing, and I think that is what we are missing. There is an element between out-and-out council housing and the full commitment to a new mortgage. There is no linking thread, somehow at the moment, and I think there is an area there that the Local Government Board could effectively look at which may in fact be the most beneficial way forward at the moment given the current problems which are facing us and will continue to face us for quite some time.
Mr. Quirk: Your Excellency, my point is very brief. The minister has said this is an area which helps the first-time buyer. I believe that the Treasury has a very sympathetic ear for young people who want to change their house if they have a family problem they want more room, they want a bigger house or whatever; that may be one reason for change in conditions. I feel, too, that there are other areas which the Treasury may well look at where young people, as has already been mentioned, buy a house and, although this house does increase in value as the years go by, it has really been a bad buy and they are there sitting with a very small mortgage, as it probably was in those days, they still have a remaining mortgage are not these people entitled to some sympathy and some help as well? I would suggest that even the transfer of a mortgage is that possible for a person who goes into another house? These are the questions that I would like to ask, Your Excellency, in that particular area where young people particularly wish to move on. Is the fact that they need a bigger house alone a reason why they should get support?
Mrs. Hannan: Your Excellency, I would just like to support some of the points that have been made, but I think that we could allow support for flats but only
House Purchase (Amendment) Scheme 1987 — Approved T170 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 if they are purpose-built flats, not conversions, because I think that we all know cowboys that have converted and been able to cover up all the problems. I do support structural surveys for houses prior to getting loans. I do think it is very, very important that we should safeguard our money when I mean our money, Government's money. I also support the lower percentage that Mr. Karran has raised, the member for Onchan, in percentages for mortgages, as I do think that we should be helping people to buy their own houses and help them get on their feet and so take the pressure off the local authority housing because, as I said yesterday, with the change in climate people are now finding they are not able to carry on with the mortgage payments and are going back, applying for local authority housing for various reasons: sickness- taking on a mortgage which is too great for them when they find they come up with sickness, their families have got sickness or one person can no longer carry on working, so I would look forward to that, but I also support Mr. Bell with his suggestion for part-purchase.
Mr. Delaney: Your Excellency, as the Minister for Tourism and Transport has raised it and directed certainly a question at me in relation to that scheme, I can assure him — in fact it is called the 'wet lease' scheme in actual fact: it has never been used here, sir, but it has been used in a number of other countries in the world. What you do is you have land as we have the plots going out now, you actually have the standard designs, you have put virtually the shell and services on there, the young person then only has to pay the mortgage on the shell and the surface of the land, everything else they fit in as used to be the scheme when a young person got married— they then built up their home over a number of years rather than walking into everything with everything including the video. That is the problem nowadays: everybody wants everything instantly. In the old days people had to work step by step, and under this scheme that I think you are talking about we would look at putting up the shell of the house with the basics and then it would be up to the couple over the period of their lifetime and the marriage to put in all the necessities as they could afford it, but it would certainly reduce the amount of mortgage and/or rent, the option on that, but the idea, Your Excellency —I am delighted that some- body else . . . because I thought I was going to be on my own, but my minister, when he talks about the housing in flats, the situation there — I am aware, because most of them took place in my constitutency, of the problems of the people who bought@ flats, but what was purely because of — shall! use the word — a racket that went on I think it might be appropriate. A number of people now are caught, as has been said, who have bought flats and can not now sell the flats because of the Government mortgage, because they cannot get another mortgage, so we have snookered them and this is in my constituency, a lot of them. But my minister for housing is saying there is a time, it might be a time for change or for rethinking that policy out, because I recently have looked at a lot of high quality flats which have been created — for tourists, would you believe? — but would be quite acceptable for permanent flats because the conditions are the same, and I cannot reason out why one should not be able to buy a flat as long as the lease and the agreements which are had by the person who sells and all the other tenants combined should not be held as safeguards for everybody, and it is common practice in other holiday resorts throughout Britain: they do not seem to have the problems we have had, and I think
House Purchase (Amendment) Scheme 1987 — Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 T171
it is purely down to the lawyers' agreements that go between the purchaser and the person who sells and between the tenants of what they are responsible for. I think that is where the breakdown has been, and I think that if we are going to have a hope for some of Douglas promenade, which the minister himself would be the first to agree, it has got problems and that in itself would become a slum if nothing is done. Offices are not the answer; high-quality flats could well be the answer for some parts of it as long as the legal side is tied up and the safeguards are there for the Treasury. All the Minister for Housing is asking is for the Treasury to look • at it and I can see no harm in doing that.
Mr. Brown: Your Excellency, while I fully support the scheme before us today I would say there may very well need to be, if things do go on as they are, a more radical approach required to this problem and I do not think we can hide behind that one. 1 heard with interest over the last day or so comments made with regards to building more local authority houses, the hon. member, Mrs. Hanson, referring to what goes on in Jersey and I hope we never get to the state that we have what has happened in Jersey because, quite honestly, even the Jersey politicians do not like what has happened in Jersey and it is not the answer. What is the answer is this Government having paid to invest in its people and its infrastructure, and that is really what we are talking about today — making it more beneficial for people to purchase their own properties, weighing up the balance between building local authority houses and encouraging people to go into their own houses private, and first-time buyers are not always young people; they may very well be somebody who has lived in a local authority house for 10 or 15 or 20 years who then wants to go out and buy, and that should also be taken into account. I am against the provision of flats, because that is not an answer to the young person, because the young person will get himself in that case into a two-bedroomed flat, then they start a family, they cannot transfer the mortgage unless there are special circumstances and then they could end up in even worse difficulty, having to sell the flat to try and get a local authority house and, not only that, the difficulties that were envisaged and happened before with regards to flats that some of us are aware of — really we should never allow that to be repeated again. One thing that I would also like to mention, Your Excellency, is that while I accept the point made with regards to structural surveys the Government wants to be careful it does not start demanding too many things, because then the delay in approval of a mortgage application grows longer and then there is criticism because of the wait that a person has had to get a Government mortgage, and that in itself then is a problem, and we will be the first to be criticised in Treasury because it has taken them three weeks or a month or six weeks to approve a budget or mortgage loan to somebody. But there is one thing I would like to raise, and that is with regards to the estate agents on the Island. I am certainly aware — whether it is deliberate or not is always the difficulty to prove — of cases where young people have had difficulty when they have put an offer in for buying a property and suddenly they have been informed by the same estate agent, Well, the owner wants a little bit more now', and when they say,'We cannot afford that little bit more,' whatever that may be, they leave it and maybe a month later they get a letter from the estate agent telling them that same house is on the market but it is now a couple of thousand more and' would
House Purchase (Amendment) Scheme 1987 — Approved T172 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 you still like to buy it?' They have a duty to the Isle of Man; yes, they are in it to make money but they also have a conscience, or should have, and I can remember very well, when times were bad a few years ago, those same estate agents pleading with this Government 'What are you going to do to help us? We have a problem; how are you going to get more people here?' So they want to have a conscience and they want to remember it and, as far as I am concerned, if those same estate agents do not act responsibly I would have no qualms whatsoever in supporting legislation to control them far more strictly through this Tynwald Court —. no question whatsoever. Gazumping is another area that we have to watch and, if necessary, we will have to bring in legislation to control that and we should not be worried about that. If it, is needed let us do it, because that is much better than a two-tier housing system which certainly creates a rift in the Isle of Man. So I would say, fine, our people want to buy, but we should also not kid ourselves that when house prices were lower a few years ago people were still unable to buy because some people were not earning enough to buy, and the problem is while they have had an increase, certain people, the house prices are moving may be a bit faster, for whatever reason than they can keep up with. So, as I say, I am delighted to see the scheme here. I hope and I know that the Minister for Treasury and his colleagues are looking and keeping an eye on this one and I will fully support them on that. If we need to move fast then I am sure this Government will move fast on.this one, because this is about the whole basis of life on the Isle of Man. Our own people is our first priority to look after and if that means having special schemes to enable them to buy, that could be a far better investment than just going on building more local authority houses, because you get to a level where there is an amount that you can have no more and that is what we should be careful of.
Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, can I say that I think this debate has been useful, because there have been some new ideas floated and certainly the idea of the half- and-half scheme was considered before; perhaps it is now time to have another look at that. The idea of building or constructing a shell, perhaps, for the first-time buyer and allowing them to do their own thing inside it — that should also be looked at. But I would just beware of the special scheme idea for the person on the lower income, and I think we have to be careful not to put him into a trap where he in fact benefits from a special scheme, buys himself a modest house and then is unabld to get out of that for a move on to the next stage, which has happened, I know, a number of times in the'70s where people came in on the Government scheme and then wished to improve themselves and move to a larger house and find that mortgages were not transferable and, when they are asked were told, 'Well pay back your Government mortgage and then you can go to the bank' and they found themselves in an impossible situation, so I would be beware of the special scheme. I do think, though, that the special provisions, or some provisions, have to be made for the people on the more modest incomes. I would like to think it possible to formulate a scheme which in fact supports the institutions in their lending to people on modest incomes. I do not know what sort of difficulties will arise but I doubt very much it is a politician's job to advise a young person who is aspiring to own his own home that perhaps his income is not quite sufficient and he should
House Purchase (Amendment) Scheme 1987 — Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 T173
be thinking about that or is it the politician's job to say to the guy who comes along looking for a particular house. 'It would seem to me that perhaps your income is such that you should be getting out and buying one of your own'? I think that that is a pretty grey area for politicians. The other comment I would make is one on the need for a structural survey, and I agree one hundred per cent. that it is Government's job to make sure that there is security for the money it is lending which, as was said before, is not Government's money, it is the taxpayers money, the people's money. There must be security for that money, but I do not believe we should take the responsibility off the individual to have his own survey done on the property that he is buying; it is his responsibility and he should be left with it. It may pose some difficulties but I am sure that that is something we should not be doing and I would like to support the Treasury's attitude on that one one hundred per cent. As far as flats are concerned, Your ExcellenCy, I certainly would not support us going back into supporting the first-time buyer in the flat market, because it is those very flats that are built at a modest price where I think the problem is, and although I would agree to the conversion of some of our seafront properties into good quality apartments I think it should be done so they are such a standard that they in fact will not be attractive to the first-time buyer and I think that is a market we should try and steer clear of.
Mr. Barton: Your Excellency, I thought I caught your eye earlier so what has been covered since —
The Governor: I am so sorry, I thought you were just milling at me. (Laughter)
Mr. Barton: I would like to endorse a lot of what has been said but I will keep it brief because I support the hon. Minister for the Treasury on this one. I think the point that the hon. member for Onchan made is a good one, and I think what he says is take note about the flats, and I think his minister said the same thing. I was also pleased to hear that he wants to slow down the urban sprawl into agricultural land, so I think this is good. I take the note of caution that the senior members for Onchan and for Ramsey say about watching how you tackle the flat one, but I do not think we should rule it out at all and I fully support the additional new idea that the hon. member for Ramsey brought forward which I am certain the Minister for L.G.B. has noted; I fully support this.
Mr. Corrin: Your Excellency, I support the resolution but there are reservations. The hon. member for Onchan, Mr. Leventhorpe, with his present duties and • responsibilities was kind enough to visit the south of the Island and we had a discussion with a young man who was getting married very shortly and he outlined his problem as regards making an application. He did not want to take on more commitment than he could service from his own wage and I think one had to support • him on his outlook there. Therefore we have to look at other methods of supporting a young first-time buyers. I think, in deference to the Chief Minister, we do have a responsibility and it is a good investment to support young people for perhaps the first five years. It is better for Government to support them for five years than 50 years if they
House Purchase (Amendment) Scheme 1987 — Approved T174 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 alternatively go into local authority housing. There is a requirement for more local authority housing on this Island there is no question of that, but I would prefer to see us make every effort to get young people into the private sector from the word go and let them then strive with their own responsibilities. So I do support the measure but I would urge the Chief Minister and ministers and indeed the Treasury to give a lot of thought and bring forward schemes and make the conditions tough so that it is genuine first buyers, and usually we say with our Manx connection, that we are assisting. In the 1960's the Government then had a very worthwhile scheme which I was able to make use of myself, and I think certainly we found it to advantage and I am sure there are others who would like to take advantage now. There are those with enterprise around; I think we should help them Your Excellency. The Governor: Hon. members, I call on the Minister for the Treasury to reply. Mr. Cannan: Your Excellency, I think this afternoon we have had a very responsible debate on housing and the problems facing the Island at the moment on housing. There have been very many sensible and objective recommendations and suggestions to the Treasury and indeed we have taken due note of them and will give them consideration. In reply to the points that are made, I would say first of all to the hon. member for South Douglas, Mr. Duggan, regarding a structural survey, this debate, or the House Purchase Scheme, is all about people taking on the responsibility of home ownership, and your own home ownership has certain obligations — the obligation to insure, the obligation to repair and keep in good order and I maintain, and indeed the Treasury maintain, that there is also an obligation from the very beginning to include in your budget for the purchase of your first house the £200, or whatever, that is necessary to have a structural survey. The moment you start to become a home owner you start also to accept the responsibilities and obligations. Indeed, were it to be otherwise and Government did accept responsibility for the structural survey it could end up having to guarantee the bill for any future repairs, and the whole objective of the home ownership then begins to fall apart. Moving on now to the hon. member for Onchan, Mr. Leventhorpe, the views that he expressed on flats — and I .am sure that he has heard what has been said and possibly the majority against the problems that will occur to the use of flats, or Government money going to flats for home ownership. However, the Treasury has taken into consideration the problems that people have who have been allowed these mortgages on flats in the past and they are allowing the present owners to rent their flats out to alleviate any financial problem they may have, the financial problem being they have not been able to sell the flats when they want to move into a house. In reply to the hon. member for South Douglas, Mr. Cretney, he was asking questions about the Housing Advances Scheme, which was prior to the House Purchase Scheme. The Housing Advances Scheme now is running out and running down. On average there is less than £4,000 outstanding on each mortgage and it is felt that these mortgages were not experiencing financial difficulties in repayment. As for those under the House Purchase Scheme whose average loan, in fact, is in the region of £19,000 presently, people have taken them on such a long time ago - their incomes have risen in the meantime — that the charges on an average £4,000 loan should pay the going rate rather than a subsidised rate.
House Purchase (Amendment) Scheme 1987 — Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 T175
And then of course I come to my good friend, the hon. member for Onchan. He seeks again a further commitment from the Treasury to home ownership. I do not know how many times I have to repeat it, but we have a full commitment. He did suggest that we might take an almost revolutionary commitment but I can assure him that there is no revolution in the Treasury, just a steady, conservative appreciation of values. (Members: Ooh!) He enquired about the farmers, but with the farmers — and it has been agreed earlier — it is a commitment to an industry; just as we are committed to tourism and the tourist industry, it was a commitment to farms, and farming is a commercial undertaking. I agree with the hon. member for Ramsey, Mr. Bell, and his remarks about the estate agents. I tend to think that they have been market-making and talking the market up and people have possibly had problems, or first-time buyers indeed have had problems, of gazumping. It seems to be a general complaint here this afternoon with stories of gazumping, and I would remind hon. members that the Estate Agents Act is in force and it is under the control of the Department of Local Government and the Environment and indeed, if action was necessary, I am sure the minister would put it in hand. Mr. Bell asked that the Treasury be sympathetic for those who possibly have a little difficulty in repayment. I can assure him the Treasury staff are indeed sympathetic. All of us, or some of us in the Treasury anyway, like to think we are almost full of the milk of human kindness, but perhaps some do not agree! But I can assure the hon. member that we are sympathetic. The young people who come for a mortgage are given counselling by Treasury officials; indeed I have a younger member of the Treasury beside me here who is in charge of the House Purchase Department who is able to converse with the first-time buyers and is sympathetic to their views rather than perhaps an older person would be. And of course no-one is allowed to repay more than one third of their income in mortgage repayments, and that of course is in accordance with the House Purchase Scheme. In reply to Mr. Quirk, I think that the Treasury will reconsider again the matter of the transfer of mortgage on people changing properties. It is no undertaking that I am giving it is just that it will be looked at again; when people move from a house it may be possible — it may, I say, be possible — for us to consider perhaps allowing them a transfer. I thank the other members who have given support. I appreciate, as I have already said so much yesterday and today, the problems of house purchase; the Treasury is sympathetic and we will do all that we can, indeed it is my own personal commitment that we have a property-owning democracy and on that, Your Excellency, I beg to move.
The Governor: So, hon. members, I put to you the motion standing in the name of the Minister for the Treasury at item 21 of the Agenda Paper. Will those in favour say aye; those against say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.
CONCESSIONARY BUS FARES SCHEME 1983 (AMENDMENT) SCHEME 1987 — APPROVED
The Governor: Item 22. Concessionary bus fares. I call on the Minister for
Concessionary Bus Fares Scheme 1983 (Amendment) Scheme 1987 — Approved T176 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987
Health and Social Security to move.
Mr. Brown: Your Excellency, I beg to move:
That the Concessionary Bus Fares Scheme 1983 (Amendment) Scheme 1987, made by the Department of Health and Social Security on 15th September 1987, be and the same is hereby approved.
Your Excellency, the purpose of this amendment scheme is summarised in the explanatory note. The revised funding arrangements have been agreed between my department and the Department of Tourism and Transport and are supported by Treasury. Nothing in these amendments affects entitlement to concessionary bus fares as provided in the principal scheme. They are purely technical or related to inter-departmental accounting arrangements.
Mr. Karran: I beg to second and reserve my remarks.
Mrs. Hannan: I have just got two points to make, Your Excellency. I am rather concerned that we are still in the sphere of men at 65 and women at 60 and I think, really, we should be trying to get these two ages more together, whether it is women up or men down. That is one point — I am looking for equality. The other point I would like to make is that some men actually retire early, and therefore is there any consideration given to these people that retire early to be allowed this concession?
The Governor: Does any hon. member wish to speak? Do you wish to reply?
Mr. Brown: Yes, Your Excellency, thank you. This scheme is purely based on people of pensionable age as in state pension age and therefore that is the reason why it is 65 and 60 and nobody would be more delighted than myself to see men being able to retire at state age at 60, but unfortunately, because of our ties again with the reciprocal agreement, that at the moment is not a practical proposition. But certainly I hope at some time in the future we will see that coming about. With regard to men who retire early, unfortunately unless then are 65 they are not able to get this concession. I beg to move.
The Governor: I put to you the motion at item 22 of the Agenda Paper, hon. members. Will those in favour say aye; those against say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.
ISLE OF MAN POLICE (AMENDMENT) (NO.2) REGULATIONS 1987 - APPROVED
The Governor: Item 23. Police Acts 1962 to 1982. I call upon the Minister for Home Affairs.
Isle of Man Police (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1987 — Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 T177
Mr. Lowey: Your Excellency, I beg to move:
That the Isle of Man Police (Amendment) (No.2) Regulations 1987, made by the Department of Home Affairs on 16th September 1987 in terms of section 16 of the Police (Isle of Man) Act 1962, be and the same are hereby approved.
The Governor: Is that agreed?
It was agreed.
SEA FISHERIES (AMENDMENT) (NO.3) BYELAWS 1987 - APPROVED
The Governor: Item 24. Sea fisheries. I call upon the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.
Mr. Maddrell: Your Excellency, I beg to move:
That the Sea Fisheries (Amendment) (No. 3) Byelaws, 1987 made by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry be and the same are hereby approved.
The Governor: Is that agreed?
It was agreed.
NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (ISLE OF MAN) (GENERAL MEDICAL AND PHARMACEUTICAL SERVICES) (AMENDMENT) (NO.2) REGULATIONS 1987 — APPROVED
The Governor: Item 25. National Health Service (Isle of Man) Act 1948. I call upon the Minister for Health and Social Security.
Mr. Brown: Your Excellency, I beg to move:
That the National Health Service (Isle of Man) (General Medical and Pharmaceutical Services) (Amendment) (No.2) Regulations 1987, made by the Department of Health and Social Security on 30th September 1987 under the provisions of sections 27, 33 and 34 of the National Health Service (Isle of Man) Act 1948, as amended, be and the same are hereby approved.
The Governor: Is that agreed?
Sea Fisheries (Amendment) (No. 3) Byelaws 1987 — Approved National Health Service (Isle of Man) (General Medical and Pharmaceutical Services) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1987 — Approved T178 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987
It was agreed.
NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SUPPLEMENTARY OPHTHALMIC SERVICES) (ISLE OF MAN) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 1987 - APPROVED
The Governor: Item 26 by the same name. I call upon the Minister for Health and Social Security.
Mr. Brown: Your Excellency, 1 beg to move:
That the National Health Service (Supplementary Ophthalmic Services) (Isle of Man) (Amendment) Regulations 1987, made by the Department of Health and Social Security on 15th September 1987 under the provisions of sections 36, 37, 39, 40, 59 and 64 of, and Schedule 2 to, the National Health Service (Isle of Man) Act 1948, as amended, be and the same are hereby approved.
The Governor: Is that agreed?
It was agreed.
HOSPITALS ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE REGULATIONS 1987 - APPROVED
The Governor: Item 27, by the same name. I call upon the Minister for Health and Social Security.
Mr. Brown: Your Excellency, I beg to move:
That the Hospitals Administration Committee Regulations 1987, made by the Department of Health and Social Security on 30th September 1987 under the provisions of paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the National Health Service (Isle of Man) Act 1948, as applied by sections 8(2) and 36 of the National Health Service (Isle of Man) Act 1963 and section 6(5) of the said Act of 1963, be and the same are hereby approved.
Your Excellency, in answer to a question to me in Tynwald in January 1987, members will be aware that it was the intention of the former Department of Health and Social Security, which contained five members, to abolish completely the three hospital administration committees. It was proposed that they be replaced by three management teams, each comprising the hospital secretary, a consultant and a senior nurse. These teams were to run the hospitals and were to be directly responsible to the Health Service Committee, which was comprised of three members of the
National Health Service (Supplementary Ophthalmic Services) (Isle of Man) (Amendment) Regulations 1987 — Approved Hospitals Administration Committee Regulations 1987 — Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 T179
then Department of Health and Social Security. Following the change in political membership of the department, I undertook a review of the new proposals before final steps were taken, and in doing so I also took into account the new political structure, and it was felt and was agreed by the department that the new proposals were not in the best interests of the Isle of Man hospital service and especially with regards to the patients. It was agreed, therefore, that whilst the proposed management team still had an extremely important role to play in the day-to-day general running of the hospitals, a team of experienced business people, not involved with politics, should be appointed to act as one Hospital Administration Committee with a level of responsibility between that of the management teams and my colleague, Mrs. Delaney, who has been given special responsibility for the Health Service Division. Apart from the requirements of an ordered management structure to provide expertise where it is needed and advice to those who decide on policy, it is not conducive to effective management to have three hospitals on the Island 30 miles by 10, each acting autonomously to a degree and each with perhaps differing ideas on the service and development. The first steps have already been taken, therefore, with effect from August this year in establishing a common membership of the three separate committees. There is no element of criticism in these changes with regard to the former hospital administration committees which have done a tremendous job of work for the hospital service, but there is perceived that with the changing times and circumstances, new integrated policies are required. I and my colleagues are confident that the skills which this new team will bring to the hospital administration will result in the maximum benefit to the people who are most important in this matter, the patients. Your Excellency, I beg to move the resolution standing in my name.
Mrs. Delaney: I beg to second and reserve my remarks.
Mr. Quine: Your Excellency, hon. members will be aware of the report on the health service of 1986 which was prepared by two_experts in hospital administration from the United Kingdom. I think members are also aware that it was largely the situation at Noble's Hospital which motivated that particular study. Numerous worthwhile recommendations were made by these two experts, including a recommendation that management committees consisting of a doctor, a matron and administrator be established in the three hospitals that is, Noble's Hospital, Ballamona Hospital and Ramsey Cottage Hospital. In regard to the three administration committees already existing or already in existence the experts simply advocated that their role be reviewed. Yes, hon. members, they actually referred to it in the report as the 'administration committees' in the plural. There was no proposal to amalgamate them into one administration committee. But what has happened? As Tynwald started the summer recess the minister announced that he was disbanding the three individual hospital administration committees and was replacing them with a single hospital administration committee of five members. Now having discussed this matter with the minister, it would appear that the object of the exercise is to institute a form of centralised control of the hospital services, an aim not in itself objectionable, with the accent on the increasing placement of acute services at Noble's Hospital.
Hospitals Administration Committee Regulations 1987 — Approved T180 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987
I will not take too great an issue at this stage with the latter aspect of the concentration of acute services at Noble's Hospital, although I would say that, depending upon where the line is drawn as to what is an acute service and what is not, they could well be in a situation where they have a false economy. And secondly I think it also shows, if that is the intention, gross disregard of the interests of patients and their visitors from the north of the Island, those that have to travel many miles to go and see relatives and friends in hospital. But I will not expand upon that point any further at this stage for the simple reason that I am not able to get further and better information from the ministry as to what is precisely - intended in that regard. But 1 do take issue, and I feel qualified to take issue, on the management structure. For in management terms, three hospital administration committees working to one 03) department should create no practical problems. Indeed, my tuition on the matter of management has worked on the principle of five to one being perfectly acceptable and perfectly workable. The chain of command beyond that could be brought into question. If it is really felt that there is a need for to enhance the central control and that I would question — I think the issue, really, which has motivated this is one of convenience and perhaps one of looking forward to greater exercise of authority in the concentration of acute services at Noble's Hospital, but if in reality it is a matter of an actual need to have greater central control then clearly there are a number of ways that that could be brought about including the very simple expedient of common chairmanship. We are, after all, talking of three committees that meet every few weeks. But, as I say, I feel that it is not really an issue of management, it is an issue of convenience and I think it is an issue which goes beyond the declared intentions that we are presently being made aware of. In passing judgement on this matter I think it is important to recognise that Ramsey Cottage Hospital is not in the same position as Noble's Hospital and Ballamona Hospital. It is a regional hospital serving the people of the north of the Island and it follows from that that people from the north of the Island should be those that have a say in its administration. It was constructed over 80 years ago from funds raised in the north of the Island. It has been sustained and was sustained by private means for many years until the advent of the National Health Service in 1948 and many of the improvements to the hospital and the additional facilities provided in the hospital, both before the advent of the Health Service of course, and even after the advent of the Health Service has been provided from moneys Cc\ raised by people in the north of the Island. Indeed, over the last ten years the Ramsey and District Cottage Hospital League of Friends has raised some £120,000 for the hospital. I repeat, hon. members: it is a regional hospital extensively supported by funds raised within the northside community and, until now, has been administered by local people through its own administration committee in co-operation with the management team, which in point of fact has existed in Ramsey Cottage Hospital for many years. It is a de facto situation. It has operated and run the hospital efficiently and I do not think the minister ... indeed the minister has indicated in moving the order that there is no question of efficiency, it has been run well. I think it is also somewhat ironic, hon. members, that the decision to centralise the control of hospital services, particularly the decision to include a regional hospital in this arrangement, should come so close to discussion in this hon. Court on the
Hospitals Administration Committee Regulations 1987 — Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 T181 provision of certain health services on a regional basis which, you will recollect stemmed from the debate on the Ballamona extension. I believe it was the hon. member for Rushen, Mr. Corrin, who broadened the debate to encompass the matter of regional facilities. I am particularly saddened, however, at the manner in which the minister has brought about these changes. I first heard that changes were being considered at the end of April 1987 and I spoke to the minister to solicit information but, beyond the minister confirming that changes were being considered, I could obtain nothing further at that time. On 7th May I wrote to the minister opposing any change affecting Ramsey Cottage Hospital, putting what I am sure in management terms was a case that would stand scrutiny. I received a further polite but unmistakable rebuff, being told — and I quote: 'As soon as the new structure has been finalised the department will of course make its decision known.' Such a statement, hon. members is not a reflection of ministerial government; that is the indication of a dictatorship at work. As I mentioned earlier, when Tynwald started the summer recess the minister then went public on these arrangements. Notwithstanding my expressed concern and interest I was not afforded the courtesy of being informed before the Press statement was made. The public announcement resulted in strong protest from northern residents, certain members of Tywnald, commissioners, outgoing members of the Hospital Administration Committee, the medical profession, the League of Friends. I again saw the minister on 13th October and I reiterated my objection to the new structure and I relayed the concerns of the other parties to whom I have referred. I sought from the minister a re-examination of his earlier decision and he agreed to do this and communicate with me. Yesterday evening — I repeat, hon. members, yesterday evening — I received a letter from the minister suggesting that he meet with the various public representatives on 29th October. Hon. members, there has been no proper case made for the disbanding of the three administration committees. It was not recommended by the United Kingdom experts who compiled the report on the health services. The input of views by those persons affected, particularly those persons living in the north of the Island - because we are here talking of a regional hospital — has been denied; indeed, input even through their public representatives has been denied. The various public bodies concerned with this matter do not accept that the issue has been finalised and they still wish to put their case to the minister. The amateurist and cavalier manner in which this matter has been dealt with makes a lie of Government claims of open and responsive government. Hon. members, I move:
That the Hospitals Administration Committee Regulations 1987 be referred back to the Department of Health and Social Security for further consideration.
The Governor: That is a motion for adjournment, or a motion for referral or are you putting an amendment before the Court that the matter be referred back?
Mr. Quine: It is a motion that the matter be referred back.
Hospitals Administration Committee Regulations 1987 — Approved T182 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987
The Governor: So we will take it as an amendment in that case, hon. members; yes, I think that is the correct way of dealing with it. Do my learned friends agree? Yes. The hon. and gallant member for Ramsey.
Brig. Butler: Your Excellency, I will second that amendment. In my executive experience I found that three groups of professionals give more trouble than all the rest put together, namely the teachers, the priests — if my Lord Bishop will excuse me! — and the doctors, and the reason they give so much trouble is because they are quite useless at administration and therefore I am extremely sympathetic to the needs for a reorganisation of the D.H.S.S. control of the hospitals and management systems. I am totally sympathetic to this as I am sure the hon. member for Ayre, Mr. Quine is. The doctors are probably the worst of those groups that I have mentioned and they really do need, particularly — I did refer to administration, I hasten to add, the hon. member for Peel. Therefore there is a need for an efficient management system which properly brings together all the services to the Island. However, I am, without any feeling of shame about it, fighting on behalf of Ramsey Cottage Hospital. It is — and' I think all members will know this — a very fine and well established hospital with a long and commendable history. It gives an excellent service in the North. It is of course quite useless on its own; it requires the support and the advice, the assistance from the larger and more efficient - in terms of medical supervision and consultancy — services available from this end. It must, of course, be controlled and directed by the D.H.S.S. I do not dispute that in any way. What I am most anxious about is that that hospital should be retained to give the sort of service that it now gives to the north of the Island. The north of the Island is not gradually... it is certainly not intended at the moment, but it may be gradually drawn into something far more centralised and far less convenient for the people in the North and far less — perhaps convenience is not everything — far less humanly adjusted for people in the North, because, in this game of health, human beings do count. It is the mind as well as the body which is in need of care. The Ramsey Cotlage Hospital, as I said, I think has a fine record of doing things well; it does, of course, need to be part of this re-organisation. But what I am anxious about is exactly what is intended. I am assured that it is not intended to centralise it and I accept that assurance as an honourable statement. What I am concerned about is that what it is clearly the intention to do is to disband the present controls and balances exercised at the northern end. I know that it is proposed to have one northern member — and anyone who knows the north knows how difficult it is to find one man to represent all its views — one northern member on the central administration committee, but I have to say that I do not think that is satisfactory. I think it is quite essential that the North has a lay group able to exercise pressure with an official status in the running of Ramsey Cottage Hospital. I am open to suggestions as to how this should be done and I believe that the people in the North are. 1 do not think that that it necessarily has to mean that the management and the lay administration checking function have to be merged; it may well be true that it is better to have the medical management separated from what used to be the old administration committee, but I do believe it is essential to have a committee of lay people who can represent at the local level the requirements, the opinions, the needs of the northern community. In supporting the motion I am not laying
Hospitals Administration Committee Regulations 1987 — Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 T183
down a mandatory solution to this. I am prepared to listen to reason, but what I am saying is that at this moment I do not believe that we have the guarantee of a continuation of the service that the North has had so far. I am sure that there is no intention on the part of D.H.S.S. to dilute it. I am not doubting their motives; I am doubting whether the mechanics which are being set up will necessarily be responsive to what we need, and that is why I am seconding this motion and that is why I will go on fighting until I know that a satisfactory solution has been found to the North and Ramsey Cottage Hospital, and I do ask those members who are not involved personally in the sense that they do not come the North to consider what I have said, what the hon. member for Ayre has said. We are not asking you to throw out what is being proposed; we are asking you to delay it, and in asking for a delay I am aware that it is so difficult to get anything forward — and only morning we have had a debate about getting something done and not delaying. In *this case I do not believe a few weeks delay, which is all we are talking about, is in any way dangerous. So I ask members to join and vote for this amendment, Your Excellency.
Mr. Radcliffe: Your Excellency, I too will be supporting the amendment to refer this motion back but I will not confine myself to the Ramsey Cottage Hospital situation, Your Excellency, but to a more general picture. The minister stated in his opening remarks that the former Health Services Board had embarked on this exercise of disbandment of the committees. I think it is fair to say that the former Health Services Board had discussed it and had said by a majority that it could be the way to go, but certainly they were not committed at that time — and this goes back, of course, to the change in regime — certainly not committed to the disbandment of the committees, the abandonment of them. The Benner/Evans report certainly recommended changes but in their review they still saw a place for the administration committees as they saw them at that time. It never envisaged, I do not think, that the hospital management teams should be the direct feed line to the department. The management teams were to take over quite a bit of the routine work which the administration committees had done but the administration committees still had a role to play: they could deal with complaints from patients and see that fair play was done — there had to be somebody to deal with that; the personnel complaints appeals — there are always some of those. The professionals, and the three professionals who are going to be involved in these management teams, can get quite carried away at times, Your Excellency, and it takes a lay person's judgment on occasions to bring them back to earth again, and the administration committees in their minor role would have acted as that; they would have acted as house committees, the role of prompter and enquirer as to why this or that had been done or had not been done, putting up suggestions, perhaps, for the better running or lay-out for their particular hospital — and they do regard them as their hospital, the administration committees focusing attention on matters which perhaps a busy management team could miss, perhaps to do with patient comfort, perhaps to do with routine maintenance, perhaps to do with staff or equipment or even — in many people's minds minor thing the catering and the food; put it to a patient in hospital — that is a most important part of the routine. They have little else to look forward to, perhaps, but their food and certainly in my experience quite a few of the
Hospitals Administration Committee Regulations 1987 — Approved T184 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 complaints that one would hear would be about the food or lack of it or the quality of it or whatever, and I think that the administration committees should have a role in management. It may be a fact that the inquisitive administration committee member wandering around might possibly be a bit of a nuisance enquiring about this or that or the other, but it is a fact that some good could come from his inquisitiveness and make for a better hospital all round. I wonder too whether the minister and his colleagues had a good look at hospitals off the Island before they made this decision and whether they had considered what was happening elsewhere. I think it is fair to say that the committee's role was certainly as a prod committee. Departments and ministers do not like being prodded; in fact, the hon. member for Ayre has just stated that, but somebody to do a bit of prodding without embarrassment but just to stir things, shall I say, is an essential part. The set-up that is envisaged with the all-Island committee, I think, is a tame animal; they would really have no teeth and no bite and I do not think any say in the deliberations of the department whatsoever. They are inexperienced; there is nothing wrong with the calibre of the people involved but they have never ever been involved in hospital administration work. I would say, in particular with the North, that the stance the department have taken on this could lose the affection and the affinity of certainly the Northern League of Friends and I think this would be a great pity. It could be that people's energies would be channelled away from the hospitals because of, it would appear, lack of interest and I think that would be a great pity and a very unfortunate thing, because it could only be the hospital and its patients who would be the losers. I think these changes are needless, Your Excellency, and I strongly support the motion to refer back and I would urge hon. members of this Court to support the amendment and let the department have another think over this whole matter.
Mr. Kermode: Your Excellency, I wonder if we had been spending time this afternoon debating this issue if somebody had not gone and just had a little bit of consultation. I myself had a resolution in Tynwald once and was asked by the minister of a department to withdraw it because of on-going things. I did, I believe those negotiations broke down, I have not had the courtesy of a reply as to what is happening with that particular property, but I think the ministers have got to take home that we outside of other ministries have our constituencies to represent, we have a job to do in Government every bit as much as Executive Council or any other ministry or department of this Government, and when we have constituents who come to us with problems I think consultation is far better than having to come into this House and to fire bullets at one another on things that are sometimes quite unnecessary and could have been resolved. So I am going to support Mr. Quine this afternoon — and I have not heard the ministers reasons for that; there might be good reasons, but until he tells me different or tells me what the reasons are, up to now I am going to support the reference back because I feel that there should have been some sort of consultation, but that does not mean to say in future I am going to involve myself in the running of other departments. I am all for letting them get on with the job, but I feel that when a man has been bombarded by constituent problems and then approaches a minister and been told that he will be informed of what is going on and then is not - (Interruption) I do not know that, I mean, Mr. Quine has told me that he was not
Hospitals Administration Committee Regulations 1987 — Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 T185 and then, coming to this hon. Court and being asked to pass something, knowing full well the people he represents have told him they are not happy with it, I think that puts the member and indeed the rest of us in an invidious position and I feel I am going to support the reference back.
Mr. Barton: Your Excellency, I think the hon. member for Ayre has put a very good case, seconded by the gallant member for Ramsey, and I am sure the Minister or the D.H.S.S. noticed the very good intentions, but I heard mention that he has arranged a meeting for the 29th October, so what better than support the referring back? I think I would fully support what the hon. member for Ayre has moved and I will be supporting the referring back.
Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, I rise support of the resolution and I do so because I see this decision as being one that is fairly and squarely the responsibility of the Department of Health and Social Security. After all, what are we talking about? We are talking about the administration committee, the management committee of a hospital, and I think, certainly since the last election, have members in this Court said that members and politicians should not get involved in administration and, conversely, administrators and management committees should not get involved in politics and I think it is important, too, to actually think about the role of the administration committee and of the management committee. If it is — and I have no reason to believe it is anything else — their role, as outlined by Mr. Radcliffe, member of the Legislative Council, who I think himself was a long serving member on the administration committee of Ramsey Cottage Hospital, but if it is their job to look at patient comfort, staff recruitment, catering — and I would agree with him that to a person in hospital catering is probably one of the most important parts of the management — and perhaps minor repairs and other repairs such as that. Why on earth do we need people on that committee, outlined by the hon. member for Ramsey, Brig. Butler, who will represent the local requirements, represent the local opinions and the needs of the northern people? That is not what an administration committee and a management committee is all about as I see it. They are looking after the management of the hospital and, in fact, to allign the management of Ramsey Cottage Hospital, Ballamona Hospital and Noble's Hospital so a similar service is available in each of them, I think, is something that I can easily support and I think it is absolutely right. I think there is an underlying concern, though, in the debate that the regional services in some way are going to be reduced and I would just say that, as far as I am concerned and as far as my ministers are concerned, regional services within the Isle of Man are something that we support, will continue to support and would hope to expand, and that is not to say that the acute services that are provided at Noble's ought to be provided in the North and in the South because I think most of us would accept that would be counter-productive, but as far as practical each region should be able to provide services for its people, and I think the underlying concern is in fact that this service is going to be reduced. I would just give my assurance that that in fact can be discounted.
Mr. Cain: Your Excellency, I have a deal of sympathy for the amendment that has been proposed by the member for Ayre and vigorously supported by his
Hospitals Administration Committee Regulations 1987 — Approved T186 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 colleagues from the northern climes of this Island, but I am going to make up my mind as to which way I am going to go in terms of supporting the amendment or not by the answer given by the minister at the end of this debate. The points for and against on the issues that have been raised so far, and indeed on one or two issues that I would like to mention, as I see them are as follows. First of all, accepting as I do that the record of the discussion or lack of it that has taken place as given by the hon. member for Ayre is correct, I think it would be wise and proper, as has been said, to await the outcome of the discussions that take place on 29th October; I think that is only fair and equitable. I have a deal of sympathy for the remarks by the northern members, and perhaps particularly by those given by the member of the Legislature Mr. Radcliffe in which he particularly detailed the issues that may be of concern to the northern administration committee or the Ramsey Cottage Hospital administration committee, but I am not yet convinced that those same functions could not be carried out by one administration committee equally as well as by a Ramsey Cottage Hospital administration committee. Perhaps more particularly I would like to know from the minister what are the deemed advantages of the proposed administrative change in perhaps positive terms. Are we going to be that much more efficient — and by 'efficient' we must ultimately mean patient care, because that is what hospitals are all about? Are we going to save that much money? What are the points in favour of the scheme as against it? I do not necessarily agree that because we have Ramsey Cottage Hospital, which I accept was founded on the basis of public charity and has been funded by the people of the North for many years, necessarily things should not change. I can remember myself when the same changes that are now being proposed were implemented by the then Health Services Board in respect of the Jane Crookall Maternity Home and there was a long debate at that time as to whether or not the changes were going to be beneficial and in fact there are still those who hold the view that they have not been beneficial. And indeed, if you go back far enough, you could apply those same issues which the member for Ayre has raised to Noble's Hospital itself, because indeed Noble's Hospital was essentially at the beginning a charitable undertaking, funded initially, I understand, by Henry Bloom Noble. So I am not trying to say which way I am going to go. I am perhaps inclined to support the amendment at this time but I am concerned, but nevertheless I am prepared to be swayed. Thank you, Your Excellency.
The Governor: Hon. members, there are at least two other people who wish to speak and I wonder, with your indulgence, whether it might be wise before we go any further just to establish one point from the minister. We are building increasing importance on the meeting of the 29th but, as I understand it, this committee has been meeting regularly since the order established it, so it is simply another meeting, presumably; it is not a special meeting which we should all wait for. If the House would agree I think it is important to establish whether this is so.
It was agreed.
Mr. Brown: If I could just clarify that, Your Excellency, and say that the order before us is with regard to the regulations under which the new administration
Hospitals Administration Committee Regulations 1987 — Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 T187 committee will operate, not the set-up of the committee and that meeting is to inform and have a discussion with the League of Friends who, may I just add at this point, Your Excellency, I had offered to meet on 29th September and unfortunately, after also giving another date, they declined to meet at that time due to circumstances which were not explained to me and therefore, after representation again — because that representation was from Mr. Bell, the hon. member for Ramsey — and after representation then from Mr. Quine at our last meeting we agreed and we tried to meet them again, and it is purely to explain what is happening and how the system will operate and, in fact, to try and stop any misunderstandings because of our concern that the League of Friends are misunderstanding what is happening.
Mr. Cannan: Your Excellency, I speak as a member from the north of the Island too and my constituents use Ramsey Cottage Hospital and indeed are proud to use the hospital and I am fully and totally committed to that hospital. Indeed, I think I could possibly say that I persuaded the Chief Minister to put in his policy statement or helped him to put it in anyway, a full and complete commitment to Ramsey Cottage Hospital, but my main commitment is for the professional care and attention of the patients who use Ramsey Hospital and to ensure that those people from the north of the Island receive in their hospital the very best care and attention. At present there is a dedicated and caring nursing professional staff at Ramsey and I am confident it will continue. This is not an argument about the need for Ramsey Cottage Hospital, it is not an argument today regarding the standard of medical care, it is an argument about the administration and whether the present administration committee should remain. There is no complaint about the present administration committee; indeed, they have done a very excellent job but time moves on and if there is a need — and we are told there is a need — for the review of hospital administration — and the minister has made the proposal set out before us — in the interests of an efficient hospital, then that must be in the best interests of the patients. Now what this all boils down to is that we are having an argument over whether the present administration should stay in office or whether Mr. Brown should run the hospital and nobody seems to be worrying about the most important people in that hospital, and that is the patients who receive the medical care. I want the best care for those people, and if the minister assures me that by centralising this new hospital administration committee from Douglas, which has on it a highly regarded and well known member from Ramsey to look after the interests of the North, and I receive assurance that the North will get that continuing support from his ministry and the hospital will still receive that same funding for the best medical care and attention, then I cannot see what the problem is. The argument, in my view, is whether the people from the north of the Island get the best medical care, and as long as the minister satisfies me that they will continue to get superb medical care then I will back the minister.
Mrs. Delaney: Your Excellency, I think perhaps if I make a few points to clarify before the minister of the department answers as the member in charge of this particular area. The new administration committee is made up of five lay people who have a wide business knowledge, are also involved in catering, accounting, social charitable work and management, and the reason for that was subject to the
Hospitals Administration Committee Regulations 1987 — Approved T188 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987
Benner/Evans and indeed on-going from the previous administration that this should be looked at, the efficiency. Now that is the administration. Now can I say, when we first spoke of the new administration committee we got in touch with the administration committee at Ramsey Hospital and indeed asked for a member there not only to be a member on our committee but to chair it, but he declined because of business and other commitments and I take nothing away from that gentleman for doing that, but we then went on to ask a further member of the Ramsey administration committee to join us and he too declined, so Ramsey were not left out on a limb with regard to the new administration committee; Ramsey were brought in from the onset. Now to go on about the concern, as indeed as has been rightly expressed with regard to the patient care at Ramsey, nothing is fundamentally going to change at Ramsey. I think you are all aware the current matron is retiring in March of next year and we are getting from that good lady a job description in order to replace her with like for like, although I think that will be difficult because of the esteemed lady's commitment to the hospital. So we will have the same administration within the hospital, which is the fundamental thing — the looking after of the patients. The matron, whatever the new terminology will be under all the new boards, will be on the management team that will be there, based at the hospital; there will be a doctor and the matron and the administrator. Then, if the discipline then — just to clarify a few points that are in some doubt of the hon. member of the Legislature, Mr. Radcliffe — the discipline will go to the management team because they, of course, have first-hand knowledge and will be there on the premises initially. If the aggrieved person is not pleased about that and would wish for a further input, then of course they will have the right to go to the administration committee which, as that member has said, is required because of course they will have not had an input in it and will be seen as separate and independent to hear it — I think 'arbitrator' is the word, perhaps; I am not au fait with the technology. But we have that step back from the absolute and immediate involvement should there be discipline, so nothing has really changed except that we have one administrative committee with ability but with no political input because, with the greatest respect, I think that many noises have been made in the last administration that there had been far too much political input into the running of the hospitals and, as it has been mooted here time and again both today and yesterday, administration is not for the politician, it is for the administrators and we are trying to go along that line and we have brought in what we feel is a veryZfj strong management team with resources that we have tried to cover, and this is why I started by telling you we have management, we have catering ability, we have a person involved in social and personnel work and we have tried to cover the broad spectrum and accounting which I believe is fundamental to the good running. Unless - we know how the money is spent, how well it is spent and that we have somebody looking after it and, indeed, being the steward of it, then if we know that, that we have that at a top, then we know we are getting the best value for money and , that is why we changed the administration, in order that. But we are not changing the internal structures of the hospital; the quality, I am sure, will only get better. We are also intending, because of appeals made from Ramsey, to put forward this year £10,000 in our estimates in order to initiate architectural designs for a future geriatric unit which is much needed down there and hopefully that will be a multi-
Hospitals Administration Committee Regulations 1987 — Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 T189
purpose unit as we progress into the regional care — and we are not forgetting the regional care, it is very much in our minds. So I will return to my seat hoping that I have cleared some areas of doubt in members' minds. Thank you, Your Excellency.
The Speaker: Your Excellency, I rise to support the amendment. Perhaps I am the only member of the Court who has experience on both sides of the coin, because I have been Chairman of the Health Services Board and I have served on the Ramsey Cottage Hospital committee, and I acknowledge there is logic, Your Excellency, in effective administration, but whether effective administration and your main administration is to be achieved in the manner that the minister has outlined is still questionable. It is certainly most questionable in connection with the Ramsey Cottage Hospital administration. I would point out the fact that in the Douglas area alone in the past when Noble's was administering White Hoe, White Hoe was the forgotten child of the administration. It can happen and I do not want to see anything like that happen in the case of Ramsey. But Your Excellency, when we speak of delegation of control the Chief Minister has confirmed that the objective is effective administration and economy, and I believe that that could be achieved by having your administration committee serve the Douglas hospitals if that is your wish, but relating to a Ramsey administration committee dealing with what has been described as a regional hospital, certainly a unique hospital it is altogether different to anything that exists in any other region, it is a cottage hospital, because we have to acknowledge, Your Excellency, that Douglas must always be the specialist hospital there is no question about that. But the role of Ramsey has been fortified over the years by the very fact it had its own administration committee, and if that committee was at fault at any time in regard to ineffective administration that was a matter which was always picked up by the board and any point raised with them. I see no reason why it still could not be picked up by the administration committee relating to the board, the two co-ordinating, but you cannot provide the food for Ramsey Cottage Hospital from Douglas; you may try and do it in relation to Ballamona and Noble's Hospital but, you know, you take this to an extent far beyond reality and, Your Excellency, I feel here that when I heard the hon. member for Douglas West speak, he referred to a loss in connection with the 'Jane.' Now I am going to say that if you follow this course as proposed at the moment, this Island is going to sustain a substantial loss in connection with Ramsey Cottage, because it is not only a cash or in terms of cash we are thinking, it is in terms of confidence, and through a good administration in the past Ramsey has generated a confidence in the community around it that is unsurpassed. It has also generated a remarkable capability for survival through the support of the people it serves, and I think that has to be acknowledged as well because Ramsey, more than any hospital in this Island, has expanded its resources by the benevolence of the people of the district around it, by legacies, by contributions, by the work of its League of Friends. Your Excellency, I would hope the administration will not gallop into mistakes in its efforts to have a broom which sweeps everything clear into the ministerial pattern. I think there has to be compromise and moderation to suit particular circumstances. This is one of those cases and I would say to the Court today let the Ramsey administration, the Ramsey representatives, have the opportunity of
Hospitals Administration Committee Regulations 1987 — Approved T190 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 speaking with the ministry before we come to any conclusions, because I sense some, perhaps, rift of thinking between the minister and the hon. member in charge of hospitals. The minister tells us that the thinking is not yet complete; I gather that it is complete so one goes on, Your Excellency, with questions popping up in your mind that makes the acceptance of these regulations a very, very doubtful thing indeed in the interests of the hospital service of the Island. I wholeheatedy support the reference back, Your Excellency.
Dr. Orme: Your Excellency, I rise to ask the minister in his reply to clarify something which I have not yet fully understood. Is it the case that if we pass this resolution now, the meeting on the 29th of which he has spoken will be the first meeting that the existing administration will have the opportunity of presenting their desire to put the opposing point of view and will also be the one at which they will be presented with a de facto decision on the part of the department of which their administrative responsibilities will be removed in any case? If so, 1 think that raises the question of our courtesy towards individuals within our society.
Mrs. Hannan: Your Excellency, I think this really goes back to the comments that were made yesterday on the Chief Minister's policy document by members regarding the Chief Minister's policy document, and that is there is just not enough information. We have got the regulations set in front of us but I would like to have seen a more detailed document, especially with the amount of concern there is within the community — and I believe there is concern within the community, it is not just the North that are concerned about this problem, it is everywhere, and I could just say there is no Peel representation on any of the hospital management committees, and 1 would like to have seen at least some Peel or western representation on. I wonder — I do know that in the past there was a lot of political input, but now we seem to have gone from the sublime to the ridiculous in not having any at all. What went wrong with the previous management committee? Why did it not work? Was it too big? I think we ought to be told. Could not the old committee have been faded out and the new committee faded in? Now the Benner/Evans report said that there needed to be more medical involvement with the management of hospitals; we see two full-time administrative people in the management committee and one doctor — I say two full-time because the doctor also has his job to do and also is involved with administration and I would like to see the health services provide funds to make equal representation between the nurse, the administrator and the medical staff, therefore the input being equal. I think in Ramsey it could be a G.P. who is the representative on the management committee, in Noble's it is going to be a consultant, and we are taking that consultant away from the job that he is already doing, the job that he is paid for; there is no provision to fill that gap as far as I can understand, and I would have thought that because there is this concern within the community we should be given more details on how it is actually going to work, and therefore I am greatly distressed that the Department of Health and Social Security have come to this when we have to have a full debate on these regulations today without having any of the facts at our fingertips. 1 turn now to the administration committee and, as I said before, there is no Peel representation on that committee, but there is a token woman — I suppose that
Hospitals Administration Committee Regulations 1987 — Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 T191
is one thing we should be grateful for. I am told, too, that seven people were asked to fill one position before they actually found one person that would fill that position. I do not know whether that is true or not
Mr. Brown: Not true.
Mrs. Hannan: Well, I suppose it would not be confirmed anyway. (Laughter) There has been some discussion on the regulations; the discussion has been between the minister and Executive Council and it would seem that the ministers are in agreement with it, but why should we not be told why these new regulations have come in, why the administration is changed, why the managements of the hospitals have changed? I do think that when these regulations are being put before Tynwald we should have been given much more information. I believe in local government and I hope all the ministers and the departments would too.
Mr. Gilbey: Your Excellency, I entirely agree with those hon. members who said we do not want politicians on administrative committees; that is absolutely right but, with respect, I do not think that is the question before us. The question is whether the new form of administration committee proposed is suitable to represent the very special interests which have clearly been made out for Ramsey hospital. Now the next point is that it has been said that there is a very important meeting on the 29th and it has been asked by some members whether it would be too late at that meeting if this order was passed. Now this order itself, as has been pointed out, only deals with the regulations of the committee but if you look carefully at this order you will see that it refers under 1(2) on the front page ' "The Committee" means the Isle of Man Hospital Administration Committee established by the Isle of Man Hospitals Administration Committee Order 1987' so this is just providing, it is true, the regulations but, hon. members, it is the only thing that stops the new arrangement coming into effect because in my right hand I hold another document called the Hospital Administration Committee Order 1987. Now this was one of the vast number of documents laid before this hon. Court yesterday but which did not need the Court's approval; the learned Clerk has confirmed that this document which actually sets up the new system does not need this hon. Court's approval, it just needs laying before. Now therefore this is effective in setting up the new system, and the hon. minister had confirmed that, so the only thing that stops it being operational is this order here, because they can hardly operate this without the regulations. Therefore, if we pass this today it seems to me that the people at the meeting on the 29th are faced with a fait accompli and might as well not turn • up, and to me this seems an extra and conclusive reason why we should support the amendment so that at least, when they do meet, they are not meeting with a fait accompli, but that the position is open. Now, furthermore, I cannot see any reason why it would be such a disaster to • leave this particular item for another month. We all agree with effective management and effective cabinet responsibility et cetera, but surely we are talking about things where speed is of some importance and, considering the old system has probably lasted for tens of years, I cannot believe that a delay of one month would be disastrous for this matter to come back when there has been a meaningful meeting
Hospitals Administration Committee Regulations 1987 — Approved T192 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 on the 29th without it being overshadowed by a prior decision and to give the politicians of the North more time to discuss the matter and make representations, but you have heard the hon. member for Ayre say very clearly that he does not feel he was given the chance for discussions that surely he should have been, Therefore it seems to me that we should support the amendment.
Mr. Corrin: Your Excellency, I think there are two things here: one is the concern expressed and the manner in which the hon. member Mr. Quine has been treated in making his representations. It would appear that that is a cause for concern. The other is that I think we should put away any idea that acute treatment should be at Ramsey as such; there is a certain amount goes on there now we know, but that is not the argument. I think we all agree that Douglas is the place for that. However, just as I struggled in the last session to get some geriatric nursing facilities preferably grafted onto Southlands and there is a very strong feeling in the south of the Island for that and I regret that my colleagues do not support that view (Interruption) I repeat it, I am aware they do not support that view however, I think the department is underestimating the reservoir of goodwill that exists within a community to its hospital and medical services. They are totally underestimating that. People are very sensitive to it. There is a certain amount of self-interest in it —you might be lobbed there yourself one day in a hurry — but over and above that people do want to help, and I think that that sensitivity, that goodwill, should be drawn upon, should be encouraged and, as Mr. Speaker pointed out,Your Excellency, there are those that will contribute handsomely in funds and, as Mr. Speaker also said, perhaps even Ramsey Cottage was even built on that basis really. Therefore I think I will support the hon. member Mr. Quine and I hope the department will take it back and re-think their policy on this one no reflection on anyone, certainly no reflection on the make-up of the new committee. Indeed, the chairman, the hon. member is a citizen of Port Erin, but I would just say that the department has perhaps got it wrong on this occasion.
The President of the Council: Your Excellency, I am going to follow the line as proposed by the hon. member for West Douglas, Mr. Cain: wait until the minister has given a full explanation. It would appear to me on what has developed during the debate and with thanks to the hon. member for Glenfaba, Mr. Gilbey, who did point out that orders have been passed making it fait accompli as to the constitution of the committee, and all we are dealing with here is the regulations under which that committee will operate. We have missed the boat somewhere. It went through on the nod and this is a warning to us —
Mr. Lowey: It did not require the nod.
Mr. Anderson: It was laid before.
The President of the Council: It did not require the nod? Well, it is the interpretation of the nod that you are all fussed about, you see! It went along without consideration by this Court and this is, Your Excellency, something that we will have to be very vigilant about under the new ministerial system — that many things
Hospitals Administration Committee Regulations 1987 — Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 T193 will slip by as we have two pages today of things that went by, without having to have the approval of Tynwald, and it does appear that this administration committee that has been formed — it appeared in the papers, we read it and we saw about another committee that we saw it in the paper before we in Tynwald knew anything about it, and it is empowering under the new system the ministers to do all these sort of things, and this is one of the things when members will have to be vigilant, to be careful that they are not having all sorts of things passed. We can well understand those people who come from the north of the Island wanting to preserve the status quo where they had good and faithful servants who were serving this particular hospital well and truly. There were no complaints. We did not hear any complaints about the method, and this is a shame, I think, and I think under the new ministerial system we should try to retain all that is good and just get rid of the things that are not so wholesome. It does seem, unless the minister has some very special rabbit in the hat, as if the recommendation I would give, for all that it is worth, is that we should reject these regulations in order to bring to the notice of the department concerned that they should in the future, if they are making radical changes of this kind, have Tynwald going with them.
Mr Karran: Your Excellency, I was not going to speak on this issue as the one that least supports it out of the department, but I feel that some points need to be clarified. This hon. House wanted ministerial government. Now just because the parish pump has had to come into it and that, we should not run away. You wanted the situation where we went for a more...
Mr. Cannan: Enlightened Government.
Mr. Karran: ... enlightened Government. (Laughter) That is one way of calling it. You can not come along and say that with this enlightened Government that `We like this piece but we do not like this other piece.' You have accepted the principle and I feel that you have got to go ahead with it. We all have problems as far as our own little patch is concerned. As the last Chairman of Ramsey Cottage Hospital, I feel for the people of Ramsey. I have a great deal of sympathy about what they are trying to do but and I can assure you I do not want to see the Ramsey Cottage Hospital close down and I am quite sure that my minister does not want to see this hospital closed down. We have a commitment to regionalisation and I must say to the junior member for Rushen that he wants to stop reading his Beano books with some other hon. members. I would also like to say to my hon. colleague in Peel — as far as seven persons, I can assure her that there are not many ministers that you could get any sense out of (Laughter) but my minister is one of the few you can get a bit of common sense out of and a straight answer! I hope hon. members will support this motion because you cannot take away from the principle. You have accepted the principle of ministerial government, the principle of getting away from localisation. I hope you will support this item that is on the Agenda. (interruption)
Mr. Maddrell: I just wanted to stand to see if I have any sense! (Laughter) I would just like to say that the ministerial system is getting a bashing here. This is quite wrong. Under the old system a chairman would have done exactly the same,
Hospitals Administration Committee Regulations 1987 — Approved T194 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 and I only stand up to make that point.
The Attorney-General: Your Excellency, this question of the hospital administration committee is absolutely nothing to do with ministers nor is it anything to do with any change which has taken place within the last year or two. In fact, it comes under Section 6(2) of the National Health Service (Isle of Man) Act 1963, • so we are talking about legislation which is well over 20 years old. Under that Act the old board and other departments may by order constitute hospital administration committees for the purpose of exercising functions in relation to designated hospitals either individually or in one group or in groups. So that power was given to the old board in 1963 either to have committees for individual hospitals or for a group or all the hospitals together in the one group. An order under that section was made in 1964 which I believe established three committees; ® that order was revoked and a new order was made under exactly the same power this September constituting one committee for the group. Now that order does not require be approved by Tynwald. It has been made and that is it. The purpose of the regulations which are now before this hon. Court is simply to regulate the procedure of the committee and the method by which the committee shall be made up and the term of office and so forth, but the power to establish either one committee or two committees or three committees is nothing to do with this Court; it was vested in the board, in the department by legislation of 1963. It is therefore nothing to do with the ministerial government or any change or any wickedness of that sort that has been introduced surreptiously.
The Speaker: Your Excellency could the learned Attorney-General confirm that the authority under the Act enables the board not only to create the committee they have created but to create other committees as well if they so desire?
The Attorney-General: What the Act says is the board, now the department, shall, by order, constitute hospital administration committees either for each individual hospital or for the whole group of hospitals, which means therefore one committee.
Mr. Lowey: Your Excellency, I was not going to speak on this either. However, I am very sorry the way the debate has been generated artificially, if I may so, to 0 create distrust, question marks, when really it is a simple administrative matter that we are dealing with. I regret very much Mr. President's contribution where he tried to hint that some new item had been introduced here by the ministers to usurp Tynwald's role whereas, as the Attorney has rightly pointed out, the machinery, when he was chairman of this very board, would have been exactly the same way — the order would have laid before —
The President of the Council: He would not have acted in this way.
Mr. Lowey: Well, that is a matter at policy level. Now I really want the Court to really look at it in a rational way. It is a simple... if you like, the minister and his colleagues have decided that they wish a new administrative committee to deal with the three hospitals as opposed to three separate
Hospitals Administration Committee Regulations 1987 — Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 T195 ones; that is the simple issue that is before us. I can quite understand why my good friend from Ayre has introduced what I would call the local element, because really, if there is a meeting, as the minister has said, on the 29th of this month, it is to explain how the situation as has already been agreed by the department will operate. It has already been established, by passing the order yesterday, the regulations are only the way in which that situation will be regulated. Now really, at the end of the day, let me say what the Chief Minister has said only yesterday which you agreed with, and yesterday the cry was, 'We must do something, we should be effective.' Now here we are today saying... and when somebody is taking a decision at the most junior level — I mean let us make... with the greatest respect, it is one of the minor decisions that will be taken ultimately at some time by any one of the nine ministers you choose to have, or the Chief Minister chooses to have. Are we, every time, saying... and by the way we have not been all consulted on it — I mean, again, I come back to what the Chief Minister said yesterday: it is about trust. Either have confidence in the department, the ministers, or let us give up. Can I just say, when we are here in this hon. Court we are representing the Isle of Man; we have got to try sometimes to look at the national as opposed to the parochial. I take issue with my good friend Mr. Corrin from Rushen when he says nobody in the South is interested in the Southlands extension for people coming out of hospital and recuperation. I have news for him: I am just as committed as Mr. Corrin is to seeing that.
The Speaker: He did not say that.
Mr. Lowey: He did say that, sir, with the greatest of respect, Mr. Speaker. He did say that. And may I also say to Mrs. Hannan, I mean, I have not got anybody from Ballasalla on this committee either. You know, I mean, really and truly, we have got to look at Island administration, the minister has decided that and his colleagues and I think we should have a bit of confidence in their judgement.
The Governor: Hon. members, can I please call upon the minister to reply?
Mr. Brown: Thank you, Your Excellency. I would just like to really get through to the hon. members to be absolutely clear, and I think the Attorney-General for clarifying exactly what it is about. We are only talking about the administration of our hospitals, a purely administrative matter with regards to the D.H.S.S. The powers we are using are within the law. The future of the administration committees was already under review and, as I said in my opening remark — and I notified members in January 1987 — they were to be abolished totally. The Benner/Evans report, as the hon. member Mr. Quine said, quite rightly says that the administration committee's role will be reviewed, and that is exactly what I did. And my review and my department's review was: why do we need three? The last department felt we needed none at all — why do we need three, do we need two or do we need one? And after long discussions it came out that the advantages of one outweighed the advantage of having two or three. For example, one area was trying to find people of ability; in other words, we want five effective people who will have a good input into it. If we have two we will need ten because we were withdrawing do not forget, political members off
Hospitals Administration Committee Regulations 1987 — Approved T196 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 the administration committees, so they were all to be lay people. If we had three, there would be fifteen. Now I would suggest to hon. members that if any of you have been involved in trying to appoint laypeople onto Tynwald committees or whatever, it is very difficult to find people of the type of ability and type of area of cover that you wish. So therefore we looked at it and we said, 'Right, what is required?' And I have to say quite honestly — because I would not be here if I did not believe in it, and any hon. members who know me and know the way I operate would know that — I quite honestly believe that the best interests of the Isle of Man — and that is my job — the Isle of Man health service, hospital service, will be served by the creation of one hospital administration committee. I have no questions about that, no doubts about that. Mr. Quine also dropped a little hint in, which he has dropped to me a few times, that this just suddenly came up at summer time as Tynwald went into recess, but he did forget to say that I also informed him that that was not because we deliberately did that. In fact, it was our intention to start the new system in July, but because of our first approach to another person for chairman, that was put back because then we had to look for somebody else and it in fact happened that by the time we got the acknowledgement it was after Tynwald had gone into recess, and I made it very clear to the hon. member — and again if members know me, I do not operate that way. I am not scared to answer questions on something I believe in so I would just ask hon. members to be quite clear on that. Ramsey Cottage Hospital is a regional hospital; nobody denies that, nobody is going to rush and take that away from Ramsey, but our duty is to the Isle of Man hospital service as a total and that is the job you have given me. I would be wrong if I did anything but look at the whole Island as a total. You cannot isolate Ramsey from the rest of the Isle of Man. This Court gives it its budget, this Court determines how much we will give to fund the services at Ramsey, at the 'Jane', at Noble's, at the White Hoe, and if you are saying to me that my department has to leave that sacrosanct for ever and a day, then there is a problem. We have to be fair and I can assure you we will be, but we have a duty and a responsibility which at any time hon. members from the north, south, east or west can ask questions about and do. Our regional policy as a D.H.S.S. still stands. Nobody has ever said that our regional policy means whatever we provide is run by regional people. We take note of what is required in wherever and I would just say again — because I get quite bored with having to repeat it — that I, as a member from the South who has been involved in the Southern Authorities Health Care Committee since 1981, am just as interested as other members to provide facilities down the South as members who have only been here since 1986. Now, Your Excellency, Mr. Quine said he first heard of the changes — the changes were being considered in April. Well, I am sorry, I cannot help it if the hon. member did not hear my answer in this hon. Court in January to a question which quite clearly said there would be no administration committees as the way things were going. That was quite clear in January, not April, but it was April or May until I heard from the hon. member. He also referred and made an insinuation that he got a reply to a letter from the Administrator only now requesting to set up meetings with bodies interested in the North. Well, can I clarify that point? The hon. member, Mr. Bell, had already
Hospitals Administration Committee Regulations 1987 — Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 T197 offered to get together those people some time ago. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, they declined. They were given a couple of dates, they were asked to come to Markwell House, we then said we would go to them and meet them in Ramsey and, again, nothing happened. I cannot help it. We cannot wait for ever and it is basically a meeting to inform them of how it will operate, and also may I say very clearly to put down the distortions of what is going to happen because the rumours are just not true, and that is what is about, not whether or not there shall be or whether or not there shall be regulations or shall be one committee; it is about how the new committee will operate and why we believe it will be in the better interest, and also to try to quell any misunderstandings, and the meeting that we had last week with the hon. member Mr. Quine, which we responded as quickly as possible because we knew, again, he would want to know for this debate and I could have quite easily have said, `Well, let us not tell him until after the debate,' but I felt it was right the hon. member, as any member, should have our response, and that letter was sent out on the 15th October and quite clearly says that myself and Mrs. Delaney, the member responsible who met him, are convinced that the new structure will provide an effective basis and, going on to an offer he made, asked him, will he invite the different groups who he said would wish to meet us to come and talk with us so we can explain our thinking — nothing to do with whether or not it is going to happen, but to try and stop any misunderstandings. So let me make that very clear. We are progressing down the road, as I quite clearly see it, of a duty that this hon. Court has given me. So do not read too much into the meeting of the 29th, please. We are sympathetic to the organisations, we know how valuable a part they played in Ramsey Cottage Hospital and may I say, as for the League of Friends and other people in Noble's, in Ballamona, I have not heard them shouting, yet they are in just the same position, with respect, as the League of Friends from Ramsey, all helping towards the hospital as they see it that they are involved with. Could I also quell one other thing? It is not a central Douglas administration committee. It is a health service hospital administration committee and in fact meets at the hospitals. It will get its advice, in the case of Ramsey, from a G.P., from the matron, from the secretary, all living in the North. It will get its advice at Noble's from a doctor or consultant, from the secretary, from the D.N.S., and the same — at Ballamona. So exactly the same — the input from the North will be there via the professionals. So we are still all right there. Your Excellency, there are many things to answer. I just hope that hon. members will realise that what we are doing we quite firmly believe is in the best interests. We believe it will co-ordinate services — we have been asked, what is the advantage? — where we know there are things happening where certain items are costing us more money because we just do not bring them together. For example, certain 999 calls, regardless, go to Ramsey, where it may be later we need an ambulance from Douglas because of the seriousness of the injury, and all sorts of little things like that we need to tie together but have not been, for whatever reason. Expenditures are higher, maybe not considerably, but there are extra expenditures because things are not brought together between Ballamona, Noble's and Ramsey and this, we believe, will bring it together because you have one central body sitting down deciding and bringing together all the professional advice and, if there is a problem, the same people get that advice. They will co-ordinate miews, they will co-ordinate
Hospitals Administration Committee Regulations 1987 — Approved T198 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 recommendations back to the health service so that we know where we are going because that is always a problem. You can sometimes, with respect, have too many committees. Patient care — and that is what this is about — is paramount in our thinking and I have to say personally that is why I quite firmly believe we need an administration committee of this type, and that is wherever the patient care is, Ramsey or wherever. We do not believe Ramsey will be forgotten and the people of Ramsey, if they allow it to be forgotten, will have to blame themselves. They have effective people, i.e. the League of Friends, who are there already and if they say, 'Well, because it is somebody else we do not want anything to do with it' then I think that is very sad for Ramsey. Mrs. Hannan said we should have faded the old committee out and introduced the new one. What happened when the re-appointments of the Ramsey committee members happened over a year ago? Their appointments were left open ended, they were not re-appointed for a fixed period as normal because they were told it was until such time as the new set-up came into being. So they knew that long ago. I have talked to the Ramsey Cottage Hospital Administration Committee myself, one of the first things I did when the hon. member, Mr. Radcliffe was in the chair in December, about this very thing and they asked me, I hope you are going to look at it all again and I said, yes, I want to make sure where we are going. So we have already had a talk. I knew their views. I took it on board. I will just clarify another point. Mrs. Hannan said seven people before one position was filled. Well, we all know rumours get out of hand and that is one of them. There were never seven people for one position. In fact, it might have been seven people to fill the five at the end of the day and our first approaches in the vast majority of cases were fulfilled straight away, and those people were picked not because of who they are or because of their individual ability, and if you look at them and you read what was in the Press you will see their different abilities and why we picked them, because they are business people with a certain type of ability. Our hospitals are one of the biggest spenders in our whole budget and it is important that we have a proper co-ordinated feedback to the health service division. Your Excellency, I do not think anything else I will say will make members change their minds, I would just say to hon. members, you have given me a job to do, I do not — and I hope hon. members, know me well enough — I do not go off silly about things, ignoring people; that is why I have met Mr. Quine on two occasions, and in fact left the office in about 20 minutes to go up and talk to him in the building next door about this very thing as soon as he asked me to. I have explained everything, the difference of opinion is they do not like it because Ramsey do not believe it is right. We believe, in the best interests of the Isle of Man and the health services and the patients, it is the best way to go forward. We have not acted illegally, we have acted quite clearly the way we are able to. I hope hon. members will not support the amendment and will please support the resolution and allow the D.H.S.S. and its members you have appointed to get on with the job you gave them to do.
The Governor: Hon. members, I put to you the amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for Ayre, Mr. Quine, seconded by Brig. Butler that the Hospitals Administration Committee Regulations be referred back to the Department of Health and Social Security for further consideration. Will hon. members in favour of that
Hospitals Administration Committee Regulations 1987 — Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 T199 amendment say aye; those against say no.
A division was called for and voting resulted as follows: In the Keys:— For: Messrs. Quine, Barton, Corrin, Mrs. Hannan, Mr. Bell, Brig. Butler and the Speaker — 7 Against: Messrs. Gilbey, Cannan, Walker, Dr. Orme, Messrs. Brown, May, Mrs. Delaney, Messrs. Duggan, Cretney, Delaney, Kermode, Cain, Kneale, Gelling, Karran, Leventhorpe, and Mr. Maddrell — 17 The Speaker: Your Excellency, The amendment fails to carry in the House of Keys, sir, with seven votes being cast in favour and 17 votes against. In the Council:— For: Mr. Radcliffe — 1 Against: The Lord Bishop, Messrs. Lowey, Quirk, Anderson, Mrs. Hanson, Mr. Callin and the President of the Council — 7 The Governor: Hon. members, in the Council the votes cast for, one, votes cast against, seven, the amendment therefore fails to carry in both branches. I now put to you the main motion standing in the name of the Minister for Health and Social Security. Will hon. members in favour say aye; those against say no.
A division was called for and voting resulted as follows: In the Keys:— For: Messrs. Gilbey, Cannan, Barton, Walker, Dr. Orme, Messrs. Brown, May, Mrs. Delaney, Messrs. Duggan, Cretney, Delaney, Kermode, Cain, Kneale, Gelling, Karran, Leventhorpe and Mr. Maddrell —18 Against: Messrs. Quine, Corrin, Mrs. Hannan, Mr. Bell, Brig. Butler and the Speaker — 6 The Speaker: Your Excellency, the resolution carries in the House of Keys, sir, with 18 votes being cast in favour and six votes against. In the Council:— For: The Lord Bishop, Messrs. Lowey, Quirk, Anderson, Mrs. Hanson, Mr. Callin and the President of the Council — 7 Against: Mr. Radcliffe — 1
Hospitals Administration Committee Regulations 1987 — Approved T200 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987
The Governor: Hon. members, in the Council, seven votes cast in favour and one against. The resolution therefore carries. Hon. members I propose now as it is rising five that we adjourn for 20 minutes.
The Court adjourned at 4.52 p.m.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF ROYAL ASSENT
The Governor: Hon. members, can I announce that I have been able to give Royal Assent — it sounds very grand but that is what it is! I have been able to give Royal Assent to the Isle of Man Airports and Civil Aviation Act 1987.
SOCIAL SECURITY LEGISLATION (APPLICATION) (NO.7) ORDER 1987 - APPROVED
Governor: Item 28. Social Security.
Brown: Your Excellency, I beg to move:
That the Social Security Legislation (Application)(No.7) Order 1987, made by the Department of Health and Social Security on 15th September 1987, be and the same is hereby approved.
The Governor: Is that agreed?
It was agreed.
INCOME TAX (LOSS RELIEF) REGULATIONS 1987 — APPROVED
The Governor: Item 29. Income Tax Act 1970.
Mr. Cannan: Your Excellency, I beg to move:
That the Income Tax (Loss Relief) Regulations 1987, made by the Treasury on 30th September 1987, be and the same are hereby approved.
The Governor: Is that agreed?
It was agreed.
Announcement of Royal Assent Social Security Legislation (Application) (No. 7) Order 1987 — Approved Income Tax (Loss Relief) Regulations 1987 — Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 T201
CASINO (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 1987 — APPROVED
The Governor: Item 30. Casino Act 1986. I call on Mr. Gelling, the hon. member for Malew and Santon, to move.
Mr. Gelling: Your Excellency, I beg to move:
That the Casino (Amendment) Regulations 1987 made by the Isle of Man Gaming Control Commissioners be and the same are hereby approved.
Your Excellency, in March of this year hon. members will recall that we had several pieces of legislation presented to us late at night regarding the Casino licence, and I believe it would be fair to say that we had to accept what we were presented with at face value because we had no time to give detailed consideration to the proposals and there were doubts raised at the time by several members. If I may quote, Your Excellency, Wednesday 18th March at precisely 7.30 p.m., when we were discussing the Casino Regulations 1987 which were being moved by our Chief Minister, Mr. Walker, Mr. Karran stated 'because of the fact that this has been put in front of this hon. Court very quickly where the differences are in these regulations to what were in the past as far as the regulations are concerned.' The Attorney-General: `Yes, sir, of course that is so. The Gaming Commissioners in the future will be able to amend these regulations subject to Tynwald approval, of course, and they are of course general regulations'. That was in answer to a question by Mr. Maddrell. Mr. Kneale: 'I would just make a comment that the farce is continuing. We have had these regulations put before us. We are asked to approve them, that was ten minutes ago.' What I am trying to say, Your Excellency, is, we were given these straight after we had been discussing the licence, it was late at night and we had a file three-quarters of an inch thick, and I think it would be fair, as I stated, to say that no-one really had time within those ten minutes, as the hon. member, Mr. Kneale said, to study them. Since then I have been appointed a member of the Commissioners, so inevitably one would expect that we would have to tidy up loose ends, and these regulations are intended to do that by ensuring, in the first place that access of young persons to licensed areas is controlled and, secondly, by prescribing offences and penalties as provided for in the Casino Act 1986 but, I stress, omitted in the principle regulations because of the pressure of time seven months ago. The problem of young persons in the Lidn and the Casino premises and the related problem of under-age drinking has been of concern to both the previous Gaming Board of Control and to the Gaming Control Commissioners over a number of years. Up until about 1983 there was co-operation by the Palace Company in seeing that young people did not, for example, go into the Lido, and this was probably because both the Gaming Board of the day and the past management assumed, in fact wrongly, that young persons were prevented by law from going into the Lido. In 1984 the police brought a prosecution against the Palace which failed. It arose out of an Ideal Home Exhibition which was held at the Lido and which had drinks dispensed from the main bar area, where it seemed there was no restriction on access by children. There were children varying in age from three to 12 years in the area where drinks were being consumed, which was within a few feet of the bar counter.
Casino (Amendment) Regulations 1987 — Approved T202 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987
The police at the time took the view that there was a breach of Section 124 of the Licensing Act, which prohibits young persons under 15 years from entering the bar of licensed premises. The Deputy High Bailiff however, held that in the circumstance the bar in the Lido was simply the area behind the bar counter. If you think of an ordinary public house the term 'licensed premises' generally means the whole of the premises. The bar from which young persons would be excluded is not simply the area behind the bar counter where the waiter or waitress stands but also the area round about where people sit and consume their drinks. Both these areas one would refer to as a bar. If I said — I probably would not, - but if I said — 'Shall we go to a bar for a drink?' I do not think anyone would understand me saying shall we jump over the counter and have a drink with the waitress? (Laughter) Because of the way the bars have been defined in the Casino licence which was issued by this hon. Court in March, only the areas behind the bar counter are defined as bars and therefore the application of the Licensing Act only applies to restricting young persons from behind the bar counter. Now you may not remember, but that was the document we were given at that time which shows the round bar as purely the round bar counter. The Casino Act relates to the Licensing Act 1961 in its application and the only other area of control prescribed by the Casino Act is the gaming room, and young persons under 18 years of age are prohibited from entering any gaming room. The present Casino licence covers the whole of the premises and extends licensing to any part of the whole of that complex. In the past separate areas were individually identified. If I can, Your Excellency, to try to make it crystal clear because I must admit it is complicated, if I can tell you that prior to March, for argument's sake, the Lido, children were admitted following the High Bailiff's judgment in '84 but it closed at 2 a.m. but there was no admittance after midnight. After March the children were admitted and it closed at 4 a.m; that was the difference. In Jay Dee's prior to March — normal public hours, restrictions of age admittance, i.e., 15 years of age, and it closed at midnight. After March Jay Dee's — children were admitted and it closed at 4 a.m. In the Round Bar prior to March — no children except residents or diners; licensing hours varied according to which licence applied either public house, 11 p.m.; restaurant, 12 midnight; Casino, 5 a.m.; or residents, 24 hours. The Round Bar after March — no children restrictions whatsoever and it closed at 4 a.m. Whispers — no-one under 18 years admitted, open to 5 a.m. prior to March and after no children restriction whatsoever and it closed at 4 a.m.
The commissioners' concern about children being in the Lido or Casino premises is really threefold. Firstly, we are concerned that alcohol is widely available throughout the complex so one has the danger of under-age drinking. Secondly, we are concerned that since March the whole complex has been licensed for the sale of liquor until 3.30 a.m. with an additional half-an-hour's drinking-up time with doors closing at 4 a.m. Now, hon. gentlemen and ladies, when you pick up the newspaper and you find A crackdown on under-age drinking could make it illegal for parents to let 17-year- olds have a glass of wine in a restaurant, that a working group was set up eight months ago to find ways of curbing the huge rise in under-age drinking, its proposals will be presented to the Home Office next month. According to a B.B.C. Panorama
Casino (Amendment) Regulations 1987 — Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 T203
documentary the recommendations are unprecedented. The programme makers say that under-age drinkers are now spending £280 million a year on alcohol; 16-year- olds are now more liable than the middle-aged to commit drunkenness offences. Now no doubt many of you will have seen the Panorama programme. Lastly, with the Laser Disco in the Lido and another discotheque in the Jay Dee's • which was formerly the Hawaian Bar, we feel there is a rather strong erotic atmosphere which is not suitable for very young people. Over the years the board has received complaints from members of the public about the presence of young persons especially in the Lido. Most of these complaints have been by word of mouth but I would, however, like to quote just one portion from one letter which just proves to you that it is a long-standing problem, as this was back in 84: 'My daughter failed to come home, after having gone out for a night out with a friend. Being only 15, I was disturbed to find out, after many enquiries as to her whereabouts, that she along with a large number of her school chums had been frequenting the Laser Disco for quite some time. On questioning my daughter she has admitted that she and all her friends had been gaining admission to the Lido with no problem at all for some length of time and that she has had no trouble in obtaining alcohol either by purchasing it herself or by others purchasing it for her'. As a result there was included in the Statute Law Revision Bill of 1985 an amendment which, it was hoped, would raise the age limit of admittance to the Lido and Casino to 18 years, but in fact was inhibited by being tied to the definition of a bar, i.e. the counter. This amendment was carried in the Keys by 20 votes to three which would suggest that there was quite a measure of support for the principle. Now to bring the matter up to date. Our latest information on the subject is contained in our gaming inspectors reports and this was a report of 17th August and it was at the time of the Carnival Dance Group Competition. 'There were no separate arrangements for children to buy soft drinks and I saw countless numbers buying soft drinks at the main bars. Further, no effort whatsoever had been made to keep children out of the bar areas or confine drinking to those areas. I saw at least 25 young people, in my opinion, between 14 and 16 years buying and drinking beer at the bars. The competition went on until 11.30 p.m.when the disco started but no effort was made to remove any of the children. By this time almost all of the very young children had gone but many, no older than nine or ten, remained'. That is one of our inspector's reports. But, hon. members, the fact that children of nine and ten years remained on the premises so late was quite legal because of the legislation passed in March. So, do you condone such lack of control of children on licensed premises? It is very pertinent that this incident occurred after a meeting of the commissioners with the Palace directors to discuss the proposed regulations and also after correspondence between the Department of Education and the Palace. The company have been in no doubt of the concern about under-age drinking and the presence of young people. Both board members and its officers are aware of many incidents concerning friends and associates whose children have gained unrestricted access to Lido or Jay Dee's despite, and I say this, despite the company's own declared policy of only admitting persons over 18 years into licensed premises. The proposed new regulations will exclude young persons under the age of 15 from the Lido, from Jay Dee's and the Round Bar and provision has also been
Casino (Amendment) Regulations 1987 — Approved T204 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 made for Whispers nightclub which has now been closed but, nevertheless, is still licensed. It is important to emphasise, however, that the board does have power to relax the age restriction and if, for example, the Palace wanted to put on a special event in the Lido, such as the Carnival Dance Group Competition, exemption would be made conditional on having controls over the sale and supply of liquor. The proposed age restriction bring these premises in line with other licensed premises. The other provisions of the regulations contained in paragraph 3 relate to defined offences as being provided for in the principal Act and now prescribed by regulation. In the past it was wrong to do it but it was not declared an offence. Paragraph 4 defines the penalties prescribed by paragraph 11(4) of the Act. Paragraph 5 describes the areas which these regulations are intended to control. In conclusion, hon. members, having consulted various bodies including the company, Executive Council, the Department of Education, the Chief Constable and the Department of Tourism, and if I could quote, Your Excellency, the last paragraph: 'The draft regulations together with the comments of the Palace Hotel and Casino Limited were considered by the department at a meeting held on 27th September 1987. Having given the matter very careful consideration, the department is of the view that the rules governing the admittance of children to the Casino complex should be identical to those governing admittance to other licensed premises'. That is from the Department of Tourism. The Commissioners have adopted a responsible course of action to control the premises, to bring it into line with other licensed premises and did not raise the age to 18 years despite lobbies from many quarters to do so. Your Excellency, I beg to move the motion standing in my name.
The Speaker: Your Excellency, I beg to second and reserve my remarks.
Mr. Anderson: Your Excellency, I will not oppose it but I would prefer to have seen it at least 16 and preferably 18, but I will not oppose it because I realise that if this is not carried here today the unsatisfactory position that exists at the present time will continue.
Mr. Cretney: Your Excellency, I would go further. I would suggest that we should have had an age limit of 18 for admittance to the premises of the Palace Company because I consider that other licensed premises, which it appears have been taken into account, I would suggest that it is a different circumstance; it is much more kg hard in my opinion to police the licensed premises of this particular company. I think that if you are talking about other public houses it could be that parents would be going with the young people who are going into the public houses and I do not think that generally that is the case in these particular circumstances. I will support this time the proposals before us but I still do not consider they have gone far enough and I hope that in the future the Gaming Control Commissioners will keep a sharp eye out on this because it is something that has been brought to the Department of Education's viewpoint because there have been several incidents which have been reported to us and it just shows that at the time the Casino regulations went through in such a haste my hon. friend on my right here, the hon. member for West Douglas was probably right, we should not have allowed those regulations to go through with such haste and I regret the manner
Casino (Amendment) Regulations 1987 — Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 T205
at that time that they did go through. As I say, I will support it now but I believe honestly that the age of admittance to these premises should be 18 and not 15.
Mr. Kermode: Your Excellency, it is on a matter of policing that concerns me • most of all because I have been in the Casino on various functions and watched various shows and I see the C.I.D. walking round the Casino and indeed the Lido. Now if the inspectors from the Gaming Board of Control have seen the children - there and there are young children under-age drinking, for goodness sake, what are the C.I.D. doing there? Are they blind? They are paid to do a job, to police, enforce the laws. Are they in there joy riding? They have got a job to do and I suggest that the police also be asked to get their act together.(Interruption) It is against the law to drink not to be' on the premises.
Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, my contribution will be short, sir. I am supporting these regulations and I happen to think it right that the Palace and its premises should be treated in the same way as other licensed premises and there should not be special rules for the Palace. I also happen to know, as we all do, that we are talking about the largest entertainment centre in the Isle of Man and I think that the Gaming Commissioners and I hope the Gaming Commissioners will take a realistic view when asked to allow admittance of young people to these premises for entertainment reasons, especially those that are supported by our Tourist Board. I agree with the point that was made by Mr. Kermode where he says that it is an offence in fact to serve drink and if offences were being committed on these premises and were seen by an inspector, why on earth was not that avenue followed through? Perhaps it was but that certainly was not made clear in Mr. Gelling's opening remarks. I also think as a politician that parents should not believe that this Court and its rules and regulations and laws can take over from their responsibilities with their children (Members: Hear, hear.) and again it was suggested that the law was wrong because there were all these children of ten or 11 unsupervised in the Lido at a certain time on one evening. I would suggest again it is not the law that is wrong, it is the parents that are wrong and they should not sidestep their responsibilities and write to a Government agency saying 'Please will you tighten up because my child was there'. I think that is an awful situation and perhaps it is to do with the family circumstance; I do not know the individual, but so be it. Even if parents separate, and it is happening more and more, those parents must retain the responsibility for their children and not say, 'It is not mine, it is my wife's' or the wife say, 'It is not mine, it is my husband's'. It is their responsibility. If they bring children • into this world. I am absolutely convinced on that, and I do think that we have to be careful not to go overboard when we are faced with this sort of emotive situation.
The Lord Bishop: Your Excellency, I will support this as a step in the right direction. I am sorry that it is 15 and not 16 or even older. One of the great problems, I think, that we face in the Island and indeed face in Europe generally is the problem of alcoholism and anything we can do to discourage people from drinking, especially young people from drinking, they can ill afford to do it and very soon they get
Casino (Amendment) Regulations 1987 — Approved T206 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 into debt and therefore, though I support this on this occasion, I hope that in future the age will be at least 16.
Mrs. Delaney: Your Excellency, I will be supporting this motion and, like the rest of the speakers, I am only sad it only takes it up to 15. I make no apology for saying to this hon. Court that all of this was made very clear by the commissioners in March. The commissioners were well aware of the company's lack of responsibility toward our young people and stated it clearly as one of their reasons, their main reason for the rejection of that company to hold the licence and, having been pleaded with, we even asked that they should be given a short-term licence for three years in the hope that they might tighten their laws and act responsibly. I take cognisance of what the Chief Minister says about parental responsibility and I agree with it, of course I do; all parents must act responsibly. But I am also aware of all the lures and indeed we are all aware as parents of the children's assertion of their right to freedom and, unfortunately, they do not always tell you the truth when they go out. We, I hope, all supervise our families correctly but, again, who are we to legislate as to how the people should supervise? It comes from within, that. I am not saying that the people that do not supervise are right but, having said that, the companies have a responsibility to the community. They are asking for a licence; they are asking for a licence to make money and to entertain and they use the excuse that we need it and of course we need it but not without a total lack of responsibility toward the community. That has to be a major input by any company and in particular, I would say, by any company that deals in gambling and drink because, after all, the commissioners, you set them up to take care of the restrictions and then you totally disregarded them, so I have to tell you, gentlemen, you deserve what you get today.
Mr. Maddrell: Your Excellency, I had to come to my feet after the last speaker's remarks. The regulations are nothing to do with the company. The regulations are our regulations. It is up to us to see the regulations are put into force. If that company does not abide by those regulations, we are the people who should see they are there. So I do not blame the company for the regulations. They are ours.
Mrs. Hanson: Your Excellency, I was for quite a few years a member of the old Gaming Board of Control and I am very, very well aware of the problems that you now have and I support these regulations, but there is just one thing that I am very worried about and that is the policing of it. Who is going to enforce it? Now as we all are aware, Your Excellency, young girls particularly of 13 and 14 look very mature. Unless you know the actual young person and you have knowledge of their age you could say that they were 17 or 18 on some occasions, and a year or two ago when I was a member of the Gaming Board I used to pay visits in the evening, unannounced, to the Casino. On two occasions I was coming through and I waited till after 11 o'clock and there was a queue of people there waiting to sign the forms to go in and to my knowledge there were three young people on both occasions who were only about 14. When they saw me, because they knew me, they vanished. I just turned my head and they had gone. They were probably waiting until I had got out of the building, I do not know. It is very difficult to police. Now how are you going to do it? Are the young
Casino (Amendment) Regulations 1987 — Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 T207 people going to be stopped and saying 'How old are you?'. Because there was another occasion that happened in Whispers when I was there that a lady, a young person went to the bar to get a drink and the bar man said 'I am not going to serve you. How old are you? You are only 16' and she actually was 21 and she took great exception and was very abusive indeed to the bar man. Now it is the policing. How is it going to be done? I am all for it. How are you going to do it?
Mr. Kneale: Your Excellency, Tynwald not only made the mistake in approving the regulations in March, they made the mistake in giving this company the casino licence, and I am sure that whoever is on the Gaming Board Commission is going to have quite a job controlling this establishment in the next few years. People have talked about parental control and that we should know where the children are. Well, maybe those people that are talking like this, their children have not got to the age where they are telling the parents what is going to happen and a lot of the children that are going to the Casino are going there 13, 14, 15, 16 individually. We should know these youngsters because I certainly know some of them that are going there; some of them are very close to myself, but when they go out with a gang of youngsters, maybe in a club, and they get going to these places and it is not long before they are wanting to have a try when the temptation is offered. Now this Court must accept responsibilities because we have provided the legislation that put a lot of these temptations in their way and when we have got the opportunity for control by regulations, having seen the situation, reference has been made to the police, the C.I.D. go in and why are they not doing something. I would remind you that the police opposed the Lido getting the licence at all this year and I say it is the police have also been co-operating with the Board of Education because we have been able to put forward cases that have taken place, there is no doubt about the situation because there have been youngsters involved in drunken brawls over there and have actually been reported for this here and have been seen by the police about these matters. So the question that happens is when the police are saying they have not got the chance of control because the establishment is so large, that they are all known and the minute that one of them puts his foot on the premises the word goes round the Lido and any drink that is about is passed on to somebody else who is of age or is put under cover pretty quickly.
Mr. Kermode: They should change their image.
Mr. Kneale: Yes, the people that condone what is going on over there or close their eyes to it want to wake up to the reality of the situation. We talk about drugs and drug control. The worst drug and the most dangerous drug that is available is alcohol (Mr. Cretney: Hear, hear.) and if that is taken in excess when it is so easily available and legally available in so many ways, that is our big worry and every one of us in this Court should be aware of these problems and should be concerned about the effect it is having on our young people, and I accept this as better than the situation that we have at the moment, but I hope that the Gaming Board Control Commissioners will have another look at it and see whether they should not by right be enforcing and bringing forward more stringent regulations to deal with this here what I call is a cancer to the Island.
Casino (Amendment) Regulations 1987 — Approved T208 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987
Mr. Karran: The only thing that I would like to say, Your Excellency, is something that the hon. member for South Douglas said about the idea of 18-year- olds and I think there is a very valid point in that in the fact that where premises want to have late-night drinking I do not see any objection of there being an understanding that no-one under 18 is allowed on the premises. But I do think that this hon. Court would be quite wrong in saying that the problem of the under-age drinking is purely a problem of everybody, all youngsters turning up at the Casino. There are a lot of pubs in this Island and what we need to do is to look at the whole picture as far as youngsters drinking, and I mean the likes of the possibility of making it an offence for youngsters even to be seen in the street drinking alcohol would be maybe a move to start the ball rolling, and I hope that the Gaming Board Commission will look at the thing and maybe consider that not only their premises are under their jurisdiction but they should be making a recommendation that all establishments that are given the opportunity of late-night drinking, that it is part of the condition of the licence that no-one under 18 is allowed in the premises.
Dr. Orme: Your Excellency, I rise to ask a question of the proposer which I hope he will be able to answer in the reply. There has been operating during the summertime a dry bar at the Lido on Friday nights, I gather, which has been enjoyed by visitors and residents alike and the claims are that it has managed to satisfy as many as 500 customers. I would be most concerned if the Gaming Commission were not prepared to allow within their special circumstances they mentioned the provision that this dry bar will be able to continue again next summer if possible, certainly in the Lido if not in any of the other lists that they mention where they were not prepared to allow anyone below 15.
The President: Your Excellency, according to the regulations and according to what the mover, Mr. Gelling, states the regulations will permit a young person of 15 to enter the licensed premises. It states in the other way that anyone under 15 may not do that, but from 15, and then he went on to say that they were rather adamant that the people should have the same licensing hours as other licensed premises. My question is, what about the coming home time, the coming out time? This would permit a young person to enter; now there are other regulations that will permit a young person from drinking, I take it, or surely this would not allow a person to enter at 15 and go to the bar for intoxicating liquor. I am asking that@ question. I am also asking how long would that young person be allowed to stay in the place? You did mention that in certain parts they were allowed to stay until half- past four and a further half-hour to empty the glass up to five o'clock. I would be, frankly, opposed to young people having those kind of hours and I am rather inclined to support the suggestion put forward by the member for Douglas South, Mr. Cretney, that we should not allow people to go into these kind of premises under the age of 18. I am inclined to support his kind of suggestion and if the only way we can approve of that might well mean the non-passing of these regulations in order to give opportunity for some amendment to be made to them. But here we are giving licence to young people to go in, and I am not sure whether they can drink as soon as they go in; that is not quite clear, and I am not sure whether they can stay till five o'clock in the morning. But I think if we allow that it would
Casino (Amendment) Regulations 1987 — Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 T209
be rather disgraceful in my view that we should do that, and I would like the answers to these questions and I think personally I would prefer these referred back so that some of these positions can be clarified.
Mrs. Hannan: Your Excellency, I rise to support the 18 year restriction, no- one under the age of 18 should be allowed in these premises. Alcohol is one of the dangers of our society and I think to allow it to be used by young people and abused by young people is a problem. It is a problem of parental responsibility, but out • of sight, out of mind, I think, when these young people go out and they are with their friends, they are with their gang and if one is doing it it is peer pressure, whether it is cigarettes or alcohol or if drugs are available, and as I am on the Drug Abuse Committee I think that this should be a start. I will be supporting these regulations today but I do hope that the Gaming Commissioners will go ahead and bring back further regulations to restrict the age to over 18 where alcohol is on sale on the premises. Where there is no alcohol on sale on the premises, then I think younger people can be admitted. The problem of policing — the police are aware of the problem of allowing under- age people to go on the premises because if a policeman approaches young people they move the glass, as has been said, the glass literally moves down the counter, they have not got a glass in front of them, they cannot be prosecuted, and as long as they know it is a policeman they usually almost always get away with it. So I would urge the Gaming Commissioners to bring back further regulations next month raising the age to 18.
The Speaker: Your Excellency, I was pleased to second this particular resolution because I was pleased that the mover emphasised the need to control access of young persons to licensed areas of this particular operation. Moreover I believe he was right to indicate the growing addiction to alcohol on the part of teenagers and associate it with the need, if you like, to have this effective control and we went on to a stage, not on the part of the mover but of other members, to indicate that parental responsibility came into the picture. Undoubtedly it does, Your Excellency, but I think the hon. member for Douglas West, Mr. Kneale, was right when he indicated that parental responsibility on occasion needs fortifying by the law, because who can enforce parental responsibility on many of the teenagers from 13 upwards? Extremely difficult. So there has to be some measure of support from the law as well and I believe that the commissioners here have endeavoured to provide a realistic approach. I go along with those who would contend that if it is found difficult to enforce this particular regulation as it is framed with the age of 15, then I would ask the commissioners to keep an eye on it and, if necessary, come back to this Court with a higher age level in mind. But, Your Excellency, I think it would be wrong to put all responsibility on the commissioners for the alcohol consumption of teenagers. The hon. member for Middle put his finger on it: it is increasing throughout the Island, and there is a need here, I believe, for a drive on the part of Government. We accept sponsorship readily from the breweries and all the publicans. This is the sort of thing Government must have a look at in the future. Is it to in fact accept the fact that alcohol intake is a drug or is it to put up the barriers and say 'So far as Government goes, we
Casino (Amendment) Regulations 1987 — Approved T210 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 do not want anything to do with it'? This is a stance not for the commissioners but indeed for Government and I believe this measure is realistic. I believe that a degree of control in a very popular centre must be effected and I support the resolution.
Mr. Gilbey: Your Excellency, the Chief Minister is quite right in emphasising the question of parental responsibility and I am sure we were all glad to hear him say it. But I think Mr. Speaker and others were also right to say that we should not allow temptation to be unnecessarily put in young people's way, and I was particularly interested and impressed that the two youngest members of this hon. Court both supported an age limit of 18. In addition various other very responsible members, including two of our lady members, supported an older age limit and it was also suggested that this should apply to all late-night drinking by young people, that there should be a higher age limit. Now I would not personally want to delay the implementation of these regulations and therefore would not be inclined to see a reference back but I wonder instead whether the Chief Minister would be prepared to arrange for the whole matter of the drinking ages for young people, particularly late at night, to be looked at and not only at the Casino but everywhere else because, from what has been said, it is obviously a matter of considerable importance which does concern not only the older members of this hon. Court but, as I have said, some of those who are closest to the ages of the people affected, and in view of that I really do feel that it should be looked into in the greatest detail and a Government policy brought out and I would hope that the Chief Minister or the Council of Ministers would agree to do this, because it seems to me that if you are particularly looking at a wider range than just the Casino you can hardly, in fairness, give this extra work to the Gaming Commissioners, and I would very much hope that that would be done.
Mr. Brown: Your Excellency, I support the regulations in front of us and I am really just getting up to say a few points which I think are quite pertinent to this, and I would suggest that the Palace Group are in no different position than any other publican in the Isle of Man as regards their responsibility and we make laws which say quite clearly, if this is passed and I am sure it will be, they shall not permit certain things to happen when persons are under a certain age. So we then have done that side of it. It then has to be policed; no matter how difficult, that has to be done, and if there is a problem and the police act, then the Palace directors or whoever under the regulations will be guilty of an offence, and rightly so should be dealt with, and I would suggest that if it is a continuing problem I would have no hesitation whatsoever in supporting the commissioners in withdrawing the licence (A Member: Hear, hear.) from the Palace Group, none whatsoever, if they were doing that. I would give them my fullest support and we should never be afraid of doing that because, unlike a public house where there are lots of them and a publican can lose his licence, the Palace is one and therefore if we need to do that this Government should not be afraid to do that with the recommendation from the commissioners, as long as the commissioners have been fair across the board to ensure that whatever the case is, is a sound one. So I would just fire that warning shot as far as I am concerned and I am sure other members feel the same. The other thing we have to ask is why young people are going to the Casino.
Casino (Amendment) Regulations 1987 — Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 T211
Part of that is because there is nowhere else to go; it is limited wherever else they go; the type of entertainment is not available anywhere else and therefore that in itself has an attraction and really, while I accept the parental control and I accept what the hon. member for the Department of Education, the minister, sorry, has said about the difficulties parents have with children of that age, and more so now • when everybody brings their children up to be more responsible in their own right, to act in their own right and not be scared to question, they then of course do that with their own parents to some degree. But that should not take away the parental control. But on top of that a child could go into the Palace Casino or the Lido or into a pub at eight o'clock and walk out of the door at ten o'clock palatic. So what I am saying really is we are specifying the law; then it needs the back-up of the police; action has to be taken if it is necessary, and I hope it would be, and if in this case because of its special circumstances the law is being abused, then instead of only just increasing it we should fire very strong warning shots across the bow of the Palace Group, and if necessary I would have no hesitation, if it ever came to it, in withdrawing the licence.
Mr. Corrin: Your Excellency, I would support this measure as it would appear an interim measure now in view of the concerns expressed today, but there are one or two things I think we could look at for the future. I would support the hon. member Mr. Gilbey's suggestion that perhaps the Chief Minister could take on board and bring some views forward in the near future. But I think this will be, indeed is being looked at by the Drug Abuse Committee and 1 think we have not finished that evidence yet, obviously, but this is going to be an area of concern. So perhaps it will be useful when the report does come forward, useful for members in that area. As far as policing is concerned, well we do have a law enforcement agency and in this Court we should not be debating whether a law, if it is legitimately passed, is enforced or not. It is for the police to do it. Now if the police say they cannot do it because they have not got enough manpower, then they should put forward their representations on that basis. Now a couple of weeks ago, I think it was on Newsnight, there was a story whereby, I think it was the county of Sussex, they were reporting a reduction in alcohol-related crimes or whatever and they put it down to the new system of policing where they had a sergeant and two constables visiting, walking, going in through one door in a public house, saying good evening and out the other, and they presented this as if they had found something new. To older members I am sure this used to be a tradition in the Isle of Man where you had a dirty great sergeant with big stripes and his stick and he wandered through with 'Good evening' Good evening', but what an air of authority and their presence lingered for about two hours afterwards —
Mr. Delaney: Curfew!
Mr. Corrin: — and quite frequently they came back the other way and it is surprising the effect. Now all I am saying is that perhaps with better policing we could restore some of what we feel has been lost in the area of prevention. But it is a worry. 1 wonder why it is 15 years. Is it an old thing from the past
Casino (Amendment) Regulations 1987 — Approved T212 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 because the school leaving age was that? I do not know why it is 15. Perhaps at a minimum it should be 16 now that we have the school leaving age at 16, I do not know. It would be interesting to find out. But I would take on board perhaps Mr. Gilbey's suggestion that we go ahead with this this evening and the Chief Minister will then come back to this hon. Court in the near future.
Mr. Lowey: Your Excellency, my word it does this old teetotaller good to listen to the Court in this sort of a mood, I can assure you. But having said that, I then have the unfortunate task of saying to you that, hon. Tynwald members, you have already liberalised and extended the drinking hours that are available to young people by your own actions in the last session and every session for the last three or four years we have been extending the drinking availability time. However, Your Excellency, and that is a fact. (Interruption) You did, you extended it to two o'clock, special licence, you know, and the 15-year-olds are allowed to go in. Now let us be men and women of the world. You do not say `go in and you must not drink'. Now that is really putting temptation in the way and I know it is an offence to serve and that is really what the hon. member is saying, but in reality we know that we are extending the drinking hours. Now the reality is of course in the U.K., and the argument has already been used very effectively, they are liberalising their drinking habits and we will be told that we should liberalise ours. Now having said that, we are not here discussing the drinking hours. What we are discussing is the regulations for the Casino. Now I tend to agree with most people that I would favour an 18-year limit. However, the Gaming Commissioners have come forward with 15-year-olds at this particular time and I am going to welcome that. But I would actually say and again support the hon. member for Castletown, the Casino licence is issued annually. If they do not comply with the regulations or break the rules, then that licence can be withdrawn. Now again I believe that we have to act responsibly, individually and collectively, and the company has got to act responsibly, otherwise it is not fit to run the Casino and all the privileges that go with it and I think that is quite clear, that is the way, and it may be equally uncomfortable if ever that did happen, to say `No'; we will go through the trauma again. But I think if we are responsible and we are responsible for the general well-being of the people, all people of the Isle of Man, then I think we have a particular interest in the protection of young people. Can I come to policing? There are no ifs and buts or shadows on this. The policing of licensed premises is the job of the police and can I equally say to you that as a matter of public record at the annual licensing sessions the police have to report how many visits they made to licensed premises in the year under review and it is matter of public record. Now can I say to you that this particular complex for various reasons — you all know it and it has already been illustrated — is very difficult to police; we know that. I am obviously not going to get up on my feet here and give you operational secrets or how the police are doing or will do in the future.
Mr. Kermode: I will tell you.
Mr. Lowey: Can I tell you and I must say that my friend from East Douglas, Mr. Kermode said that he has been in when he has seen the C.I.D. It is not the
Casino (Amendment) Regulations 1987 — Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 T213 practice of the police to use C.I.D. officers to what I would call check on licensed premises. If they were there I am quite sure they were doing what their initials suggest: criminal investigation. However, I take the point on board and I am trying to say to this Court that policing is the responsibility of the police. They are, I can assure you, fully aware of it and, as Mr. Kneale pointed out, they did object to the licences, they have exercised their right to do just that and, as I say, it is a matter of public record, the number of visits they make to licensed premises in a year. But on the Casino (Amendment) Regulations I believe that the commissioners, the present commissioners and past have carried out their duties and I believe this is a step in the right direction. If they do not comply with them or if they find again they are being abused, then I have no doubt at all the commissioners' duty is to come back with further amended regulations to tighten it up or extend the age and I think, like most people in this Court, that we would not have been averse to 18.
Mr. Delaney: Your Excellency, it must be the hour of the night. I am sure it is, members, because I cannot believe this. I know that we have got this order and rightly so, but according to what I have heard today in this Court we have rubbish up to here on Douglas beach and we have got alcoholic drunks 13 and 14-year-olds all wandering round Douglas promenade, because that is the impression that is coming out. I do not see these young people to that amount. I know there are problems down in that area and they are going to sort it out. But every school child is not a drunk or chasing drugs or sex. That is an idea that comes from us and the media. Are we having it now today that we have got so many problems in the Isle of Man can control, are we going to blame that on the new residents? Maybe that is the next thing that is going to come out, blame that on the new residents. We always have had problems. I am not that old that I cannot remember myself, and it is still there today, the property, trying to get somebody, an older lad to try and get a bottle of white wine from Yates' Wine Lodge to experiment with. I am not ashamed to say that. Live in the real world! The situation is that if you want to really go the way you are going and talking here tonight, when you read the Hansard, go out and stop the off-sales licences, stop them. I mean to say, why the Casino, why the pubs? You can go up to nine o'clock of a night there and you can buy the drink all you want. Who is checking them to see if they are 15 or 16 or 17 or 18? Who is doing that? This is the situation we have got, the real world, and as far as I am concerned the organisation we have given the responsibility to and it was spelt out, as has been said, exactly where t,we were going when that licence review came through here. I do not condone it. I am against it. But let us not say that all the Manx children are in that sort of moral danger or are actually partaking of this particular vice that we are all talking about. I believe a lot of them have a lot of common sense, in fact more commonsense than some of the speeches I hear in this particular place sometimes and I honestly believe, Your Excellency, that the media and the members of this Court have a responsibility to make sure that the Manx youth, the people we are sending away to games and all the rest of it, these people we stand up and support those. All right, we condemn the few that are letting the side down, but we support the majority and they are not all drunks and drug abusers and that is the message that is coming out at this time of night in this Court. Let the people get on with it that we have given the job to. If there is a need
Casino (Amendment) Regulations 1987 — Approved T214 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 to tighten up again, as has been said, we will do it. But do not blame the young people. We are supposed to be their guardians in one shape or another and all we are doing here is blaming them for the problem and the people we give licences to supply the drink. Let us control the latter, not the former first of all, and all this idea that somehow we are going to have a Utopia of non-drinking. I heard about Sussex; they have reduced alcoholism. I can tell you in Scotland they reduced it by nearly 30 per cent. by opening, by extending the hours in pubs. Does that prove anything? Not as far as the Isle of Man is concerned, it does not. (Interruption) It does not prove a thing. It is the society in which you live and how it conducts itself will solve these sorts of problems, and how they are governed, but you will not govern them by pretending we can bring back prohibition because that is the sort to finish up with 18, 19, 35. Do you have to be a pensioner before you get a drink? It will solve all the problems.
Mr. Kermode: No, you do not.
Mr. Delaney: The situation is, Your Excellency — I am bringing a bit of levity to it because I think it is needed. You are all getting too serious on this. We always had a problem; we always will have a problem. But as long as the police do their job, as long as the licensing courts do their job and the politicians do their job it will be kept under control.
Mr. Karran: Anybody want a pint?
The Governor: Mr. Gelling to reply.
Mr. Gelling: Your Excellency, I am delighted for the support that you have given the commissioners in what is a very difficult job and I can assure those that have expressed concern that we will not go overboard; we will seek the Palace Company's opinions on everything before we implement them, and I would like to say that in actual fact the Palace have kept their word in as much as the new image that they are putting forward and the new plans for their future, we on the commission are highly delighted with the way in which they are going to improve the hotel and, no doubt, there will be further regulations when that happens because the movement of Whispers and the actual plans of the place will mean that we will have to change these things. Now if I could take very quickly, Your Excellency, it would appear that there is strong feeling that the age should be increased to 18. Now in actual fact the original draft was 18, but on views taken and we took everything into consideration, we came down on the age of 15 to put it into line with other licensed premises and we had particularly in mind Summerland because we feel it is a complex, it is an entertainment centre and we did not want to appear to be unfair, and that is where the age of 15 came from, was the actual fact that it is in line with Summerland. Mr. Kermode brought up policing and of course Mr. Lowey has told him the difficulties, but it is up to the police to police the place under our regulations. Our inspectors are there all the time. You see, the police visit when they do at regular intervals but our inspectors are on the premises all the time, so therefore they are doing their job, they are controlling, they are watching what is going on.
Casino (Amendment) Regulations 1987 — Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 T215
Again, as I come back to the Chief Minister, we will always act in a reasonable way and we do agree that they are different, they are an entertainment complex, which is very important to us as a holiday island. Parents should be responsible — Mrs. Delaney. We know this but we have to legislate and put regulations for those who are not responsible, unfortunately. Mr. Kneale — as he states, children please themselves nowadays so perhaps this is why we have to make these regulations. Dr. Orme — dry bar. There is one dry bar and there are six bars for liquor. That dry bar, I would say, we would probably like to see encouraged to possibly six dry bars and one liquor but this perhaps may be something for the future. Mr. President of the Council. At 15 years — I have explained why we picked that age of 15 years — they cannot drink and it is four a.m. not five and the age, as I stated, is the same as licensed premises. I think generally, Your Excellency, we have been given support for what we have before you today. We have taken on board everything that has been said. We will be looking at it all the time and I hope, well I could say without doubt that you will support this this evening and the commissioners will continue to do their job for this hon. House. (Members: Hear, hear.) I so move.
The Governor: 1 submit to you, hon. members, the motion standing in the name of Mr. Gelling at item 30 on the main Agenda Paper. Will hon. members in favour say aye; those against say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.
MERCHANT SHIPPING (CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS AND THEIR LUGGAGE BY SEA) (APPLICATION) ORDER 1987 — APPROVED
The Governor: Item 31, Merchant Shipping. I call on the Minister for Highways, Ports and Properties to move.
Mr. Catlin: Your Excellency, I beg to move:
That the Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea) (Application) Order 1987, made by the Department of Highways, Ports and Properties in exercise of powers conferred by Section 5 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1985 after consultation with the Secretary of State, be and the same is hereby approved.
Your Excellency, the application order which is the subject of this resolution was made by the Department on 16th September. The application order, like other application orders, has to be read with the U.K. statutory instrument it seeks to apply into the law of the Isle of Man. In this case the U.K. instrument so applied is Statutory Instrument 197 under 670, the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea (Domestic Carriage) Order 1987. A copy of that statutory instrument in the form by which it will apply in the Isle of Man is attached to the explanatory memorandum which has been distributed to members. The effect of applying the domestic carriage order into Manx law is to ensure
Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea) (Application) Order 1987 — Approved T216 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 that the provisions of the Athens Convention relating to the carriage of passengers and their luggage by sea shall apply to voyages within the British Islands in Manx law as it already applies in U.K. law. The order applies to contracts for the carriage of passengers or of passengers and their luggage by sea where such contracts are in relation to voyages for which the places of departure and destination are in the area consisting of the U.K., Isle of Man and Channel Islands and where there is no intermediate port of call. The order, just like the existing U.K. order, therefore applies to the operations of the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company Limited. That company is already subject to provisions of the U.K. order and the Athens Convention in terms of U.K. law and the present order simply brings Manx law into line so that the company and any other companies engaged in passenger carrying to and from the Island and the U.K. are subject to the same provisions in both Manx and U.K. law as regards contracts of carriage for passengers and their luggage. Now there is quite a lot more in my brief, Your Excellency, but I would like to move at this stage the regulations.
Mr. Barton: I second, your Excellency.
The Governor: Thank you very much, Mr. Barton.
The Speaker: Your Excellency, there are one or two questions I would like to ask about this order. It is based on a statutory instrument, the Merchant Shipping 1987 number 670 Order, which came into force on 30th April and was approved by the Queen in Council on 7th April 1987. What intrigues me, Your Excellency, is this statutory instrument presented to us an actual copy of the document that was approved by Her Majesty or has it been amended since? My question relates to the fact that if you look at the document which is in your possession you will find there are two sets of prints, one the authentic print of a statutory instrument, the other a typed-in version which follows on, and my question is really, is this actually the statutory instrument as approved by the Queen in Council? Going on from there, Your Excellency, I would like to ask the hon. minister for an explanation in relation to the convention. Now the Athens Convention is cited here and the Athens Convention, as such is indicated, provides a certain liability and it states in the memorandum explanation that the liability of the carrier to each passenger for death or injury is limited to an internationally agreed amount of £38,000. Now if it is internationally agreed how does it come about that Her Majesty's Government, who presumably have agreed to this international covenant, is in fact increasing its liability to £80,000 which I accept as scarcely being realistic but nevertheless to £80,000 and we are proposing to do the same. To me the two things contradict and I would like the hon. minister to explain both points if he could.
The Governor: Does any other hon. member wish to speak? Then I call on the minister to reply.
Mr. Catlin: Your Excellency, one of the things that I will say at the outset is that it is important for the Island on these matters to keep in line with international
Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea) (Application) Order 1987 — Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 T217
law and particularly with the U.K. Now the document is the U.K. order as it will apply in the Isle of Man if this order is approved. There is a limited liability, I am sorry, Your Excellency, it is a very complicated matter. I will have to ask if I can have this rewritten because I cannot read the writing. If you can just bear with me for one minute, it is a legal matter and I am only sorry that on a question such as this which is purely legal that I did not have prior warning of it and I would have been able to get the answer. But it is somewhat of an embarrassment when I have writing which I cannot read.
Mr. Delaney: We could have a written answer if the member is asking for it.
Mr. Catlin: Your Excellency, yes, if Mr. Speaker will accept I will see that there is a proper answer prepared and I will see that he gets it within a matter of a day or two.
The Speaker: Your Excellency, I am prepared to accept that, assuming that the Court will have the answers circulated to them.
Mr. Catlin: I will agree Your Excellency, to that.
The Governor: Is there anything else you want to say in your summing up, Mr. Catlin?
Mr. Catlin: Well, no, the questions that were raised, Your Excellency by Mr. Speaker are questions that I would like to have properly answered and it will give me the opportunity to see that they are circulated to the members.
The Governor: On the assumption that those questions are properly answered, hon. members, I put to you the motion standing at item 31 of the Agenda Paper in the name of the Minister for Highways, Ports and Properties. Will those in favour say aye; those against say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.
The written answers as subsequently circulated to members were as follows:
(1) The Copy of the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea (Domestic Carriage) Order 1987 (SI.1987/670 which was circulated to members with the Explanatory Memorandum is taken from the official copy issued by H.M.S.O. However, purely for ease of reference of members, the amendments provided for by the Application Order have been incorporated into the copy (e.g. "United Kingdom" in the original has been replaced by "Isle of Man"; Article 4 has been omitted because it does not relate to the Isle of Man; and the commencement provisions in respect of the Isle of Man are altered to coincide with the commencement date of the Order — thus necessitating the retyping of article 2). The amended copy of the U.K. Statutory Instrument is presented solely for the guidance of members to illustrate the effect of the Application Order. The Applied U.K. Statutory Instrument does not by itself stand as an enactment in the Isle of Man, and therefore it would not be appropriate to have presented an unamended version for
Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea) (Application) Order 1987 — Approved T218 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987
members. It has always been our practice to lodge such documents in the members' room but this U.K. Instrument was so short it was circulated to all members in this case. It is also a requirement of section 5(5) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1985 for the Department to prepare a text of the U.K. Legislation applied, by an Order under section 5 of that Act incorporating the amendments specified by the Application Order, and to supply copies of the text to persons requesting copies thereof.
(2) The Application Order does not itself introduce the increased limited liability provisions — this Order extends the Athens Convention Provisions (as set out in Schedule 3 to the Merchant Shipping Act 1979 of Parliament, as extended to the Island) to Domestic Carriage of Passengers etc., on Manx Passenger ships between the Island, the U.K. and the Channel Islands. The increased liability provisions are provided for in the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea (Manx Carriers) Order 1987 which was laid before the same sitting of Tynwald Court (cf page 4 of the Agenda), having been made by the Governor in Council. The £80,000 liability, borne by the carrier, is the maximum claim which a person may make against the carrier in cases of injury or death (to that person or his dependants). The Convention limit of £38,000 was increased to £80,000 in the United Kingdom for U.K. carriers as a result of the Zeebruggee ferry disaster. The Athens Convention provides for an increase in the limit in respect of carriage by a signatory's passenger ships and such an increase can only be applied to claims in respect of death or serious injury. The U.K. has taken the figure of £80,000 because it equates to the limit of £100,000 Special Drawing Rights provided for under the Warsaw Convention in respect of claims for injury or death sustained in a Civil Aviation disaster. The U.K. Government are pressing the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) to increase the basic Convention limit of £38,000 worldwide. Additionally in the case of a huge loss of life in a Marine disaster claims could be made in accordance with the provisions of the 1976 Convention on the Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims which sets a much higher limit calculated from the ships tonnage and could reach a maximum in certain cases of up to £20 Million (Department of Transport figures). The Isle of Man has now adopted this higher limit of £80,000 by virtue of the Order mentioned so that rights of claim by passengers in the event of an accident can be protected in the same way and to the same extent as those persons in the U.K. who are carried on U.K. passenger ships and who are unfortunate to suffer a serious accident at sea.
MERCHANT SHIPPING (CERTIFICATION OF DECK AND MARINE ENGINEER OFFICERS AND LICENSING OF MARINE ENGINE OPERATORS) REGULATIONS 1987 — APPROVED
The Governor: Item 32 by the same name. I call on the Minister for Highways, Ports and Properties to move.
Mr. Catlin: Your Excellency, I beg to move:
Merchant Shipping (Certification of Deck and Marine Engineer Officers and Licensing of Marine Engine Operators) Regulations 1987 — Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 T219
That the Merchant Shipping (Certification of Deck and Marine Engineer Officers and Licensing of Marine Engine Operators) Regulations 1987, made by the Department of Highways, Ports and Properties in exercise of powers conferred by Sections 1 and 2 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1985 and Section 63 of the Merchant Shipping (Masters and Seamen) Act 1979 after consultation with the Secretary of State and other persons considered by the department to be affected by the regulations, be and the same are hereby approved.
The Governor: Is that agreed?
It was agreed.
MAINTENANCE ORDERS (RECIPROCAL ENFORCEMENT) (HAGUE CONVENTION COUNTRIES) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 1987 - APPROVED
The Governor: Item 33, Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1978.
Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, I beg to move:
That the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement)(Hague Convention Countries)(Amendment) Order 1987, made by His Excellency the Lieutenant-Governor acting on the advice and with the same concurrence of Executive Council on 4th September 1987, be and the same is hereby approved.
The Governor: Is that agreed?
It was agreed.
PROCEDURAL
The Governor: Item 34, Town and Country Planning Act. Hon. members, I would just like to take your advice. It is in accordance with Standing Orders that ▪ if we go beyond six o'clock I should consult you about our business. I am bound to say that with something like eight more items I think it is, six more items, we are probably not going to finish within a reasonable time tonight and I have consulted • with my Presiding Officers and the likely time for us to meet again, bearing in mind the work which is piling up for the Keys and for the Council, is Tuesday afternoon of next week and only the afternoon would be available. So I think we have a straight choice: to go on for another half to three-quarters of an hour now and then finish on Tuesday afternoon, or to stop now with no assurance that we get everything done on Tuesday afternoon.
Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) (Hague Convention Countries) (Amendment) Order 1987 — Approved Procedural T220 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987
The Speaker: Your Excellency, could we perhaps deal with the other items on the Agenda, leaving the planning item which is the matter of greatest concern to hon. members, to be dealt with without interruption on Tuesday afternoon next?
The Governor: We can try that. Any other hon. members wish to speak?
Mr. Gilbey: Your Excellency, I agree with what Mr. Speaker said but could we also leave the debate on Sellafield there is going to be one?
The Governor: Well quite. That is the problem. That is the problem; there are at least three here. Maybe we could try to finish off, if you would allow me to go through the Agenda in that way, maybe we could try to finish off those that do not call for debate.
Dr. Orme: Your Excellency, may I ask why we cannot meet on Wednesday?
The Governor: There are a number of reasons that it seems to the Presiding Officers why we cannot meet on Wednesday, it not being normal for us to meet on Wednesday on overflow day. It is a convention, by no means absolute, that when we overflow we overflow into Tuesday.
Dr. Orme: It would leave space for the House of Keys business and an adequate day to finish this business.
The Governor: It would, Dr. Orme, but there are a large number of commitments represented within this room — board meetings, important visitors to the Island and so on — which make it difficult. Can I try, hon. members, to see how many of these items we can finish, bearing in mind that 35 follows on naturally from 34, so I do not think we can get rid of 35. Thirty-six?
The Speaker: Frankly, Your Excellency, I would like simply to endorse it and support it.
Dr. Orme: I would want it to be put off for another day.
The Governor: Right.
EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEE OF EXECUTIVE COUNCIL - SIXTH INTERIM REPORT RECEIVED
The Governor: Item 37, Employment. I call on the Chairman of the Employment Committee of Executive Council to• move.
Mr. Brown: Your Excellency, I beg to move:
Employment Committee of Executive Council — Sixth Interim Report Received TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 T221
That the Sixth Interim Report of the Employment Committee of Executive Council be received and the recommendations contained therein adopted.
The Governor: Is that agreed?
It was agreed.
FORCES HELP SOCIETY AND LORD ROBERTS WORKSHOPS - MEMBER APPOINTED
The Governor: Item 38, Isle of Man Local War Pensions Committee. Hon. members, we have to appoint one member to represent the Forces Help Society and Lord Roberts workshops for the remainder of the term ending on 27th January 1989, in the place of the late Mr. A. Bailey. The Forces Help Society and Lord Roberts Workshops have recommended Mr. J.A. Brindle of Ballakew, Ballagorry Drive, Maughold. Is that agreed?
It was agreed.
SOLDIERS', SAILORS' AND AIRMEN'S FAMILIES ASSOCIATION - MEMBER APPOINTED
The Governor: Item 39, Isle of Man Local War Pensions Committee. Hon. members, we have to appoint one member to represent the Soldiers', Sailors', and Airmen's Families Association for the remainder of the term ending on 27th January 1989, in the place of Mrs. A. M. Keers. The Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmens' Families Association have recommended Brigadier Norman Butler. Is that agreed?
It was agreed.
So that leaves us with 34,35, and 36. We have a good 45 minutes left in us, I think.
Mr. Corrin: Your Excellency, I may be out of order again technically, but have members fully understood the consequences of item 37?
The Governor: Well, members agreed that it should be passed so I think we must assume that the answer to that is 'yes'. Hon. members, I am sorry to be hesitant about this; it is always difficult. Shall we take item 34?
It was agreed.
Forces Help Society and Lord Roberts Workshop — Member Appointed Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmen's Families Association — Member Appointed T222 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987
ISLE OF MAN PLANNING SCHEME (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 1987 — DEBATE COMMENCED
The Governor: Item 34, Town and Country Planning Act 1934. The Minister for Local Government and the Environment to move.
Mr. Delaney: Your Excellency, I beg to move:
That the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) (Amendment) Order 1987, made by the Department of Local Government and the Environment on 2nd October 1987, be and the same is hereby approved.
I hope that hon. members have received a copy of an explanatory memorandum prepared by my department which sets out the basic changes included in the proposed order. Most of these, I believe, Your Excellency, are non-contentious and I do not propose to go through them all in detail. Suffice to say that they include a revised constitution of the Planning Committee, recognising the reduced political representation on the department and the requirement for a quorum of three on the Planning Committee; a simplified method of application which may vary according to the extent and detail of a planning application; revised provision necessary for application by the department which will now be determined by the Governor in Council following consideration by an inspector; the provision for minor variations to the planning approvals where all parties are, following the appropriate consultations, satisfied with the variations; an extension to these areas on the Development Plan where trees are deemed to be protected; and an increase in the maximum penalty on summary conviction of £2,000. The main changes contained in the order, however, are in the review and appeal stages and it is those changes I want to concentrate on, Your Excellency. For review the department has tried to provide a simplified, streamlined process that will not unduly delay applications but at the same time will protect the interests of those people directly affected by development, and may I emphasise here that every man, woman and child and those children yet unborn have an interest in what happens to the environment and the planning of an island community. The new provisions should help all parties by shortening the period between the initial decision on a planning application and a review decision. At the same time they make the system much less bureaucratic for those members of the public who want to object to a proposed development by cutting down on the work the individual has to do to ensure his objections are heard and placing the responsibility on the department to ensure that the interested parties are involved. The department is also seeking to considerably increase the involvement of local authorities in the planning process. When we talked to local authorities about the provisions of the order, and despite certain people trying to say that we were not going to consult local authorities; we did talk to all of them about the order, some authorities expressed rightly the view that they would like to have an automatic right to attend a review or appeal hearing on an application in their area even if they had not submitted views at the initial stage. That, hon. members, I believe is something that has been denied to them in the past wrongly. I believe local authorities, as long as we have 25 local authorities, should have some say in what
Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) (Amendment) Order 1987 - Debate Commenced TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 _ T223
happens in their own area. At the moment in time they are no better off than anybody else, they are purely a part of the process. The thinking behind this was that the commissioners might feel in the first instance that a plan was unobjectionable. Only at a later stage might it have become apparent that there was a problem with the development. My department has accepted this request from local authorities. In fact we have gone one step further in giving local authorities (1) an automatic right of review and appeal on any application within its area even if they have not submitted an • initial view. That is one major change. So we have gone even further in giving local authorities than what they originally asked for. It is our proposed changes in the appeal procedure, of course, which seem to have attracted the most comment. Let me make it quite clear that this procedure, on which the remaining provisions of the order hang, is a direct result of the new ministerial approach to Government. It responds to the requirements for the new department and under the new Departments Act the minister of each department to take direct responsibility for clearly defined aspects of Government policy. We believe that the requirement that the Government through its ministers should be seen to be publicly and politically accountable for its policies applies particularly to the planning processes and to the Government planning policies. My department firmly believes that if the planning policies of this department, as defined by the 1982 Planning Scheme Order, are to be enforced, it is surely right and proper that the department charged with the responsibility by this hon. Court, by the people of the Isle of Man, if they are charged with such responsibilities for making the policy should be responsible for ensuring that it is carried out and this must include a responsibility for the final decision, as it is the final decision and it is the policy. It is always the final decision that is the final act that makes the policy, which in the case of planning applications mean that appeal stage. The provisions of the order dictate that the minister will now be accountable for the department's policies, not only at the ballot box but also to Executive Council and you, the members of Tynwald. In future, should the planning policy of this Government be deemed to be defective in any form, Tynwald Court will have the immediate recourse to correct such deficiencies by removing the offending minister, in the case of planning: me or my successor. This provision is more immediate and therefore more effective than having to deal with three members who at this moment in time are appointed by the Governor in Council. Members will have noted that, with the provision of an independent inspector to conduct the appeal and to report and make recommendations to the minister quite independently, sufficient control has been imposed to ensure, and this is the item I want to stress, that the minister's decision are not subject to any improper • influence. During the course of the debates that have taken place, not initiated by me in the media but by other parties, certain accusations, hidden, have been made, in some cases possibly rightly, in relation to a minister's decision. At this moment • in time, Your Excellency, the same accusation could be made of the Planning Appeals Tribunal who are answerable to nobody but themselves. Under this new stage I am answerable to you, the elected members of the public, directly and indirectly, every way up, Your Excellency. Again the question of accountability has been uppermost in my mind and my colleagues' minds and Executive Council's mind in the formation of these provisions. Since there have been objections to the new appeals system,
Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) (Amendment) Order '1987 - Debate Commenced T224 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 however, it may be worth looking at what those objections are, as we understand them. Firstly, it is said that the new system will not be independent because it leaves the final decision with the minister, a politician, rather than have an independent tribunal but the present tribunal has two politicians on it — two of my hon. colleagues, members of this Court. Are they not politicians? But the present tribunal has two politicians I have said. As for the decision being left with the minister as one man, why not? I ask this of this hon. Court who have already been elected and after election formed the new ministerial policy. If the minister is the man who has to carry the can, and I at this moment have been given the job of carrying the can by you, for planning policies at the end of the day, in fact as I have pointed out, is it not right that I should have at least the say in what decisions on planning are made and the final outcome, as it those decisions, I believe, at this moment in time? If you were to ask 99 people out of 100 who understand anything about the Isle of Man Government and you ask them who is responsible for planning in the Isle of Man, 99 out of 100 would say the Local Government Board, that is a fact, and I ask any member who has not done it to try and do what I have done. I did not ask 100 but I asked 40 and of those 40-odd, that is for the 'don't knows', 99 per cent. said 'You are'. I am. That is great, isn't it? I am responsible for every mistake in planning. Firstly they said that the new system will not be independent and secondly it says also that, Your Excellency, all stages down the line it will not be independent. In fact at this moment in time it is not independent at all. It depends on nothing. It depends purely on the feelings of three people who in actual fact will never report back to you, will never tell you why they came to a decision and therefore the public you represent will never know why that decision was made, if they do not feel like telling you. Some authorities of course, notably Braddan Commissioners, have expressed their opposition to the proposals. But why are they objecting, Your Excellency? Are they saying that the system is unfair or unjust or not sufficiently independent, again independent? No, they are saying 'We do not want the minister deciding the appeals because the minister will follow the Government policy'. I would suggest, Your Excellency, the day I do not follow Government policy is the day I am no longer the minister and you put someone else in my place, and that goes for the people who succeed me as well because his job is to follow the Government policy under the new system. That is what they have said to us. They do not want an independent body or independent tribunal. They want an appeal system which will reverse the planning policies of Tynwald Court, the Government of the Isle of Man. That is the main objection where it hangs. They want to be some sort of secondary Government. That is the main objective at the moment, as we understand it and have read most of the things they have said and listened with interest to what they purport to say. Thirdly, it has been said that there is a public opposition to the proposal. I ask, Your Excellency and the members, who from? My department has not received one letter of objection from any member of the public, although the order has received wide publicity both in the Press and on the radio. Hon. members will appreciate that I and my department have nothing to gain by bringing forward anything that would give us extra political responsibility and
Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) (Amendment) Order 1987 - Debate Commenced TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 T225 we submit that it has been the lack of political responsibility in the past that members will see around this Island that has caused so many planning errors, because in the past, Your Excellency, the system works on we are not responsible. It is that faceless group of people who the public cannot identify with. But we are saying now, under this new system, we will carry the can the day we go out of here for all the mistakes that we are responsible for during our term of office. That is democratic. If anybody would like to point out who was responsible for some of the errors in planning in the last Government or the Government before that or the Government before that, they are not remembered, who they were. But under the new system the Manx people in years to come, if a mistake is made, will say, during my term of office, 'That was Dominic Delaney's fault; he made that decision, on advice but he made the decision' and I will carry the can for- it and the person that comes after me in years to come, he will carry the can for it. That is political responsibility, Your Excellency, and I believe and my colleagues believe and Executive Council believe that is how we should operate if we want to call ourselves a Government. I accept that as the Minister of Local Government and the Environment I must accept ultimate responsibility of planning policies and all I am asking on behalf of my colleagues and the Executive Council is that this hon. Court give us that responsibility through this means. There is nothing to stop, if it does not work, any member bringing forward a resolution to this Court to say that he objects and to put a case forward to you to change it. But unless we mature as a Government, using this method, been given to us at the ballot box and under the new rules of ministerial Government, there is no hope, there is no planning policy of the Isle of Man and, Your Excellency, that is probably the most precious asset we have, is the land on which we live and if we are to deny responsibility for ourselves we deny it for the people we represent. We are responsible to the people, all the people, and we cannot say that we can pass that responsibility onto somebody else, not for an island community, not for the land on which we actually reside. I beg to move, Your Excellency.
Mr. Gilbey: I beg to second and reserve my remarks.
Mr. Duggan: Your Excellency, there is an old saying, 'Two heads are better than one', but I personally feel, being an ex-member of the Planning Committee, that on many occasions, sir, there was a difference in the views of different members and I think to leave it to one member, the complete responsibility — I have nothing against Mr. Delaney, he is a fair enough chap — but often enough it would be Mr. Walker, maybe Mr. Bell or Mr. Brown, there would be three of us sitting there and often enough we would disagree and maybe if it came to the vote it would be 2-1. But I think, sir, you get a better balanced view altogether with the three members that used to sit there. That was on reviews and of course the appeal system is similar at present and I think, sir, it would be a very bad step and you would not get fairness and a balanced view if Mr. Delaney was to sit there by himself and be judge and jury. As for Mr. Delaney's statement, Your Excellency, saying there are no complaints. I have heard complaints on the radio myself and I know the commissioners disagree with him. We have got letters here, the Braddan Commissioners, the German Parish Commissioners, so the local authorities are not all that very happy, though you have met them, Mr. Delaney; they are not happy and I am not happy and I will
Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) (Amendment) Order 1987 - Debate Commenced T226 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 not support this move.
Mr. Barton: Your Excellency, when this order was first mooted earlier this year there was strong opposition immediately expressed by the outlined proposals and after discussion with the hon. minister, who was very helpful, by some of the members of this Court assurances were given that consideration would be given to the various concerns expressed by the local authorities and some members. But these assurances, I personally went back to the two local authorities and we went back to many local authorities who were prepared to consider the proposed changes. I will accept the old system is far from satisfactory and I should say it needs to be changed and updated and I congratulate the department on a start on this, the Local Government and the Environment, in proposing to tackle this very necessary change for an improved planning procedure. Regretfully I do not think they have delivered what they promised. The aims and objects are right, but the mechanics of the order are flawed. There was a reasonable acceptance for change from some authorities but in their discussions with some of the local authorities the department has not listened to some very sound advice, and there are parts of the order I just cannot support and the minister was quite correct — way back the Braddan Commissioners did in fact make such a stance, but I think even they have modified and even today, I think members have got this, they have said here that we are trying to follow the United Kingdom but in the United Kingdom the order, there is a separation between the initial and final decision. Now that does create a problem here and I accept this, but there is strong feeling on it. But, you see, the minister put his finger on one of the main concerns of most of us and that is in fact on page 7 of the order and I think when I discussed this with the minister he was most helpful and he took the point and I think it is worth my repeating what the Braddan Commissioners submitted to him because they were a very moderate, I think, body: 'The information now given concerning the appeal to the minister makes the appeal more acceptable to my commissioners than the scheme outlined originally in the local Press. However, we do feel it is essential that if the minister is intending to overturn everything against everything else, the minister is going to go against everyone, before he announces this decision' — and he has got to have some responsibility — 'he should on this occasion discuss it with Exco', and when I discussed with him he thought that was a reasonable point and I am a bit surprised that this has not come out in the order or, if not, I would like some firm assurances before this hon. Court today because I think it is a very fair point because I think this is one of the major concerns. There is certain detail which I think wants looking at because it means probably taking this order away. There are a lot of good things in this order and I think there should be some changes. But, you see, if you look on page 3 it is flawed again. There is a danger on page 3, 2(1) that we could finish up with one person dealing with the initial application and I think that is weak and I think we want to look at that. I think probably in practice they are intending two or three but when you look at the order you can actually do it with one. I think the other contentious item is page 5, 5(3), and I think when you look at this it really is a legal nightmare because we are talking about in paragraph 5 the default process deemed to be refused in the event of the Planning Committee coming to no decision. Now the danger with this, if you pass this, if it is abused and it
Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) (Amendment) Order 1987 - Debate Commenced TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 T227
could be abused, is contrary to public and Government interest, because paragraph 5 I do agree is supposed to speed up the process and the arrangements and it is supposed to be simpler for the applicant, and I probably will concede that no Planning Committee has ever put itself in a position of not determining an application, but under this new order it could and what if it did? There is no • safeguard. As I say, under the present regulations default in the fate of an application, it is deemed withdrawn but because of the removal of the Special Planning Committee procedure under the new regulations they have had to change • the wording 'deemed refused' and this in future could be too convenient and I am very worried about, this particular wording, and I think it is very interesting when you look at this one because various people have written in and I think it is a lovely reply in relation to this because in fact the Braddan Commissioners have said here `The department must acknowledge applications and give decisions and under no circumstances must they ignore an application.'. But under this section they can ignore it. In fact a nice reply from the planning authority is they see no reason why they should be required to notify the applicant that his application has not been dealt with or that it has been deemed refused. The onus, they say, must be on the applicant to ascertain from them what the position is. I think it is a rather arrogant reply, that, and I think this is what worries me. There is no safeguard, that in fact it puts everyone in a position — Government, department, individuals — almost to be afraid to go on holiday, it really is. Now if we take it a stage further and, as I say, there are supposed to be advances in the regulations which require the Planning Committee to write to the applicant to say the application has been deemed refused or heading that way, and in this section there is no obligation and yet further on in the regulation there is an obligation, so why make the difference? This is what I cannot understand, and later on in the regulations they have to notify the applicant. In this part, the important part of the Act they do not and I just cannot understand why the difference has been made. I think if we take it a stage further when you look at page 10, it says here that the Local Government and the Environment can vary conditions and terms of approval without having to consult interested parties. On many occasions it is because of these conditions imposed initially that local authorities and other persons agree to applications and, as I say, I cannot understand why that has been amended. I think a final important point on planning applications and planning applications under paragraph 4 being notified to the Press and objections not being taken into account if received before the date of publication of the notice and my first question is, well why not? If someone writes in beforehand and it is relevant why can it not be taken into account? Under this regulation they will not be taken into account because I take it further and I have got this from your department, it says here `Technically objections received prior to the objection of the applications are not objections because they would be prior to the existence of the application'. All right, it is semantics, it is true but why can they not be taken into account? Because in effect it goes a stage further and it not only applies to an indivdual, the commissioners, but it applies, hon. members, to all your departments. The Government, the L.G.B. may be aware that your department has got a planning application or an interest or a development coming off and they may be working together on this and be fully aware of this. But it says here very, very clearly that,
Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) (Amendment) Order 1987 - Debate Commenced T228 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 irrespective of this, if the department puts an objection in or in fact communicates before, and they probably have communicated with your department, it is totally ignored and cannot be accepted as an objection under this paragraph: 'Only such notices being received by a department after the notification will be accepted.'. I find it sheer bureaucracy and it is sad because I think there are a lot of good things in this order and I think, when you go through this detail, you say that all the local authorities, I think quite a lot of the sensible local authorities have submitted very good technical advice and the aims and objects are right, there should be an improvement because the present system is not good and I will accept that, minister, • and I do thank you for the courtesy of talking these things through to me. I feel, though there have been some good suggestions put forward, it would appear that from all quarters all those suggestions have not been listened to. (i) Mr. Cretney: Your Excellency, I rise to oppose the order before hon. members today on a number of grounds. Whilst accepting the concept of the ministerial system and the new set up since the November 1986 election, I cannot agree that the proposal to eliminate the existing planning appeal procedure and replace that with the minister after recommendations from an independent expert can possibly be equated, as it appears to have been by some, as similar to the situation which exists in the United Kingdom, and here 1 would make two points. The argument has been used by some that we should have a system that is equivalent to that in the United Kingdom and I would ask the hon. members, why? We are in the Isle of Man and in my opinion this is a superior place in many ways to the United Kingdom (Mrs. Hannan: Hear, hear.) and, secondly, in the United Kingdom the local authority makes the initial planning decision which may be referred to the Secretary of State in the case of an appeal. Here the local authorities have little input into planning matters, other than their general views and observations and when a new development plan is put into place, then they are consulted. The policy in planning is ultimately, rightly, Tynwald's decision but it is difficult to envisage how the proposed system can be anything but biased towards the support of the Planning Committee decisions, be they good or bad, when the person charged with the role of judge is instrumental in formulating the philosophy upon which the decisions are made. Therefore it is in my opinion essential that some form of independent appeal tribunal is maintained. If the proposal had been to involve the local authorities more in the initial planning (% decisions, then for referral to the department, the situation may have been different. However, I must make it clear that I am not seeking to protect my own position in relation to the appeals tribunal, in fact I would favour a system that had possibly a politician as chairman but he would be guided on the tribunal by a number of experts in planning matters who would also have voting powers. There is in my opinion no more delicate a position than that of being the final arbiter in planning matters, and I am sorry if I have to lower the tone of the debate in this hon. Court but I must do. I remember in the past before I was a member hearing accusations and innuendos about some members of Tynwald either receiving chairmanships or directorships of various local concerns for favours done and have taken no notice of such unsubstantiated claims. However I have to say that recently I was approached by a member of the general public who wished me to try and influence a planning appeal decision and offered me a substantial financial
Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) (Amendment) Order 1987 - Debate Commenced
TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 T229
inducement to do so. I must make it clear that the Chief Minister and the learned Attorney-General were informed immediately and arrangements were made for me to absent myself from the appeal. However, I am only one of three presently on the tribunal and who is to say, if this order goes through today some time in the future whoever may hold the position that my friend, the hon. member for East Douglas now holds may not be quite so honest as I am sure he is. Surely it is more difficult for someone with determination and money outside to corrupt three or more people than one. I believe we must retain the independent status of the appeal tribunal from the department which is at present acting as a local authority would elsewhere and at the end of the day the Chairman of the Planning Appeals Tribunal should be judged on his decisions, as the hon. member, the minister says, by the electorate which is why I suggest a political chairman. Those decisions are implementing Tynwald policy and we have all to face elections and justify our positions, not just the ministers, and on what the hon. member the minister for the Deparment of Local Government and the Environment said before, I would agree, I would suggest that if it is felt necessary the decisions of the Planning Appeals Tribunal should be translated and laid before Tynwald Court. I have no qualms and I think that would be quite correct and I think it is wrong in the past that people have made certain decisions and then nobody knows who to point the finger at who is responsible for that and I would agree with his suggestion that whoever makes the decisions, whether it is the Planning Appeals Tribunal ultimately or whether it is decided that it should be the minister, they should be accountable and I agree entirely with that. But I do suggest that I think that it is not the correct way forward in this instance for the ministerial system for the minister to be ultimately responsible on these matters. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Radcliffe: Your Excellency, I rise to oppose this resolution before the hon. Court and I would point out that I would have been opposing it whether I was a member of the Planning Appeals Tribunal or not. The hon. minister made a great play of the fact that there had been no response from the public despite the media attention to this particular item, but I do not think it would be too unfair to say that the general public would feel that representations to that department would be a total waste of time; the die was cast, they would feel, and it would be a total waste to write in because whatever they said would be disregarded. Members will have received a copy of a letter which the current Planning Appeals Tribunal sent to the Planning Committee and this was in response to a request for comments on the proposed amendments to the planning order, and I think it is worth saying that the points raised in that letter by the current tribunal are worth reiterating again today and, as my vice-chairman has pointed out, these points were not raised by the tribunal because they wished to retain their status and posts, but the points 4 raised were in the interests of the general public who, and we have all heard it, they at times expressed the opinion that Government departments are not as impartial in their deliberations as they could be. To those parties who go to appeal the tribunal as it is currently appointed and that is by the Governor in Council, the tribunal is seen to be the independent body totally divorced from the Planning Committee and therefore not prone to any
Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) (Amendment) Order 1987 - Debate Commenced T230 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 influence from that department in any decisions which the tribunal may make. The general public and indeed the professionals the professional people involved with planning applications feel that they get a very fair hearing from the tribunal whose members are, as I said, completely independent from the Planning Committee and where one has a new and fresh look at the various applications. At tribunal, and this goes for this tribunal and past tribunals, tribunals who are not afraid to reverse, on occasions, decisions made by the Planning Committee and I daresay, Your Excellency, that may have been all nails in the coffin, I do not know, and it is worth saying too, Your Excellency, that just as ministers can be removed from office, so can members of the Planning Appeals Tribunal. Under this proposed new system for planning appeals the general public and other parties will be dealing with someone who would be probably seen in their eyes as part of the department which has made the decisions at both initial and review stages on their particular planning application. It may be a stranger, it may be someone from well outside, but because the department is seen to be handling it the public will be suspicious. The plea has been made that this proposed new system will accord with the United Kingdom system for dealing with appeals, but this is not so. In the United Kingdom the initial consideration and decisions, as my vice-chairman, Mr. Cretney said, these are made by the local authorities. If an appeal is made only then does the Secretary of State come into it. The ministry is not involved at all in the initial decisions; they are well away from any local involvement, and we are talking about the United Kingdom where an appeal could well be from North-west England, North-east England and appealing to the ministry in London. In the Isle of Man this system, I do not think, could ever be because we are far too close, and the minister may not be involved with the planning applications, initial or review; we are far too close to things for any decisions to be independent from his department. Mention has been made of delays, and this is in the paper, there has been delay in the hearings and how the new system will speed up the planning processes. But I think it is worth saying that as far as the appeals tribunal are concerned it is not only an odd occasion; it is that the delay very often is in getting the statement of case, which includes the full transcript of what was said at review, the delay is often enough in getting the statement of case out of the minister's own department. Now we cannot move on as a tribunal until we have that statement of case. I think too that there should be an obligation that everyone involved with planning decisions and making decisions on plans should visit the sites involved. I know that aerial photography is a useful and convenient method of identifying a site but it can never ever be a substitute for a visit to the site in question, and I think it should be part of regulation that everyone, not just the Planning Officers, everyone involved should be under an obligation to visit the site of an application, and indeed, Your Excellency, I think if this were to happen I feel quite sure that some of the battles that have happened in the past over planning could have been avoided. The most important thing, though, is the very conception to the public of the word 'appeal'. It is a fact that to everybody, when an appeal is made, they expect and have a right to expect that the appeal body will be one which is independent from the body which undertook the initial decision. In most other facets of life this is so and I ask the question, why should it be any different for planning? And the answer I come to is, no, there should be no difference.
Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) (Amendment) Order 1987 - Debate Commenced TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987 T231
If this resolution is passed here today it would be a retrograde step for planning procedures in the Isle of Man and will do no good to the public's ideas as to how Government runs its affairs. When Government proposes to deprive them of access at appeal to an independent body their confidence in Government's good intentions, I think, will evaporate and no matter how an appeal decision may go, accusations of some deviousness on the part of Government, those accusations will fly. It will be, I think, inevitable and the only way to avoid such a problem arising in the public's mind is to reject totally the motion before us this afternoon and do as I will do: vote against it, hon. members.
The Governor: Hon. members, we said at half-past six that we would go on for another 45 minutes and we are now at ten minutes past seven. I think with a list of four more speakers that with your agreement I will invite just one more speaker and then we will adjourn the debate until Tuesday afternoon. Is that the will of the Court? (It was agreed.) Mr. Quine.
Mr. Quine: Your Excellency, to put my point of view in a nutshell I find the present appeal procedure unsatisfactory and the proposed arrangement no less so. In taking this stand I do not feel I am in contradiction to the support that I have given previously to the concept of ministerial responsibility for there are clearly limits to its scope for application. To my mind this is one such situation where it should not be applied. More often than not planning applications embrace issues beyond the jurisdiction of any one department and on occasion these issues assume as much importance, if not more importance, than those purely connected with planning and the environment. More importantly, it is the matter of justice not only being done but being seen to be done. What confidence in the system can the public have where in effect appeal against a decision by members of a department rests with their own immediate superior? No matter how you dress it up that is how it is and that is how it will be perceived. Given a current and comprehensive Development Plan, and I appreciate that it is questionable whether we have one, the present scope for the department to have its input is there, it is there at the Planning Committee procedure; it is there in the review procedure. There is ample opportunity for Government to influence the direction of Local Government and Environment issues. There is no need in my view for them to resort to cosmetic appeal procedures to achieve this end. Admittedly there is little of substance between the present and the proposed, but little is to be gained by substituting one unsatisfactory system by another that is equally unpalatable. Personally, I would prefer to see the appeal process in the hands of a legally qualified chairman, with assessors if necessary, for I am of the view that at the appeal stage the accent should shift to the unbiased weighting of the issues. Two further matters concerning planning procedure also concern me and I will touch upon these but briefly. Firstly, notice of a planning application needs to be published on only one occasion and one newspaper; that is the minimum requirement. If you should be unaware of that notification on that occasion you will not only be denied the right of representation at the initial stage but at any subsequent appeal proceedings. That is my reading of paragraphs 4, ,4(5), 6(1),
Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) (Amendment) Order 1987 - Debate Commenced T232 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st OCTOBER, 1987
6(3), 6(5) and 7(1) which have to be read together. I feel that an interested party should be able to register a standing objection in respect of a particular site, valid for a specified period, with the onus on the department to contact him should subsequent applications in respect of that site be received. Additionally or alternatively, an interested party should be able to take issue at the appeal stage, notwithstanding that he did not make representations at the initial Planning Committee proceedings. In other local authorities, in some other local authorities such rights are available. Secondly, I am concerned at the discretion given to the Planning Committee under 6(2) to exclude representation on the grounds that the party has no interest or no sufficient interest. If they are to have such powers, then strict criteria should be laid down in the order to control that situation. I regret that I will be unable to support this order.
The Governor: Hon. members, I propose that we adjourn now until 14.30 on Tuesday, 27th October, when we will continue with the discussion of this item, first to speak being Mr. May of Douglas North, and then after that item is complete we will finish the remaining items on the Agenda, 35 and 36. The Court stands adjourned.
The Council withdrew.
HOUSE OF KEYS
The Speaker: Hon. members of the House of Keys, the House will stand adjourned until Tuesday next at 10.30 in our own chamber. Thank you.
The House adjourned at 7.15 p.m.
House of Keys