Printed (by Authority) by CORRIE Ltd., 48 Bucks Road, Douglas, Isle of Man. REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF HOUSE OF KEYS
Douglas, Tuesday, 30th March 1993 at 10.00 a.m.
Present: detailed designs which have still to be selected. The Speaker (the Hon. J.C. Cain) (Douglas The expenditure to date has resulted in a major West); Hon. A.R. Bell and Mr. T.R.A. Groves (Ramsey); information-gathering exercise. The result of these Mr. R.E. Quine, OBE (Ayre); Mr. J.D.Q. Cannan investigations will be of considerable benefit towards (Michael); Hon. H. Hannan (Peel); Mr. W.A. Gilbey improving the Island’s drainage network and will allow (Glenfaba); Dr. E.J. Mann (Garff); Hon. D. North future funding to be targeted to the areas of most need in (Middle); Messrs. P. Karran, R.K. Corkill and G. Waft the first instance. This is irrespective of whether or not the (Onchan); Hon. B. May and Mr. W.D. Corlett (Douglas IRIS concept is progressed in part or in full. North); Messrs. A.C. Duggan and D.C. Cretney (Douglas Whilst my department is committed to progressing the South); Messrs. D.F.K. Delaney and P.W. Kermode upgrading of the sewage infrastructure and the disposal of (Douglas East); Mr. A.F. Downie (Douglas West); Hon. sewage to environmental standards, it is not irrevocably J.A. Brown (Castletown); Hon. D.J. Gelling (Malew and wedded to the original IRIS concept. As such all options Santon); Mr. N.Q. Cringle (Rushen); with Mrs. J.E.M. will continue to be fully evaluated at every stage to ensure Brown and Mr. T.A. Bawden Acting Secretary of the House. the right solutions for the Island’s needs are adopted. Based on the information gathered, the first detailed budget costs are in the course of being finalised. The detailed budget costs relate to the IRIS concept as a whole and to The Chaplain took the prayers. the Douglas and Onchan area. They include provision of storage tanks, pumping stations, transmission mains and treatment works. I must stress that they will not include any LEAVE OF ABSENCE works to the existing sewerage system. In addition, as part of this current stage of the IRIS The Speaker: Now, hon. members will be aware that the project, it will be necessary to obtain planning approval in Chief Minister will not be present at today’s sitting and I principle and consequently a precise date for finalising this have given leave of absence to the member for Rushen, Mr. current phase is difficult to define precisely. However, it is Corrin. anticipated that all of the information will be finalised by October 1993.
Mr. Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, a supplementary. IRIS PROJECT — COST — COMPLETION — Could the hon. minister give us some idea of the estimated QUESTION BY MR. KARRAN costs of what he thinks is going to be the proposal that comes forward for us to get rid of this problem? And could he give The Speaker: We have two questions for oral answer on this hon. House some sort of indication of when we will see the Agenda and I call upon the member for Onchan, Mr. light at the end of the tunnel as far as getting this problem Karran, to ask the first of these questions. resolved - is it going to be 2, 3, 5, 10 years? Because I do think that we do need that. I think the Treasury will need Mr. Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, I beg to ask the that for their own capital programme. Minister for Highways, Ports and Properties: The Speaker: Minister, in replying I would draw your (1) What is the cost to date of the IRIS project; and attention to the provisions of Standing Order 46(3) which indicates that a supplementary question must not introduce (2) when will it be completed? a matter not included in the original question. But subject thereto, please reply. The Speaker: The Minister for Highways, Ports and Properties to reply. Mr. North: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member wants to know the cost. These figures are not yet available Mr. North: Mr. Speaker, of the £1.765 million approved but what I can say is that all the signs are that the budgeted by Tynwald in July 1991 in respect of the first outline and conceptual costs are inadequate. To what extent they are second initial detailed design phases of the strategy for inadequate is not yet known, and I cannot give a time scale sewage collection and treatment under the IRIS project a yet until we have the costings of the project. total of £1,044,220 has been spent to date. To answer part (2), it is not possible to say when the IRIS Mr. Delaney: Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate the project will be completed, as this is still dependent on minister for his integrity and his honesty on this point in detailed evaluation of the information gathered and on the making it clear that the original concept is not to be the final
Leave of Absence IRIS Project — Cost — Completion — Question by Mr. Karran K372 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 30th MARCH 1993 objective now of the department or the Government. Could are other ways that have to be found in order to raise the I ask in relation to part (2), when will it be completed? Could money in order to keep our commitment to a caring and he give us an indication of when he expects even the prosperous society, he will make sure that things such as Douglas/Onchan area, the major population area of the rent and rate rebate schemes are fully discussed before any Island, to be completed, please? moves as far as looking at other ways to finance such an expensive project as this and it does not fall on to the weaker Mr. North: Mr. Speaker, as I have said in Tynwald members of our society to have to take the full brunt of the before, the first stage is Douglas/Onchan and that is in our neglect that has been there? five-year programme, the rest of the Island will come after that. And, as I have said, unfortunately, until we know the The Speaker: I rule that question to be out of order. costings, the detailed costings, then such a time scale is very (Mr. Cannan: Hear, hear.) The member for Garff. difficult to give. Dr. Mann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the Mr. Cringle: Mr. Speaker, in the hon. minister’s first minister cannot say when the scheme will be completed but response he said that £1,440,000 has been expended to date. will it still include the concept of pumping sewage to a single Will he tell the hon. House whether the purchase of the site for disposal? property in Santon is inclusive in that amount? Mr. North: Mr. Speaker, at this stage that is still the Mr. North: No, sir, that is not included. concept.
Mr. Kermode: Mr. Speaker, whereas the minister has The Speaker: A final question from the member for said he does not agree with the original concept, he would Douglas East, Mr. Kermode. agree with me that at least it was a step in the right direction, considering, as a member of that department who first Mr. Kermode: Can I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker - 1 instigated the IRIS project, that nothing was being done am sure that he is well aware of the present situation of before that and at least we tried to or attempted to address discharge into the sea - is he also aware that the European that problem. But can I ask the minister this? In view of directives that are coming forward now are looking towards the policies of his Government, of the Chief Minister’s having no discharge of sewage into our seas, and this is why Government and this Government, of which we are all a we should be addressing this problem sooner rather than member, that the economy of the Isle of Man is very later? important to us and if we are to introduce into the Isle of Man, other businesses and encourage people to come to live Mr. North: Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more, and in the Isle of Man the infrastructure is very important, and we are aware of that and we are aware of the European the longer that this takes to put into place - would he agree directives. with me that the sewerage structure at this present moment in time is not satisfactory: there are things underground that The Speaker: Because he put down the original question we do not know are happening? Could I ask the minister I will allow one final, final question from the member for or would he not agree with me that the quicker we get on Onchan, Mr. Karran. with this the better and the more beneficial it is going to be for the people of the Isle of, Man? Mr. Karran: Thank you, Vainstyr Loayreyder. Would the minister tell this hon. House, in view of his reply to this The Speaker: The minister to reply. question as far as the substantial increase in costs in dealing with this problem, what his department is going to do in Mr. North: Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with order to make sure that the financial liabilities of this project the hon. member for East Douglas and I hope I did not say do not end up falling on the weaker members of our society, that we were against the IRIS scheme. I said that we were and how is he going to manage to get the money to be made not irrevocably wedded to the original concept, and I agree available? with the hon. member. I mean, for instance, it is no good building the IRIS scheme if all the sewage system that is The Speaker: Minister, again, I think that is really a pumping into it is falling apart, (Members: Hear, hear.) repetition of a question we had a few moments ago, but if and certainly in Douglas in recent months I have certainly you wish to comment, that is a matter entirely for you. been to see two presentations now to look at what is going on in Douglas and of course there is one sewage system there Mr. North: Mr. Speaker, we will be in full consultation - there are three levels on Douglas promenade and the lower with the Treasury all the way along the line as soon as we one, which is six metres down, Douglas Corporation were have figures coming through. unaware it was even there, and does that give you some idea of what we are up against? Mr. Kermode: Do not let it go down the drain!
Mr. Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, a supplementary to the hon. minister. In view of the hon. minister’s reply as far as the costs involved, will he make sure that he makes representation to the Treasury to make sure that there are WORK PERMIT LEGISLATION — adequate safeguards as far as the capital costs that are going QUESTION BY MR. WAFT to be involved in sorting this problem out, which is a problem that we all recognise has been there for a long time, The Speaker: Thank you. Now, can we move to just like the water infrastructure, and will he make sure that Question 2 and I call upon the member for Onchan, Mr. he makes representations from his department that if there Waft.
Work Permit Legislation — Question by Mr. Waft HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 30th MARCH 1993 K373
Mr. Waft: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to ask a member subcontractors are employed in all cases. Obviously it is of the Department of Industry: much more difficult to control what happens in respect of private sector contracts, and in the case of those it has to Does the present work permit legislation allow be left to the work permit mechanisms. But I can assure the employers to retain staff requiring work permits at the hon. member that the officers of the department do not expense of Manx workers? recommend the issue of work permits where Manx resident workers are available to do the job and they certainly take The Speaker: The member of the Department of into account the question of the salaries being paid, et cetera. Industry to reply. Mr. Kermode: Mr. Speaker, can I ask the hon. member Mr. Gilbey: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in the control who is replying to these questions is he aware or can he of employment legislation which would prevent an employer answer or tell this hon. House and indeed the public that from making an Isle of Man worker redundant while when a person has been issued with a work permit in the retaining the services of a person who is on a work permit. Isle of Man and during the duration of that work permit However, it should be pointed out that if that permit then that has been issued, that this man that gets involved in any runs out its renewal would be unlikely, presuming that the dubious crime in the Isle of Man and therefore ends up with redundant Isle of Man worker was still available for work a criminal record, so to speak, the Work Permits Committee and willing to accept re-employment. then, are they informed? Is there any liaison with the police Permits are granted subject to the availability or likelihood where they can inform the Work Permits Committee who of the availability of suitable Isle of Man workers in the are dealing with is that this man has broken the Manx laws? relevant trade, industry or profession and for this reason Because in view of the latest police report this surely would the duration of permits is often restricted where go a long way - if they cannot work in the Isle of Man, then opportunities in the occupation concerned may be affected they will not stop here - to get rid of some of our by an economic downturn. undesirables. The revocation of a permit is provided for in the legislation in three specific cases. These are when the permit The Speaker: The member to reply, if he so wishes. holder is convicted of a serious offence, normally involving imprisonment; where false information has been given in Mr. Gilbey: Mr. Speaker, as I have mentioned before, the permit application; and where failure to pay national the legislation is quite clear, that once a person has insurance contributions occurs. committed an offence punishable with imprisonment or an offence considered by the department to be of a nature which Mr. Cretney: Could I ask the member for the renders his employment in the Isle of Man undesirable, his Department of Industry is he aware that the Work Permit work permit can be withdrawn. Committee is currently issuing work permits to shop workers I do not, frankly, know whether the police advice the and does he consider that that is something there are no skills Work Permit Office of these occasions. I should think that locally available for? they probably do not, but I will make enquiries about that. But of course, again, there is nothing to stop individuals Mr. Gilbey: I think the difficulty is, Mr. Speaker, that who feel aggrieved about the situation, and members of this one needs to know the individual cases. If the hon. member hon. House, advising the officers when they know that such would be kind enough to advise me or the officers of the situations have arisen, and if they do so they should cases we would certainly lobk into them, but without obviously provide the fullest information as to the name of knowing the particulars one cannot comment on particular the person, where he is working and the crime for which cases. However, as I have said in previous answers to he has been convicted. questions in this hon. House, the whole issue of work permits has been tightened up recently and the duration for Mr. Waft: Would the member not agree with me that which large numbers are issued has been reduced, the number of questions which are posed as to the viability particularly in the case of the construction industry. of the work permit legislation would give an indication that the current legislation is not achieving its objectives, and is Mr. Waft: Mr. Speaker, would not the member agree the department looking at other alternatives which could be with me that the many capital works programmes currently used to achieve the objects of the work permit legislation being undertaken by the Manx Government should primarily in a more satisfactory manner? benefit the Manx workforce? And is the member aware that there are workers with issued permits working for much less Mr. Gilbey: Well, I very much believe in the work permit than the normal rate of pay, primarily because of the legislation, Mr. Speaker. I believe it is absolutely essential recession in the UK, and as such are undercutting the Manx that we keep this legislation to protect Manx workers and workforce? to protect the whole Island against an influx of workers from the adjacent isles and therefore I support it. As to whether it is working, I believe it is generally Mr. Cretney: Hear, hear. working. Of course when you have a complicated system affecting many thousands of people, as I have made clear it does in answer to previous questions, there will be some Mr. Gilbey: Mr. Speaker, again, as I think I have queries, and I actually well know of the query which has mentioned previously, the hon. Minister for the Department caused the original question from the hon. member for of Industry has very much been dealing with the question Onchan, and I would be very glad to discuss that with him of Government contracts and has issued new guidelines, with in more detail. Clearly it would be inappropriate in this hon. the aim of ensuring that in the case of Government contracts House in public. the maximum numbers of Manx workers and Manx But there will always be anomalies and personally I would
Work Permit Legislation — Question by Mr. Waft K374 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 30th MARCH 1993
prefer to see residents’ permits, but we all know the reasons his replies concerning the building industry and the building why the Council of Ministers has not yet been able to contracts industry on the Island that they were looking at introduce these. I personally hope that they will be ways of trying to tighten this up. Can I just ask the hon. introduced as soon as possible, but until they are I believe member will he take on board and ask his minister will he it is vital we retain and operate, as efficiently as we can, the look into a way of saying that for Government contracts, present system of work permits. if you have Government contracts of, say, less than £150,000 you have to have seven people employed paying stamps and Mr. Corlett: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member an apprentice, and, say, at £250,000 there should be 15 assure the House that the Financial Supervision Commission people and two or three apprentices, as part of the criteria is also fully subject to these controls? for being allowed to tender for Government work? This must be the way forward and I hope that the hon. member will Mr. Gilbey: Well, I cannot make any comments about take on board this and take it back, and can we try and keep the position of any particular business or department of the Muppets at the back quiet, please? Government except to say everyone in the Island, every employer without exception, from the Chief Minister’s The Speaker: I am sorry, hon. member, I am ruling your Office downwards, is covered by this legislation and as far question, if indeed there was a question, completely out of as the officers who operate it are concerned is not exempt order. (Mr. Cannan: Hear, hear.) That finishes Questions from it. No-one is exempt from it. for this morning. It may be in the case of the FSC that they have been able to claim that they could not get people with the required skills in the Isle of Man and that is why permits have been BILL FOR FIRST READING granted in respect of people employed by them, and the same of course applies to various institutions in the financial The Speaker: We now move on to item number 3 which sector. But I wish to make it absolutely clear that no part is a Bill for first reading, and I call upon our Acting of Government or of the private sector is exempt from this Secretary. legislation. The Acting Secretary: The Shotguns, Air Weapons and The Speaker: I am going to allow two final questions, Crossbows Bill 1993, Mr. Downie. one from the member for Douglas East, Mr. Kermode, and one from the member for Onchan, Mr. Karran. The member The Speaker: Thank you. for Douglas East, Mr. Kermode.
Mr. Kermode: Mr. Speaker, in view of the comments ACCESS TO NEIGHBOURING LAND BILL — that have been made here this morning it may very well be THIRD READING APPROVED that the member does not favour work the permit situation or he believes there should be a new residents policy. The Speaker: We now have three Bills for third reading, and the first of these Bills is the Access to Neighbouring The Speaker: Hon. member, I am sorry, what I am Land Bill and I call upon the hon. member for Douglas East, seeking from you is a question, not a statement. Mr. Delaney.
V Mr. Kermode: I am coming to it right now, Mr. Mr. Delaney: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all I Speaker. Can I ask the hon. member, if nobody in the Isle would like to thank the House for the way they have treated of Man would employ these people without a permit, can this small but important Bill that has gone through, and I I ask the hon. member what does his department do or what ask members to support its third reading in the hope that punishment is meted out or what recommendation is made whereas it is not a major infliction upon the public of to people who are breaking this particular law in the Isle legislation, hopefully it will assist us all and the people we of Man? And can I ask the hon. member, as a member of represent to serve them should the case arise where they need the department, if he would carry out a campaign or an access to neighbouring land. Mr. Speaker, I beg to move advertising campaign explaining to people what can happen the third reading. should they employ people without a work permit? The Speaker: Do I have a seconder? Mr. Gilbey: As I have, again, made clear in answer to previous questions in this hon. House, Mr. Speaker, people Mr. Gelling: I beg to second, Mr. Speaker, and reserve who do not keep to the law are liable to prosecution, and my remarks. I have in the past mentioned cases where a prosecution has been successfully effected. As in all cases of people who The Speaker: Does any hon. member wish to speak? If break the law, they are open to prosecution, although, as not, I will put the motion to the House and the motion is again I have said before, if one can persuade them and that the Access to Neighbouring Land Bill be now read a caution them with effect it is always better to do that in the third time. Will all those in favour please say aye; to the first instance. But in addition, various people who have been contrary say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. found to be employed without work permits or whose work permits have run out have, as a result of actions by the department, had to leave the jobs which they were previously occupying. INSURANCE (AMENDMENT) BILL — THIRD READING APPROVED Mr. Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, a supplementary. The hon. member of the Industry Department did say in one of The Speaker: The next item on the Agenda, hon.
Bill for First Reading Access to Neighbouring Land Bill — Third Reading Approved Insurance (Amendment) Bill — Third Reading Approved HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 30th MARCH 1993 K375 members, is the third reading of the Insurance (Amendment) The Speaker: Reply, sir. Bill and I call upon the member for Glenfaba. Mr. Gelling: Only indeed to thank the hon. member for Mr. Gilbey: Mr. Speaker, as explained previously, this his comments, Mr. Speaker. Bill makes five very worthwhile but small amendments to the existing Insurance Act. I think that these were fully The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. The motion explained and discussed during the clauses stage, and I hope before the House is that the International Business Bill be that I satisfactorily answered the questions raised by hon. now read a third time. Will all those in favour please say members, and accordingly I do not think there is any point aye; to the contrary say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have in me delaying the House further, except to formally move it. that the Insurance (Amendment) Bill 1993 should be given its third reading. I so move.
Mr. Brown: I beg to second and reserve my remarks. PASSENGER FERRY SERVICE BILL — SECOND READING DEBATE RESUMED The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Does any — MOTION LOST member wish to speak? If not, I will put the motion to the House and the motion is that the Insurance (Amendment) The Speaker: We now resume consideration of the Bill be now read a third time. Will all those in favour please second reading of the Passenger Ferry Service Bill and I call say aye; to the contrary say no. The ayes have it. The ayes upon the member for Rushen, Mr. Cringle, to resume the have it. debate.
Mr. Cringle: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It does seem strange, doesn’t it? I think we actually started this debate on 9th March, wasn’t it? So I think it is some time since INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS BILL — we started this debate and I suppose I am called to my feet THIRD READING APPROVED because I was silly enough to stand up the last time and say that I would be three minutes flat. (Laughter) The Speaker: Finally, in terms of Bills for third reading we turn to the International Business Bill and I call upon A Member: They will hold you to that, Noel! the member for Malew and Santon. A Member: Two and a half left! Mr. Gelling: Yes, Mr. Speaker, as I informed the hon. House on the second reading and during the clauses stage, Mr. Cringle: Right, if you are going to hold me to that, this particular Bill has come about through the on-going half a minute has already gone! consultation process which the Treasury maintains with the Mr. Speaker, in all fairness I think the debate has drifted various sectors of our business community. Now, the Bill, quite appreciably away from the purpose of the legislation when drafted, was subject to wide consultation and it is and in fact a number of members over that period of time welcomed by the industry as an extremely important have actually given a historical record of the Steam Packet’s initiative in the development, of our Island as a leading performances, as it were, during probably this century offshore financial centre. anyway. But I think the piece which has been missed out so I would at this time like to thank the hon. member for far has been that what we really ought to be considering is Glenfaba, Mr. Gilbey, and the hon. member for North not the historical record of the Steam Packet Company but Douglas, Mr. Corlett, for taking the amendments to the Bill how or what will be the development of the future of a ferry at the clauses stage, which came about after the seminar we service to the Isle of Man, and so really we have to look had with the members of the House and subsequent to the forward, and quite honestly I have to say that, although Chancellor in the United Kingdom’s Budget speech. And interested in the Passenger Ferry Service Bill as it is printed, also I would like to thank hon. members and say how much I certainly do not think that this will be the vehicle which the Treasury appreciates the way in which the Bill has moved will give us a continuation of a regular passenger service to through its various stages in the House to this third reading the Isle of Man, and if I take that stance, that it gives me today. some concern that this would be the vehicle to give us a I would therefore like to move that the International regular service to the Isle of Man, well then you must equally Business Bill 1993 receive its third reading. acknowledge that the Passenger Service Bill must be in for stormy weather, and I think that is likely to be the case. Mr. Brown: I beg to second and reserve my remarks. However, the hon. member for Onchan, Mr. Karran, did put forward a plea, I think, during the debate at one stage The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. The member that it was well worthy of looking at this particular piece for Garff. of legislation in order that we might consider the future of a passenger ferry service to the Isle of Man. Dr. Mann: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to So I do not really think that we should totally throw it congratulate the Treasury on identifying this particular out, but I will just give this hon. House warning that whilst aspect of progress, and having identified it and in this Bill I will be prepared to accept the second reading vote at this successfully - well, we hope today is successfully finishing particular stage, I do not think that this is a vehicle for giving its course through the Keys - that we will be assured that us a continuous passenger service. the Treasury will promote this very actively as soon as possible to ensure that we get the maximum benefit as Mr. May: Mr. Speaker, just going on somewhat from quickly as possible. the remarks just made by the hon. member for Rushen, it
International Business Bill — Third Reading Approved Passenger Ferry Service Bill — Second Reading Debate Resumed — Motion Lost K376 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 30th MARCH 1993 seems that there is a touch of spring in the air and in my are going to be inundated with commercial operators who memory since I have been a member of this hon. House wish to capitalise on this lucrative market? I for one cannot every spring we seem to get this aura of ‘Let’s give the Steam see it. Packet a good kicking in the air’ and once again it has raised Now, bearing in mind the fact that we have carried this its head. And I think the hon. member who has just resumed Bill over a few weeks, it is difficult to remember all the points his seat is quite right - this is not a Bill that is about the and I think it is probably worth just recapping and re services that have been provided to the Island, it is a Bill examining exactly what the Bill does and let us make sure about what is proposed to bring in in the form of legislation that we are all entirely aware of what the Bill proposes to which will restrict the operations of any company providing do. ferry services to the Island and it is a Bill that, for want of Firstly, after prohibiting the operation of a passenger ferry another word, is nothing other and nothing short of service other than under franchise Clause 7 enables the interventionist, that is all it is, in the operation of a private Government to appoint two directors to the board of the and publicly listed company. successful franchisee. We have had directors on the board I would agree with the hon. member that it has been a of the existing operator before. It did not do us much good somewhat peculiar debate in the fact that it has dragged on - a director of a company is, as we all know, under Stock over a period of weeks and is very, very difficult, and it is Exchange rules, bound to take the interests of that company going to be difficult, I am sure, for the hon. mover of the first. Clause 8 - Government has the right to veto any Bill, in winding up, to try and put his thoughts together when changes in the articles of association of the company. Clause people first stood to speak on the 9th of this month, then 10 allows Government to dictate to the operating company, they stood again last week to speak on the Bill, and now dictate the services to be provided, and under Clause 12 the here we are, some three weeks down the road, bringing this frequency of any such service can be dictated, as indeed can second reading to a conclusion. So I have got no doubt about the type and carrying capacity of vessels that are going to that. be used for that purpose. Clause 16 enables Government to But this Bill is one which I think we should all recognise, actually lay down the maximum fare structure to be used if it is accepted by this House this morning, if it goes through and to dictate the maximum rate of any increase in those its second reading, will have a profound effect on the fares, and Clause 33 enables Government to enter into an operation, on the long-standing shipping links that this agreement with the ferry company to control the level and Island has enjoyed with the United Kingdom. distribution of any profits. Now, I think the basic philosophy of the Bill could well I think we should ask ourselves just what the effect on be acceptable in the context of ferries operating in and out the stock of a public listed company who held this franchise of a busy harbour in far parts of the world where there are would be with these stringent conditions imposed upon them. literally millions of passengers being carried annually, where We need to ask ourselves just how many companies would the revenue is guaranteed, but in the context of our Island wish to tender for this privilege. Would there be any? Would and its limited and mainly seasonal passenger demand, then indeed the existing operators be prepared to enter into such I think it is a very, very different matter, and the Bill is based an arrangement? And let us ask ourselves that one. Do not on the assumption that out there somewhere there are, or just assume that because the existing operator has served there will be, commercial companies queuing up, just waiting this Island for 160 years it is a tacit agreement that they for the opportunity to get in and grab a slice of this dubious would enter into this type of agreement. If the answer to right of carrying passengers to and from the Isle of Man. that question happened to be ‘No’, where would we be then? I would suggest that that very assumption smacks of naivety Where would the Island be then? Where would the staff of in the extreme and if we are prepared to sanction the passage the company be then? And nobody seems to have mentioned of this Bill this morning and everything that goes with it, the staff in this whole debate, they seem to have been then we must equally be prepared to accept the inevitable overlooked, and I find that very strange, because, as I said consequences that will apply - the hon. member Mr. Bell before, the Steam Packet Company and its operation seems gave some indication at last week’s sitting - on existing to be the perennial whipping boy of this hon. House, yet services and the existing operator. the staff considerations always come to the fore. In this If you examine the actual facts there can be absolutely instance they have not, and I find that very, very strange, no doubt that the commercial viability of the Steam Packet because it is my belief that this Bill poses a far greater threat Company is mainly dependent on the carriage of freight, to the security of Steam Packet employees than did the that is the element of business which generates most of the approaches two years ago from a rival shipping company, company’s profits, and passenger traffic, far from being and I think that is a point that hon. members should highly profitable is, as I have said, mainly seasonal, it consider. involves services on a number of routes where profitability Of course this company has its shortcomings, absolutely can be, probably at best, regarded as being extremely no doubt about that fact, but for all that, it has been the doubtful and at the worst non-existent, and if anyone is in major Island’s lifeline for over 160 years without any doubt at all about this fact they should consider the Government intervention. Have we not learned anything commercial viability of operating a daily service which for from recent history? Have we not learned from the Manxline many months of the year operates for the benefit of less than affair? It would appear not, when we had two rival a hundred passengers. An indication of this was five days companies that drove each other to the verge of bankruptcy in January, the number of passengers: 86, 84, 96, 92, 59. in plying for limited trade on what is an extremely limited market. Of course there is a need to secure adequate sea Mr. Cretney: House! services; we are aware of that. The company is presently under new direction, it has Mr. May: That is a viable operation? February was a invested considerable amounts of money in its operation and bit better: 91, 120, 109, 108, 111, and so it goes on. These proposes to do so even more in the future. But for all that, are the real facts of operating a daily shipping link with the there is a need to have assurances of continuity of service, UK. Do we honestly imagine that if this Bill is passed we of quality of service, of course there is, and that can be done
Passenger Ferry Service Bill — Second Reading Debate Resumed — Motion Lost HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 30th MARCH 1993 K377 by a negotiated user-agreement and ownership of the Mr. Quine: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This debate of linkspan. That has been raised during the course of the course has gone very much as I expected. Indeed from debate: where is it? Negotiations have been protracted; they shortly after the publication of the Bill the Chief Minister got off on a bad foot from day one. made it quite clear that Government would not be supporting it, but of course life does not revolve around the Chief Mr. Cretney: Who is doing it? Minister or the Council of Ministers, it revolves around the people of this Island, and it will be their interests which I Mr. May: You may well ask, sir. They have since settled shall promote and it is their interests which this Bill is down and certainly under the direction of the company now intended to promote. there is dialogue taking place. I think the Island’s interests Having heard several members of the Council of Ministers will be best served by following down that route than by speak, I now know why a user-agreement has not been enacting this Bill which has implications which will negotiated. Some have made it clear that they are not for reverberate throughout the whole of the business community a regulation intervention in any form; that has been made of the Isle of Man. perfectly clear. Others are for a user-agreement ‘for public If we are serious in safeguarding the shipping routes to consumption’. There is no sincerity - it is support for a user- and from the Island, then do it in a responsible fashion, do agreement for public consumption, knowing that it will not not do it by trying to impose interventionist legislation which be brought to fruition, and a few, no doubt, honestly believe will have an effect, this is being looked at, what happens that a user-agreement can and should be negotiated, and at in this House today is being looked at throughout the least one member of the Council of Ministers is on record business community of the Island, and let us not forget these as supporting the franchise. But be that as it may, there is facts The way to deal with this Bill is to reject it firmly at a majority of opinion both inside and outside Government this, the second reading stage. This Bill has no future in that regulation and intervention to underwrite the security governing the transportation to and from this Island. and standing of our passenger ferry services, and perhaps other services, are necessary. Mr. Corkill: Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker who has We come back to franchise versus user agreement, because just resumed his seat has more than adequately expressed that is, frankly, all that is on the agenda, in terms of control what I was going to say. We need to learn lessons from over our sea links which are central to our economic well history, we have had several history lessons during this being, and I would ask members to reflect on this. We are debate, and unless we as politicians can see repeating not talking about an everyday commercial activity, we are patterns, then we are failing in our duty to look after the talking about an activity which, to put it no stronger, is interests of the Isle of Man, in my opinion, and that central to our economic well-being, and I can think back repeating pattern is that whenever Government has to at least four major debates during my time in this House intervened in the Steam Packet, things have gone backwards. when we have had members of Government making that Whenever it has been perceived that the Steam Packet has point, time and again. Today it does not suit their purpose, been having an easy time and making a profit, Government today it is quite all right to leave it in the hands of the has intervened in some way or other. This time it is a commercial sector: let commercial flair have its head and franchise or, really, backdoor nationalisation. public interest can be cast aside. But members should bear I do not wish to reiterate what previous speakers have said in mind that as matters stand we are at the mercy of a - most of the points have now come out in the debate. But commercial operator who holds a monopoly. I would also urge the Steam Packet to study carefully what Now, Government’s solution, the user-agreement, has has been said in this hon. House, because if there is one been in action for at least five years. It took, I am told, six message that is clear - the people of the Isle of Man are not months to negotiate the United Nations Charter, it took two satisfied with the cost of transport and freight on and off years for the European Community Agreement to be the Island, and there will be continued efforts to rectify negotiated, but for the user-agreement with the Isle of Man matters next time around, and perhaps the hon. mover of Steam Packet Company, we are heading for six years. That this Bill, the member for Ayre, will be trying again in the is the total absurdity of the situation, and if it has not not-too-distant future. Next time around there may be a dawned upon members that there is no intention and indeed more moderate measure that will have the majority support no prospect of negotiating a user-agreement by now, then of the members of this House and I think that the Isle of I think they should not be sitting in their seats here, Man Steam Packet Company should look very closely at the representing the people of this community. offer of a user-agreement for the linkspans whilst they are It is against this backdrop which I believe we have to look still in a position to be in a bartering situation. at this Bill, because your options are nil: you leave it as it So there is a message for all of us today, but I do not think is or you go for a franchise. Let us not worry about the detail that members should suppport the second reading of this of the franchise; we are discussing this Bill in principle. That Bill - it is too narrow, it only addresses passenger services, is your option: stand up here today and tell the public that it does not address freight, and I am sure the hon. mover you are for letting the Steam Packet do their own thing, with of the Bill would be happy if it went to a committee, but profit and not the public interest being at stake. Do that and I do believe that that would give the wrong message to the at least you will have some credibility in my eyes or, if you public business sector, it would be a message of indecision, do not want to do that, then support the principle of a and I think this House should be seen to be decisive, and franchise. You have got no other options. But tell the public going to committee to my mind would not be in the best where you stand. Do not hide behind the concept of a user interests of the Isle of Man. So, like the previous speaker, agreement. I will be voting against the second reading. I will now turn to the contributions from certain members and if I may start with the Minister of Highways, Ports and Properties, and I must say I found it difficult at times to The Speaker: Does any other member wish to speak? accept that he was speaking about this Bill. I know he was If not, I will call upon the member for Ayre to reply. standing in for his lord and master and perhaps at short
Passenger Ferry Service Bill — Second Reading Debate Resumed — Motion Lost K378 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 30th MARCH 1993 notice, but notwithstanding that, he is the minister are less than what we have got here. responsible, it is on his agenda to produce this, I would The minister went on to say to the effect that what we suggest, fictional user agreement, so I would have thought have on offer here is not sufficiently profitable, there was he would have been better attuned to the substantive matters a danger of the Isle of Man Steam Packet withdrawing of this debate than he was. He asserted that the franchise completely. What utter drivel. If he wants an excuse to do concept would not work because we do not have millions nothing, there are better excuses sitting on the shelf than of passengers. The relevance is difficult to fathom, but I that one. A commercial monopoly, a turnover of £24 million assume he is referring to the potential for take-up of a - and I am taking the 1991 accounts - a profit of £4 million, franchise. He referred, somewhat disparagingly, to the Hong comes out - what? - with 17 per cent., fixed assets of £18 Kong situation. Now, I did not introduce it, he introduced million, 22 per cent, return on fixed assets, to be abandoned that reference, but may I suggest to him that, as he at the prospect of a franchise which would secure their introduced it, perhaps if he and some of his colleagues had monopoly, albeit subject to scrutiny and regulation and a a broader vision we would not have some of the problems franchise with a profit-regulation scheme included - not even that are resting with us today. the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company, in their letter they The take-up for any business proposition is influenced by floated to this hon. House, have suggested that, and that profitability, not least in the medium long term. The Isle indicates the absurdity of that posture that the minister is of Man Steam Packet Company have a very profitable taking. commercial monopoly, that is the bottom line, they have The minister then said that the Bill is flawed because it a very profitable commercial monopoly, and posturing leaves cargo services untouched. Of course if he looks at apart, the shareholders would not permit that to be cast the definition of ‘passenger ferry services’ in Clause 39 he aside. If you hold investment in a company and you are will see that that is not strictly true: ‘passengers and their getting the returns that the Isle of Man Steam Packet is baggage, goods or vehicles’; we are talking of ro-ro activities. getting, you have that monopoly and you are offered under But if he was serious about that he would know, and he a statutory obligation to change that to a franchise which knows, we are talking about the principal of the Bill. All gives you even greater security of tenure, are you going to he has got to do is to move a very simple amendment when let the directors of that company case that aside? Of course we come to the clauses stage. So that is not a serious you are not, and common sense dictates that. The take-up objection, that is a frivolous objection. Simply a matter is not dependent on competition perse. An existing operator when we get to the next stage, if he was so minded, to move with specialised assets in place is not going to cast aside a an amendment to broaden it. No, I have not widened it, and profitable business. For certain, the prospect of a franchise deliberately so, and I am sure in the light of this debate to containing a profit-regulation provision - and I will come date you will appreciate why I did not widen it. For the very back to that because it is quite clear that a number of simple reason the thought of even taking the passenger ferry members have great difficulty in taking that concept on services and related cargo operations into a franchise has board - they would not cause him to do so. If Government caused a number of ministers to have a baby, and if I had was to proceed to a position where they were to place any come forward with one that embraced cargoes as well, unreasonable demands upon the company, Government freight, heaven knows what they would have done. would have to pay up or shut up, because it would be open to the commercial operator to say, ‘No, I cannot provide Mr. Kermode: Two babies! any further services - here are my books, I wish to invoke the provisions under Clause 33: it’s now up to Government, Mr. Cretney: A football team! if they want that service, to put money up front.’ How does that prejudice the interests of the shareholders? Government Mr. Cannan: Twins! would have to pay up or shut up. That is exactly the situation. Mr. Quine: No, they are too impotent for twins. I can assure this hon. House that the franchise arrangements in place in Hong Kong are there to provide Mrs. Hannan: You speak for yourself! a regulatory regime. The marketplace there could certainly be secured through competition. The market, as has been Mr. Quine: With one exception. But by accident the said by several members, is strong and viable enough to minister raises a very serious point: the need to address secure and underwrite the public interest through monopolies in general, a matter which has taken as long to competition. So there is no question of a franchise concept progress as the user agreement. Then he went on to say that being in place in the Hong Kong situation simply because it would inhibit the operator using his commercial flair to there is competition to carry it. It is there to provide a maximise profit. Why should it? Look at the Bill, and he regulatory regime for the simple reason that the market is has not given an answer, he has not told us why. But I will so strong, competition could secure the quality of services, tell you why not. It is not the experience elsewhere, in fact if that was the object of the exercise in the Hong Kong the opposite is the case, for to meet the public interest as situation, but it is not and that is further demonstrated by determined by Government and the expectation of the the fact that over the last 50 years those major franchises shareholders on the other hand, flair would have to be have remained in the hands of the same companies. exercised to the full, they would be under pressure to exercise Furthermore, the franchise has been, as I said, there in place commercial pressure to the full, because they would be and has been, in effect, extended time and time again into getting pushed from both directions to maximise their flair the control of the same companies, and they have had no and their ability and their business acumen. So the opposite difficulty working to those provisions and they are essentially is the case. the provisions we are talking of here today, big companies It raises another interesting point on the regulation of and small companies. We are not talking of one route, we prices and profits of monopolies, and I am talking now in are talking of 20-odd routes. Some are highly profitable, terms of how you would determine, if we were into a Clause yes, millions of passengers, and others have turnovers that 33 situation, what would be a reasonable rate of return for
Passenger Ferry Service Bill — Second Reading Debate Resumed — Motion Lost HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 30th MARCH 1993 K379 a Steam Packet operation, and one, I might add here just these are the Manx interests. This is the company who is in passing, has at least three options here in determining a so concerned about Manx affairs, from what I am told formula, if Government were ever to push it to that extent, recently, they have just hived off part of their Steam Packet and I cannot see them doing that, but let us assume they activities on the catering side to a UK firm, at the expense did. They can either go for a rate of return, they can either of Manx workers - this Manx company. go for a capping, or they can go for what I believe is the What he is really saying is, or trying to get us to accept, best solution: an efficiency-sharing formula that induces the in fact he said this, ‘Don’t rock the boat, for negotiations company to perform to maximum efficiency. But these are are taking place.’ Now, here I can offer Mr. Waft a history matters for regulation. I make reference to them only by lesson. They have been taking places, as I said, for six years way of rebuttal to the absurd suggestion that has been made and if this Bill does not receive a second reading he can kiss by the minister. his negotiations and the user agreement goodbye. If this Bill Scraping the barrel, sir, then he went on to state that the does not get a second reading, then sincerity will come to demands made under the franchise would not be the fore, because that user agreement will be out of the commercially sustainable. Now, what possible substance can window for another six years. Well, it will not, because it that statement have when the basic concept is to ensure that will be out for six months because I will be back. But that the operator has an acceptable return - the legislation is beside the point. It is in fact the only reason why provides for that - but not an excessive return, and that is negotiations could continue on a serious basis on a user an important point. agreement and that is if this Bill receives a second reading, He then expressed the fear that Government would be and hon. members know that. drawn into subsidising the company. Government is already How can he state as he did that you do not need a subsidising the company, Government has been subsidising franchise to produce a realistic agreement? He knows very the company for years: we have loans at non-commercial well that for six years they have tried and failed to produce rates which still have some 10 years to run in terms of the a user agreement and he knows, because he is in the Liverpool landing stage, we have been filling in Circus Beach department, that no matter what posturing the Steam Packet which is used exclusively by the Steam Packet, we have and the department now have, this wonderful dialogue that passenger walkways which the minister has gifted to them, is leading us nowhere that was going on, he knows, he must we have landing charges which do not stand scrutiny for sea know, that he is going nowhere and certainly going nowhere passengers - we are already subsidising the company. Now, from the moment if this Bill does not get a second reading. whether those subsidies are best placed is entirely another He then made a reference to the London Stock Exchange. matter, and if we were to progress with legislation such as Now, this does not seem to concern the company, they have this we would no doubt have to re-examine some of those made no submission in this respect at all, it is not part of subsidies and see are they correctly placed? their case, but in any case they are happy, and they have However, there are important differences under this said so in their own letter, to enter into a formal service proposed legislation, because in the first place Government agreement, by their definition, of course - 1 suppose a boy would be privy to information about the viability of the scout’s honour type of arrangement. So, I mean, they company, and I am not talking about the annual reports, themselves are advocating a formal service agreement, so we can always get the annual reports. At the moment they if they are serious about a binding agreement, an enforceable are putting subsidy into a company and they do not know agreement, they are not far removed from the franchise the inside information, and secondly, a subsidy would only agreement themselves. But if this Bill has implications for be involved if, and I repeat, if Government pressed the public the value of the company, as Mr. Waft, the hon. member interest, represented through additional services or fares, to for Onchan would have us believe, then perhaps he can a point where the company activated the profit regulation explain to us why the share prices have not tumbled since scheme. I mooted this Bill, but they have not, of course they have It is my submission that the minister has made no case not, they have stayed at around the £1.50 mark and have at all for not giving this legislation a second reading. done for several months. Mr. Waft, the hon. member for Onchan, he treated us ‘Conditions are difficult’, asserts Mr. Waft and he said to a history lesson, albeit some of the facts are questionable this is manifest by a surplus of vessels. The availability of - this company with, as he put it, a rich and proud heritage, vessels, I would suggest to Mr. Waft, and if he wishes to this company which served at Dunkirk. In the context of read into that the state of the market, that makes a case for this legislation completely irrelevant - it has got nothing to us moving now, not for backing off now, that makes a case do with Dunkirk or rich histories, (Interruption) it has to for us to move now, to proceed with this now, because the do, as the Minister for Health and Social Security said a interest will be that much greater. moment ago, with the future of our sea links, which are He accuses me of dabbling in private enterprise, and most central to our economic well-being. That is what we are certainly I am. In this case, in this situation, in these talking about. However, we should not, I would suggest, circumstances, I do not hide that for one moment. take that too seriously, because I believe that was perhaps ‘Intervention’ is the word, of course, that I would use, a department position that the minister was taking - after intervention in a commercial monopoly, and why not? We all, he is backing up his minister. But isn’t it remarkable are discussing the security of our vital sea links, the exercise that when we had Mr. Sherwood seeking control of the of control, as I said, over a monopoly service, and in any company the response was somewhat muted? event it was his department, albeit not in Mr. Waft’s time, Now, if we are talking of a Manx company, let us bear but it was his department that brought forward the Harbour in mind that at least 60 per cent, of the stock is in the hands (Amendment) Bill, it was his department which purportedly of off-Island interests. This is this Manx company - at least seeks to bring into place a binding user agreement. So when 60 per cent, of the stock is in the hands of off-Island he is accusing me of intervention, I cannot see the difference interests, one third - a rough guess - of the profit made out - remove the matter of form and whether it is his intervention of this community goes to Mr. Sherwood, and I am not or his department’s intervention, it is still intervention. counting the Port of Heysham. This is this Manx company, He said it is an unrealistic diversion. Far from it. What
Passenger Ferry Service Bill — Second Reading Debate Resumed — Motion Lost K380 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 30th MARCH 1993
I am proposing is a practical and proven solution designed the port of Heysham in respect of the further use of that to put in place an effective regulatory mechanism. Now, port. That expires in 1985 and I have no doubt that if we whether in point of fact this House is going to seize that do not have legislation such as this in place - opportunity, that remains to be seen. Mr. Corlett, the hon. member for North Douglas, he Members: Ninety-five. focused on two points, and I think the saving grace always with Mr. Corlett is that he is always short and sharp, and Mr. Quine: Ninety-five, I beg your pardon. If we do not you cannot say that for me. (A Member: Hear, hear.) This have that in place, then the renewal of that will be a fait franchise, he said, would not guarantee an all-year-round accompli, for the very simple reason, of course, the Isle of service. Now, that point escapes me, for if we continue as Man Steam Packet Company, through its operations, is we are, with falling passenger figures, we will not have any feeding Mr. Sherwood. It is not a facility for the Manx worthwhile service. If we continue as we are - and we had people, it is an arrangement that feeds Mr. Sherwood. the figures from one member: I think it was a fall of 60 per I disagree with the Minister for Tourism that a franchise cent, over 10 years - we will not have any service if we leave only suits a competitive situation. When the market will not it simply in commercial hands on the basis of non support competition a franchise can provide a most intervention. For certain there is better prospect of a year- satisfactory framework, and I think I have demonstrated round service with this legislation in place than there is now, that, but to make that point in a different context, perhaps and that must quite clear to all members of this hon. House. he would care to have a look at a recent report concerning He complained of the punitive provisions of the Bill proposals for the Caledonian MacBrayne routes which just without specifying specifically which clauses he was getting go back a few years and in that case one of the propositions at. The grantee, - he did make a reference I believe, if I that was mooted by the think-tank was of course that those recollect him right, to the grantee not being able to alter the routes which are not in the highly profitable category should memoranda and articles without approval. Now, I see be subject to a franchise. However, it seems to have nothing wrong with that. I go back to the debate in this hon. floundered on the basis that EC grants had been put into House not that long ago when we had the Isle of Man Steam that company and therefore that approach could not be Packet Shares Control Bill or whatever it was, when the taken. So even if we come much nearer to home you can whole object of the exercise, the whole debate centred on see that the concept has been examined and mooted. the fact that if Mr. Sherwood got some more shares, he ‘Nationalisation without compensation’ - we have had this would be able to alter the articles and memorandum, which phrase thrown around two or three times. Now, clearly, I would affect the interests of the Island. That was being mean, I cannot follow the reasoning for that statement, knocked around this House right, left and centre. I am ‘nationalisation without compensation’. Looking back at the offering you a solution to that situation in this Bill if you debates, I see no such cry when it was the Manx Telecom want to take it. We were searching for a statutory provision franchise, no such cry then. Why should a user agreement, and it is on offer in this Bill. which presumably if it is going to be a useful agreement must Cancellation of the franchise for not maintaining a proper be legally binding, why not the same allegation in relation service - is that draconian? I do not believe so. You can turn to Government’s own proposition for a user agreement? to the Telecommunications Bill and you will find a similar What is the difference? The bottom line comes down to provision, so what is the difference? That is not novel, that basically the same thing: if you can negotiate one and if you is commonplace, and it exists in a number of statutes. can make it enforceable. There are numerous companies, Emergency and breakdown provisions to secure our publically owned companies, operating to franchises or lifeline - we have got general provisions as well on what we licences of different forms, so there is nothing novel about can do in emergency situations, so that is not novel. that. Temporary seizure of property - that sounds terrible until One point worthy of debate which Mr. Bell makes in his you read what it says afterwards and that is that it is subject submission, he said that this legislation represents a retreat to compensation, they are being paid for it: there is no loss. from free market economics. There is no such thing as free- And I can but suggest that Mr. Corlett has a close look at market economics in absolute terms: all companies operate the Telecommunications Act 1985. under constraints of one form or another. But be that as I must thank Mr. Bell for conceding the fact that it may, sir, there are numerous statutory constraints in any difficulties have been experienced by shipping services in free-market situation, so I really cannot take the point and recent years, and that is the understatement of the year. In particularly as the concept of franchise and licence is already the light of his own public pronouncements he could hardly accepted as being part of the free-market scenario. say less, sir, and furthermore I must concur with him that The serious issue is the extent to which intervention is there is a ground swell of public opinion which expresses acceptable, that is a serious issue, and I maintain that in disatisfaction with elements of our sea services. relation to our vital sea links, which are subject to a Now, perhaps the minister has in mind the recent impasse, monopoly central to our economic well-being, this legislation fiasco, whatever you wish to describe it as regarding the is fully justified and in fact it is all that is available to us provision of fast sea services, so-called SeaCat services, of any practical value. It is all very well for Mr. Bell to state where we quite clearly had a tug-of-war within the directors that we must seek to provide - and I quote him - ‘a of the company as to whether or not a suitable vessel would profitable, secure, efficient and affordable service’. Great be made available from Mr. Sherwood’s group. Perhaps he stuff. Unfortunately he did not tell us how he is going to had that in mind, and perhaps he can enlighten me, when do it. Wonderful, terrific, but it contributes nothing to the we are touching upon that matter, as to his views on the resolution of our problems and the securing of our economic acceptability of Heysham continuing as the principal port, well-being unless there is something which is on offer that and I say that with this in mind, because in the absence of is better than what is in this Bill. But there is not. The truth legislation such as this and a franchise arrangement I am is there is nothing on offer apart from what is in this Bill. sure we all know - it is in the company’s report - that there The member for Castletown, sir, he went on and again is a renewal of the agreement between the Steam Packet and he dealt with this matter about nationalisation by the
Passenger Ferry Service Bill — Second Reading Debate Resumed — Motion Lost HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 30th MARCH 1993 K381 backdoor’, he dealt with the same phrase, and I have already the first order when it was a small pub in his own patch. commented on that. He then said that there is no occasion for a single penny, if I picked him up right, of Government Mr. Kermode: He was drunk then! money by way of subsidy. I have dealt with that: we are already committed to thousands of pounds by way of Mr. Quine: Mrs. Hannan - Government money. ‘Draconian legislation’ - he referred to Clause 1 and The Speaker: Hon. member, just before we proceed, I Clause 3, so I presume he did not read beyond Clause 3, would draw your attention to the provisions of Standing and he deplored in effect the total proscription of passenger Orders in relation to personal reflections on members. ferry services other than those covered by the franchise or licence, and he said that that was somehow a terrible thing, Mr. Quine: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, It was not in any and again I can but suggest that he looks at Section 3 of way any personal reflection, it was a matter of record of the Telecommunications Act of 1985 which provides a this House that that is exactly his position. similar provision - there was no objection to it then. The Peel ferry service, that seemed to mount large in his The Speaker: No, I was not referring to you, sir. mind, a very important matter of national interest. Mr. Quine: Oh, I beg your pardon, sir. (Laughter) Mrs. Hannan: Of course it is. Mr. Kermode: He means you were not drunk! Mr. Quine: Peel ferry service, and he raised that in the context of Clause 1. It has got nothing to do with Clause Mr. Quine: Thank you. Another intervention, thank 1. The Peel ferry service, if it was to be embraced by this, you, sir. The hon. member for Peel - I mean, she is quite it would be covered of course by Clause 25, so he is away clearly in the same stable, so to speak, as the hon. member off mark. for Castletown. Her approach is to ignore the problem and He seemed to find Clause 3(3)(a) objectionable: ‘grant of it will go away - positive non-intervention. a franchise by public tender or in such other manner as the Department thinks fit’ - quite a common phrase, it is not Mrs. Hannan: No, I would be quite happy to have it peculiar to my legislation - why should he take exception out at Peel. to it now? In other words it is on the licensing authority to determine in the circumstances the precise means by which Mr. Quine: Peel ferry service could be improved, they will, if you wish, hand out, grant a franchise. madam, if you had this legislation. Peel ferry service could Now, if the department was so minded of course, under be secured if you had this legislation. (Interruption) the terms of this Bill they could negotiate a franchise with Mr. Downie, the hon. member for West Douglas, of the Steam Packet, so my hon. friend from Onchan with his course I believe he is right in this respect, that he said that great concern for the Isle of Man Steam Packet and its 160 this represents an important debate and an important matter years of history, this Bill will give his department, if they affecting the Manx community, and he is absolutely right, were so minded, the ability to negotiate an arrangement, a albeit, as the records shows, the Government have sought franchise, directly with them. So he can rest easy having to brush it aside, they have not wanted this debate, and that regard to the importance he attaches upon the history of the is quite clear, and I do not blame them; if I had been company. negotiating a use agreement for six years, I would not want But can you imagine the outcry, hon. members, if I had the debate either. But given their inactivity or their inability, not made provision for both tender or otherwise? If I had that posture, I would suggest, is not surprising. But I agree said ‘only by franchise’ we would have had another few with the hon. member that this is a very important matter history lessons about making the Steam Packet walk the and it is one which has problems, has implications for the plank to get their franchise, compete with others for their community which will not go away. Sooner or later it will franchise. So you cannot win either way. The fact is, and be back on this Agenda. I wish they would be honest about it, they do not wish to I disagree with him that the principles which underlie this exercise any control over the Steam Packet. If we look to legislation, that they are unsuited to the Isle of Man Section 5 of the Telecommunications Act again, sir, I think situation. I entirely disagree with him there, and I have we will see further precedent for the matter which is being explained earlier in my response why I believe that is so, and criticised. I have demonstrated to him, I hope, that the underlying The hon. member for Castletown seems to think that the object in a number of these instances is to put in place a Isle of Man Steam Packet are blameless. May I suggest, sir, regulatory mechanism. It is not,Jo take advantage of a that he gets together with the Minister for Tourism and competetive situation. The competitive situation can in most decides as a matter of Government policy whether they are circumstances take care of the public interest in that blameless or not, because the Minister for Tourism is on environment. record as saying that they are far from blameless and indeed Now, he concedes that the ferry services are efficient in in relatively recent times, so I think the Government of the Hong Kong, he knows that they are under a franchise, and day should decide whether they are blameless of not. But as far as the major operator goes, as I said, the market can the public, and that is what matters, they know what they sustain the standards, but nonetheless the point is this type are getting from the Steam Packet and they are dissatisfied of legislation is there because it provides a regulatory with it. mechanism, it provides a foundation upon which you can Clearly Mr. Brown is a non-interventionist, ‘Leave the Isle secure and build for better services, it provides a regulatory of Man Steam Packet alone.’ Now, that of course was not mechanism that takes on board development planning: an his posture, if I recollect rightly, when not all that long ago important matter. All this fiasco we have seen with the Steam he was attacking the brewery in relation to a certain pub Packet and Mr. Sherwood over the SeaCat, if we had in Castletown. (Interruption) He was an interventionist of legislation that provided for in effect a five-year development
Passenger Ferry Service Bill — Second Reading Debate Resumed — Motion Lost K382 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 30th MARCH 1993 plan, we would not have that fiasco upon our hands, and He then went on to draw the attention of this hon. House that is what it is. to a number of clauses, and if I can just touch on a couple He said we have never had better relations with the Isle of those. Clause 7, the appointment of two directors, and of Man Steam Packet, it bodes well for the future. I would he said, ‘We have tried that before: that does not work.’ in all sincerity suggest to him that as long as the company Of course we have not tried that before in the context of can twist the Government around its little finger relations this legislation. This legislation says, ‘ A person so appointed will stay good. If I was in the Steam Packet’s position I to be an additional director of a grantee shall by statute would smile favourably upon them too if I got away with primarily represent the interests of Government...’. We have it. Why not? He said the company is always open for not had that before. communication. Of course they are open for communication He seems to find objection to the fact that memoranda - it adds nothing. But they have given nothing, they have and articles cannot be amended without the approval of conceded nothing, and that will be the position that they Government. I would have thought that is a decided plus. will retain until the force of statute to make them change We would not have had the great kerfuffle a short while ago their minds on this issue. over Mr. Sherwood’s proposed takeover if the Isle of Man There are no jobs at risk under this legislation. It would Steam Packet had been under a franchise covered by this underwrite the future of the company. A running down of legislation. Clause 10, services to be provided - covered the company through non-intervention will put jobs at risk. already, similar provisions in regard to communications - We have had the figures, you have seen the slide in the what is different? Frequency and type of vessels, fare passenger traffic - that is what is going to put jobs at risk. structure. Yes, and absolutely right, provided always that Non-intervention in this situation will put jobs at risk, not any unreasonable demands would be brought to the point this legislation. of decision through Clause 33, because when pressure was I thank Mr. Kermode for his support, and I certainly have put on the company to provide services or to accept fares no objection to this matter going to a committee for that put them in a situation where an acceptable return could examination. That, I think, would be a natural way forward. not be acquired for the shareholders, they could fall back It would certainly remove from a number of members the on that Clause 33 and Government would have to take its excuse which they seem to have - and it is an excuse - that decision. There is nothing draconian or unusual about that. this provision or that provision is too embracing; committees He then of course fell back on again, ‘It is all very well, could look at that. chaps, do not worry about it, throw this franchise legislation I thank Mr. Karran, the hon. member for Onchan, for out: the user agreement.’ This user agreement, this six-year his albeit qualified support. myth, this agreement that we have not yet been told about Mr. Delaney and Mr. Cannan and Dr. Mann have spoken the heads of agreement, never mind the agreement, and we in support, and I appreciate that. have questioned and had questions about how it would be Mr. Cringle, he made a very valid point, I think, in the enforced or made enforceable and we have not had answers sense that he pointed out to us we are talking about the to that. There is no user agreement in prospect, and this hon. future of our passenger ferry service and perhaps other House knows that, and the Council of Ministers know it services, and that is what I would ask members to focus their better than anybody. attention on. It is not what we have or 160 years past, it Mr. Corkill of course - again that is the third leg of the is what we need for the future. department, along with Mr. Waft and Mr. Corlett, so of Mr. May of course - well, I think that was the final course they have to fall in alongside of their leader, so I do ministerial contribution. He said every now and then we not think I need to comment on that other than to say of seem to go through a phase where we say, ‘Let us give the course that he did make the point, a very good point, that Isle of Man Steam Packet a good kicking.’ That is far from the people are not satisfied - 1 always give praise where praise the truth, but, I mean, if there is a any kicking done, I do is due - that the people are not satisfied and the Isle of Man not think anybody has done more kicking than the Minister Steam Packet Company should be taking a serious note of for Tourism, and he is a member of the Council of Ministers. this matter. But, I mean, I think that is a somewhat irrelevant and May I just for a few moments just remind members of frivolous remark. We are not talking about kicking the what are the issues here. We are speaking about our sea Steam Packet Company, we are talking about trying to put links, passenger ferry in this particular case, which are our passenger ferry services onto a proper basis to build for central to our economic well-being. We are not talking of the future. Nobody is kicking anybody. some peripheral company activity. We are talking about a Intervention - here we see again, as per what appears to situation where those vital facets of our economic well-being be the current Council of Ministers’ line, he has this aversion are in the hands of a commercial concern which has a to intervention, although there is ample demonstration in monopoly. We are talking about endeavouring to provide the recent past of where intervention has been promoted by security of service, a standard of service, a fare structure them, but today it does not suit their purpose so they are which meet the Island’s needs, not which meet Mr. non-interventionists. Sherwood’s needs by going through the port of Heysham, He said that this legislation seems to have been put which meet the Island’s needs, and if you take that situation together on the assumption that companies will be queuing and bear in mind that the market is too small - and I accept up. I have not suggested that. What I have suggested is that this - to have competition and to achieve those standards there is a clause for the granting of a franchise, provides through competition, then you come to what we might call that it can go out on tender or by negotiation to an individual a number of options. You can leave matters as they are, leave company. We are talking about enabling legislation. But ourselves in pawn to a commercial operator with a what I do maintain is that no company in situ with a monopoly. You could, I suppose, go for nationalisation, monopoly of this sort, which is as profitable as this, which but, quite frankly, that is out of the question. Or you can is on offer to have security such as this, is going to throw seek, as I am seeking, to regulate through an interventionist that aside. That is absolute folly. If anybody falls for that, posture, because of the national interest, to regulate the they will fall for anything. operations to take into account the public interest.
Passenger Ferry Service Bill — Second Reading Debate Resumed — Motion Lost HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 30th MARCH 1993 K383
Two ways have been suggested for regulation for out, they are not even prepared to examine it. Well, it intervention. The user agreement, which is the proposal that remains to be seen whether that will work in their favour the Government have been floating for years - 1 will say no or not, but I do regret they have taken that posture because more than to suggest that that is time-expired, it is a myth. the ministerial block vote will not work in the public interest No meaningful user agreement will be extracted, sitting in this instance, and I find particularly, I think, I resent their listening to this, and they have got a smile on their face like posture to a certain extent because the Administration, albeit the cream or the cat, because they know there is going to Mr. Walker’s previous Administration, they gave a be no user agreement. Or you can be serious about securing commitment to this hon. House as part of the Select the public interest and you can go for a franchise. Now, at Committee report that I referred to on the Isle of Man Steam the end of the day that franchise might not turn out to be Packet Shares Bill, they gave a commitment as one of the precisely in the terms that I have got in this legislation; that recommendations that they would examine the feasibility remains to be seen. But there is the principle and it is the of the franchise, but of course they have done nothing about main threads of what is in that Bill which I am commending it, and as they have done nothing about it I would have to this hon. House. Now, the franchise-cum-licence thought they would at least have been sufficiently interested approach, it is not new. Why suddenly go into a state of to have supported this Bill through its second reading to convulsion about it from this situation? It is not new - 1 have compensate for that inactivity. given a number of examples here today: it is not new. It is The bottom line is very clear. Let the Isle of Man Steam a principle that is already established here and established Packet Company continue to operate as at present with elsewhere - nothing new about it at all. It is just, quite commercial interest predominant. The alternative is to vote frankly, because it is the Isle of Man Steam Packet for the second reading of this Bill and take a serious look Company, coupled with the fact that it is Edgar Quine who as to whether or not the concept is acceptable. I would indeed is proposing it. have been much happier had I been in a position to look There is no need to take my word that this is the way into many of the details of this Bill in greater depth than forward - we have already had the Government’s own what I have, but as a single member of this hon. House I consultants through the Denholm Report: they have neither have the facilities, research or otherwise, to do that, advocated a franchise approach. We have had the Select and each member of this hon. House, when he puts forward Committee of this hon. House and the Isle of Man a Private Member’s Bill, is in the same situation. Regulation of Shares Report, in which further investigation Vote out this Bill and any prospect of a user agreement of the franchise proposal was one of the recommendations will have been abandoned, provided, as I say, that this accepted by this House and signed by the Chief Minister, legislation can, if needs be, be brought back. And I would a signatory of the report was the Chief Minister. We have ask members to bear in mind when they are voting, I would the example I have given you of the discussions that took suggest to them that if they are voting out this Bill at this place in relation to the Caledonian MacBrayne where the stage they are voting - and let them tell the public this - for think-tank that had a look at that, they were proposing a no control to be exercised over the Isle of Man Steam Packet franchise, but because of the EEC grant situation that came Company, because the user agreement, any prospect of an to nought, and we can go overseas and take good examples agreement of any sort, from the time this Bill is voted out, of where we have got this legislation in place and where it is out of the window, and instead of saying ‘No’ when we works and not because it works because there are millions come to the vote, they may as well get down on their knees, of passengers - that is absolute rubbish. It offers to us a face east towards the Steam Packet and put both hands down regulatory regime, a foundation on which to build an on their prayer mats. I beg to move the second reading. effective mechanism by which the public interest can be secured. Yes, I beg your pardon, I said Denholm - it was the Wallem Report. I have got the names wrong there. Mr. Cretney: Hear, hear. The Isle of Man Steam Packet, what are their objections to it? I mean, they are on the receiving end - what are their objections to it? Very interesting. It is unnecessary because Mr. Downie: Praise be to Allah! of their track record. I mean, that is a plea for hanging if ever there was one: unnecessary because of their track The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion that is before record. No call for a Government subsidy. If they had said the House is that the Passenger Ferry Service Bill be now no more call for a Government subsidy: there is already a read a second time. Will all those in favour please say aye; Government subsidy there. They are making an investment. to the contrary say no. The ayes have it. Well, that is not a defence: if they are a commercial operation I would hope they are making an investment. And, last but not least, the stockholders would not like it. Mother A division was called for and voting resulted as follows: may not like it either, but it is the public interest which matters here, it is the future of our vital sea links. And after In the Keys - all these muted objections they then say, ‘However, we are prepared to enter into a formal service agreement.’ There For: Messrs. Cannan, Quine, Dr. Mann, Messrs. Cringle, is no violent objection from the Steam Packet. They are quite Cretney, Duggan, Delaney, Kermode and Karran - 9 happy to enter into a formal service agreement, whatever that may mean. Importantly, we are at this stage concerned Against: Messrs. North, Brown, May, Corlett, Downie, with the principle of applying regulation, we are not Mrs. Hannan, Messrs. Bell, Corkill, Waft, Gelling concerned with the individual provisions of the clauses. and the Speaker - 11 I think in some ways I regret that the Government have not made a more constructive contribution to this debate. They could have done, but they have decided for reasons The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion fails to carry, best known to themselves that they are going to throw this with 9 votes in favour and 11 against.
------—------1------Passenger Ferry Service Bill — Second Reading Debate Resumed — Motion Lost K384 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 30th MARCH 1993
CRIMINAL JUSTICE (PENALTIES, ETC.) BILL present powers and arrangements are inadequate. So we — SECOND READING APPROVED must by legislation give them those powers to be able to carry out sentences which are enforceable. The Speaker: The next item on our Agenda, hon. The Chief Constable’s annual report in 1992, page 40, members, is the second reading of thé Criminal Justice contains the words, ‘However it has to be said that the (Penalties Etc.) Bill, and I call upon the hon. member for Department together with the rest of the Force has shared Onchan, Mr. Waft. the frustration of the Courts over the lack of suitable detention facilities for young offenders. Time and time again Mr. Waft: Mr. Speaker, hon. members, I introduced we have seen certain persistent young offenders walk from this Bill into the House on behalf of the Council of Ministers. the Court Room when they richly deserved a custodial I believe the issues contained therein require urgent and sentence, not only to serve as a deterrent to them and others, careful consideration. We have been made aware that on but to protect the public from them. It is hoped this situation the basis of today’s debate the Council of Ministers will be will be rectified soon.’ This Bill sets out to rectify this reviewing its policy as to the Bill’s future progression situation and provides new rules for the regulation and for through the House. So I would hope that all members will the use of secure accommodation in the case of children in make a full contribution to the debate. care. It amends the law relating to the detention of juveniles This Bill addresses a number of serious issues relating to in youth custody units which may be a specially established penalties for criminal offences. There is a general increase secure juvenile unit as in a separate accommodation in the in fines which are dealt with by the courts of summary prison. I am given to understand the Department of Health jurisdiction, for levels were last set in 1985. There is also and Social Security and the Department of Home Affairs a provision in the Bill which enables the Council of are urgently addressing the situation of accommodation Ministers, with the approval of Tynwald, to increase the which will only be needed for a very small number of fines in pace with inflation. offenders. The Bill also increases punishment for indecent assault There is also contained in the Bill provisions for the courts under the Sexual Offences Act 1992 to a maximum period to impose a penalty of a combined probation and of seven years in all cases. There is also an extension of community service order, the need for which has been Section 14 of that same Act to include an offence of highlighted by the service. indecency towards children under 16 years of age. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Attorney Clause 6 and Schedule 1 will repeal the provisions which General for allowing members of the House the opportunity still remain on the statute book with regard to whipping, of discussing the provisions encompassed in this Bill and which are redundant in that they can now never be used by trust the questions have been answered to their satisfaction. the courts. The reason why the courts cannot now impose I will make every effort to address any others during the sentences of corporal punishment is well known. It is because course of the debate. Mr. Speaker, I so move. the European Court of Human Rights in 1978 decided that the imposition of such penalties was contrary to the Mr. Kermode: I rise - provisions of the convention. The Staff of Government Division, the Manx Appeal Court, determined in 1981 that The Speaker: Now, hon. member would you please in exercising discretion as to the appropriate penalties the resume your seat? I am looking for someone to second. courts should, as far as possible, exercise their discretion in a way which is in conformity with the decision of the Mr. Kermode: I was going to second it, Mr. Speaker. European Court. The enactments which are to be repealed are set out in The Speaker: Oh, right. I am sorry. Schedule 1, and I have had these circulated to members for their convenience. Mr. Kermode: And then I was going to speak, if I may. The treatment of young offenders is an extremely important and difficult subject. The magistrates who serve The Speaker: No, I am sorry, if you are seconding it you on the juvenile court are entitled to have the power to cannot take the action that I think you are seeking to take administer effective punishment when they have to deal with under Standing Order 84. juvenile offenders. This they do not have. The present situation is very unsatisfactory. There is provision on the Mr. Kermode: Well, then I will not second it then. statute book for both detention and corporal punishment, but for different reasons neither penalties are available to The Speaker: Thank you. them. The current position is that there are no means of imposing any form of custody on any offender who is less Mr. Delaney: Mr. Speaker, a point of order, two points. than 17 years of age, whatever the circumstances. Should laws which cannot be enforced remain on the The Speaker: No, wait a moment. Before we take this statute book? This is the question which must be addressed any further I do wish to have the issue of the Bill on the by this House. With this Bill we can set out a clear floor of the House. framework for sentencing policy. Laws should be clear and enforceable and it is the responsibility of the Legislature to Mr. Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, I will second the Bill ensure that the courts operate to a legal code which is that is here today - enforceable. Clause 10 and Schedule 2 will abolish detention as a The Speaker: Thank you. sentence and replace it with forms of custody which can actually be used in exceptional cases when no other course Mr. Karran: - and on seconding the Bill I would just like of action is appropriate. The juvenile panel of magistrates to say that I believe that this Bill has a remarkably large have to deal with the situation as it stands today, and the amount of good things within this piece of legislation, and
Criminal Justice (Penalties, Etc.) Bill — Second Reading Approved HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 30th MARCH 1993 K385
I also feel that there has been a certain amount of pressure the adjacent isle where there is a growing business within from outside this hon. House over the issue of whipping. the stolen property of burglaries, and how the law needs to But I take quite a lot of exception when people sometimes be changed in the UK, and I have tried in the Home Affairs say that this hon. House is not in touch with reality and that Department and I have been to the Attorney-General’s it should live in the real world, and even some have described Department about whether the emphasis is not right. These and said, ‘Sometimes you are a bit like a Disney Club’ and are the issues I hope at this second reading we will hear as I have always said that that is terrible and is unacceptable a member of the Home Affairs Department, about tackling to this hon. House. But I believe that if this hon. House the issues that really need to be tackled, because one of the runs away from the issue of whipping or birching or things which saddens me in my period as a member of this whatever it calls it and tries to give the image that that is hon. House is the national asset of this Island. It is not the the backbone to our law and order issues for the Isle of Man, gold or the diamonds, we all know that, but it is time, and then we are into imagery, and what we are into is like a what happens here tomorrow has happened in the UK a cartoon: it looks real but there is no substance with it. That decade or so ago, and so often we lose that initiative because is what we have here today within this piece of legislation we are busy trying to be like the magician, trying to pretend as far as birching is concerned, and I, like every member there is something there when it is not there and really in this hon. House, have had the 1981 election and I do not addressing the issues that need to be addressed in this hon. think there are many in this hon. House that fought the 1981 House. election with me within this House, and I remember when I hope that this second reading of this Bill will receive a we had the issue there and it was the major issue of that full support for it and we will address each of the issues one election, we had the abrogation issue, we have had other by one. But let us not have just the image of trying to do issues in the past, and I remember how we had it there and something when we are not, let us hear what members have we had the Dutch auction of we are retaining the birch, and to say, because I want laws in this Island that can be adhered we had nine candidates in my constituency and by the time to and be responsible to and give respect to this House. We it got to the eighth candidate we were hanging them, we were cannot have respect if we have laws that are only there like having six-foot barbed wire fences around Jurby Camp and the cartoon that gives an image. We need laws that mean we were going to have ex-sergeant majors to birch them on laws, not Walt Disney laws, laws that are there that can be a regular basis, daily, and I stood up and I said, ‘I am afraid applied and used in which I believe is going to be a growing the issue is dead’ and if it was dead then, it is dead today, problem, and I hope, on seconding this second reading, that and I think it is wrong to give the impression that somehow we will hear what hon. members are going to do about the this issue is alive and kicking when it is not, and I think it increasing crime problems, because I believe that it will help is irresponsible to try and make this Government’s fight on us in the Home Affairs Department to address these issues. the increasing crime within our community on a basis of I believe that just trying to pacify vocal minorities and give ‘Well, we will retain the birch’, because we are not helping false security is such a shame in this hon. House and we the community in my opinion. should get down to the reality of getting down to telling the I believe that if we are sincere in the fight to try and stop people what is really happening, and I second the Bill that the increasing crime within this Island this Bill goes a small is before us at the present time. way in its entirety to help it. But it is not the answer and I think this House gives my department too easy a time in The Speaker: Now, just before we proceed with any part the Home Affairs Department. of this debate, the member for Douglas East, Mr. Delaney, I would hope that what we yill hear today in the second sought to raise a point of order. reading of this piece of legislation is the way forward to combat crime, not with token gestures or dead issues, but Mr. Delaney: I did. Mr. Speaker, you have already with real issues, a way of affecting how we are going to go clarified it. Unfortunately, my colleague, the member for down the road to stop the ever-increasing crime and the ways East Douglas, Mr. Kermode, asked to second the Bill, and to deal with the penalties that we want to inflict on our I thought to reserve his remarks, and you said he could not criminals in order to do so. do it. That was the point that I wished to raise, Mr. Speaker. I personally as a member of the Department of Home Affairs have been fighting to try and get more police stations The Speaker: Yes. No, just before you speak, the next built in communities, not try to do away with them. Alas, person who caught my eye was the member for Peel, and I have lost that battle, I have lost the battle as far as selling then yourself, sir. off police houses in the community. I believe policemen should live in the communities they police - Mrs. Hannan: Thank you, Vainstyr Loayreyder. I rise to support this Bill. I support the updating of penalties and Mr. Gilbey: Hear, hear. the improving of the criminal justice system generally. The amendments to the Sexual Offences Act 1992 are to be Mr. Delaney: Like Pulrose. welcomed as they close a loophole that many of us have expressed concern about. Mr. Karran: - and I believe that this hon. House would I also welcome the abolition of the birch or, as it is be better addressing those sorts of issues and issues that we described in this piece of legislation, whipping. could have a real effect on than flogging dead horses, I also welcome the amendment relating to community because that is what we are going to see today, and I hope service orders to enable courts to impose a combined in this second reading we will hear what members of this probation and community service order. hon. House want to hear. That is what I want to hear as I also welcome the ability of the courts to use secure a member of this House and that is what the people of the accommodation in the case of children in the care of the Isle of Man want to hear: how we are going to attack the Department of Health and Social Security as a last resort. real issues. Let us not have the cartoon show. Let usget I know we have witnessed in recent times unruly and down to real substance and come along with like we see in misbehaved children, but I know that this sentence will be
Criminal Justice (Penalties, Etc.) Bill — Second Reading Approved K386 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 30th MARCH 1993
used only as a last resort where, in the opinion of the court Benet Hytner pointed out that a medical certificate would the circumstances are so exceptional that it would be be required for birching, but what he did not explain was inappropriate to deal with them in any other way. the difficulty there might be obtaining this. Neither the I have covered these points in some detail so that no-one British Medical Association, the World Medical Association, can be under any illusions as to where I stand on this Bill. nor the Medical Defence organisations would support a It is a package, it amends, deals with problems, updates fines doctor who was party to birching. and also removes obsolete legislation from the statute book. However, I should now like to discuss in some detail crime Why should it matter if obsolete legislation is or is not and its effect on society and ask if it should be tolerated removed from the statute book? It matters a great deal to by any of us. My response is that it should not and it is time me, as I believe it should to all members of this hon. House. we did something about it. We are supposed to be civilised If it is there, use it. If we cannot or do not use it, remove and sophisticated in our society and our society has been it from the statute book. With regard to this legislation it described as being civilised and sophisticated, but I would is important because it gives the wrong impression if it were put it to this House that we have stopped caring. In a way to remain. we have become too sophisticated and less civilised. Gone I believe in human rights and I believe in respect for the are the days when everyone knew everyone else, not only individual, whether they are the offender or the victim, but in their street, but in their town, village or parish, when I also believe that the state should respect all its people. everything your neighbour had was shared or borrowed and Winston Churchill in the House of Commons, when he was no-one minded. Doors were left open and cars unlocked. Home Secretary, said, ‘The mood and temper of the public If a child misbehaved, the friends, relatives and neighbours in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of of that child’s parents would inform them. It would be seen the most unfailing tests of the civilisation of any country.’ as a caring thing to do, but now it would be seen as It is for that reason that human rights Conventions were interfering and certainly not appreciated. I would put it to set up: to protect the individual from the actions and you that the young child or person has not changed. I do criminal justice of the state when so-called justice and not think our young people have changed - our young people penalties are against human rights. Let me remind hon. have always got into trouble, but I believe society and the members that these Conventions protect the individual, community spirit has changed. because it is by valuing the individual that the state itself Gone are the days when we should answer violence with earns respect. violence. That does not help anyone. It does not prevent I am not only talking about the European Convention crime, neither does it help the victim. It brutalises the which we all know is binding but also the United Nations criminal and the state. What we should be doing is Convention on Civil and Political Rights which, whilst also preventing crime and then we would have fewer victims. It binding, works in a slightly different way. In the case of the is all very well screaming and shouting, ‘Birch them!’ It will United Nations Covenant the United Kingdom appears not stop crime, but it will stop people thinking about how before the Human Rights Committee every 10 years and we should proceed to prevent crime. answers for us on behalf of our human rights record. It is A maximum sentence for a 12-year-old boy in this instance not like the European Court where an individual can take is six strokes of the cane. For a young person between 14 a grievance. and 17 it is 12 strokes of the birch. For an older person, Corporal punishment has recently been reconsidered by 20 strokes of the birch. How does that stop there being a the European Court. To reach their verdict on the case of victim? Birching does not right a wrong. It does not make the child receiving the slipper at school they cited the Manx the victim feel any better. The victim may have been case of birching and re-affirmed the court’s view that physically hurt, but they are not going to feel any justice birching was a degrading punishment within the meaning if the perpetrator is birched. of Article 3 of the Convention. They further went on to say I have already said that I am opposed to acts of violence, that they did not wish the judgement to be taken to approve acts of violence by offenders or the state. My Christian in any way the retention of corporal punishment. affirmation of the value of the person is of fundamental Members will no doubt have read the address given by importance to me. Crime requires action, but it does not the learned Attorney to the Isle of Man Magistrates give the community unlimited rights over the offender. Association in 1981 which sets out these matters in greater Experience shows that corporal punishment may be effective detail. In that address it set out the conditions under which if it is given by someone in a sustained, predictable and a sentence of birching may be given. First, he says the justices loving relationship. That is why some, usually men, claim should strive in every case to fit one or other of the nine that a thrashing from their father when they were young did methods of disposal - that is other than whipping - to the them a lot of good. It may have done so, but the question case before them. They should then consider whether any remains, was it necessary? However, the more distant and contra-indications exist. He refers to four situations in which impersonal the relationship, the less stable the character a sentence of whipping should never be imposed by a court: punished, the less effective it will be. It is certainly hard to (a) where there is a delay between the offence being maintain on Christian grounds that it is right to behave in committed and the execution of the sentence; (b) where the a physically harsh way to those who have themselves behaved offender is physically unfit; (c) where the offender is this way to others. psychiatrically unfit; (d) where the offender is The root question we should ask is, what is it in human temperamentally unfit. This last group was subdivided into nature that leads so many to be firmly in favour of corporal (1) those whose reaction would render them more violent punishment? We as legislators devalue ourselves by wanting as they sought revenge; (2) those who tolerated the to use physical violence, especially when we know that it punishment well and then posed to their peers as heroes or will never be done. We also devalue ourselves by supporting martyrs. One could only imagine the amount of money that the retention on the statute book of an evil, violent, cruel, a birch offender could raise by selling his story. And, finally, inhuman and degrading punishment. These are all terms (3) those who may derive sado-masochistic pleasure from used by international bodies to describe this barbaric the punishment. treatment.
Criminal Justice (Penalties, Etc.) Bill — Second Reading Approved HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 30th MARCH 1993 K387
I suppose it is easy for some members to support it is far from the truth. If we cared about the victim we would something which means nothing. The Chief Constable and do something about law and order, we would do something Chairman of the Magistrates Bench have said that it is about solving the problems caused by the lack of care, meaningless. It makes no difference to them either way. consideration and commitment by our community as a These same members predict an avalanche of crime if we whole. remove this unstable law from our statute books. May I Many studies show that by having different attitudes, that remind hon. members in this House that it is the same by caring for young children, providing nursery and pre members who were predicting that this country would school facilities, that by improving numeracy and literacy, become the gay capital of the world once the homosexual that by welcoming people, especially those not as fortunate laws were amended. They are perhaps as good at forecasting as the majority, into our society and helping them play a as Russell Grant is. part and be valued by the community for whatever they have Some members consider it is the wish of the people that to offer, then society itself improves. There is less vandalism, it should be retained and even used. However, I have found fewer unplanned teenage pregancies and better prospects for the picture to be most certainly different. It is reported that school-leavers. The results are fewer offenders, less 60 people attended a public meeting supporting the birch prosecutions, fewer people in prisons and society improves. issue, knowing that it is included in today’s and last week’s My department is aware of the findings of studies to support legislation. Even if this were twice the number it would not this view and is committed to improving the position of our be half the people in that area. There were as many people young people and thus in the long term have fewer offenders. at a public meeting in Laxey to discuss the closure of their It is a long-term commitment but a worthwhile one and one school kitchen. So much for the strong public interest. There that has been shown to work, whereas violence, birching have been few letters to the paper and even the Mannin Line certainly does not pay. This is our commitment to the future, went quiet once the initial vocal few had had their say. In not a negative and self-satisfied attitude that calls for people the poll in one of our local papers 630 people replied: a to be birched and then turns round and says that they care response of 4 per cent, of the average weekly readership. about the victim. It is a lot of nonsense, and this House Those are the newspaper’s figures. Six hundred and two were knows it. against removal from the statute book of birching, 28 were More importantly, there would be fewer victims, and in favour of the removal of birching from the statute book. make no mistake: I care that there should be any victims In the same newspaper the leading article supported the at all. I am sick and tired of the moral minority for ever removal of the birch, but apparently even this did not arouse complaining that it is only they that are concerned about more than 4 per cent, of its readers. What does that tell us? the victims. There only solution is to beat hell out of Nothing. The number replying were not even the size of Mr. someone, thus creating a second victim and not doing Gilbey’s constituency and his is the smallest. Of those who anything for the first. They call those of us who wish to bothered to reply more were in favour of retention than reform things ‘do-gooders’. Well, I enjoy trying to do good, against, but surely the most significant thing is that 96 per and if they are not ‘do-gooders’, then they must be ‘do- cent. - and that is every sale of a newspaper, so that is not badders’ or perhaps ‘don’t do-gooders’, and I am glad I am the total readership - but 96 per cent, were not really not one of them. bothered either way. Only one person has raised the matter We are for ever being lectured by members of this House with me personally, another mentioned it in passing. I have not to kid the Manx public. If you do not support all the not had one letter or telephone call from any of my clauses of this Bill, then you are kidding the Manx public. constituents about birching - This Bill must be supported as a whole package. The whole ? package is the Isle of Man. What we are trying to do here Mr. Cretney: They know your views. is prove we are mature enough to take decisions and improve law. In talking about maturity the member for Michael, Mr. Duggan: They know your views. when talking about abrogation, stated we should be mature enough to abrogate. I would be heartened if he accepted the Mrs. Hannan: - and this is in spite of the urging by Mr. same principle today to remove birching from the statute Gilbey and his friends who have been doing it via Manx books. Without the support of members to vote for the Bill Radio. So where is the strong public interest? May I remind in this second reading or to support all the clauses because members we are here first and foremost to pass good, sound they may perceive a strong public interest will show us up, legislation, and, secondly, to take into account the feelings I am afraid, as not being a mature parliament, mature and views of our constituents. We are not the delegates of members or country. I will be very sad if this is the case. those people with the loudest voices, in fact just the opposite I believe that this is a test of our maturity and if we fail this, should be true. We are here to protect the individual, the then I am afraid I could not possibly agree with the member poor, the weak and the innocent. We must protect the victim for Michael. We will not be mature enough to raise our own and the criminal from violent acts. taxes, to run our own country. It is always easy to bow to Thirty years ago when I worked in England people knew perceived public pressure in mentioning the birch and also about the Isle of Man and the birch. It was sometimes the in the reduction of taxes, as he himself has done in the past, only thing that those people knew about this place. They but to make a decision to raise taxes, increase VAT or had never been, they had no interest in coming, but what income tax is much more difficult and requires a mature they did know was that we had this degrading form of membership and a responsible membership. punishment which other civilised countries had done away Mr. Gilbey, in response to perceived public pressure with decades ago, as long ago as 1949 in England. I think following a particularly nasty crime in his constituency, it is very sad to think that some of us want the outside world brought a resolution before Tynwald Court in April 1989 to see us in that light, in the light of being uncaring and which, if passed, would have withdrawn the Isle of Man brutalising. from the European Convention and allowed us to birch in As I have said before we are fast becoming an uncaring a wide range of cases. As it happened, neither of the two society. We may give lip-service to caring for the victim, but men convicted would have been birched under the current
Criminal Justice (Penalties, Etc.) Bill — Second Reading Approved K388 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 30th MARCH 1993 law, as one was over the age and the other was psychiatrically obligation to the people of Mann that she keeps telling us, unfit. the nationalists keep telling us we should be doing? Those Mr. Delaney, opposing the motion by the member for are the people I worry about, never mind outside. Glenfaba, said he was in favour of corporal punishment and (Members: Hear, hear.) capital punishment but admitted that neither were possible I remember addressing - and my colleague Mr. Cretney at the moment. That was in 1989. He then went on to say, from Douglas South will tell you - a convention of and I quote, ‘...but I have to accept it because it is a reality, pensioners in another place in the UK where I had to speak it is there, we know it is there, we say it is on the statute on law and order in society. At this convention there were book, we say and we are accused of kidding the public, but some 800-odd pensioners there and I spoke about still having the rules were changing outside the Island that stopped us on our statute book the birching issue to which there was inflicting it, that is what happened, and the idea that we can thunderous applause, and afterwards the members of that scream from this Chamber to people outside and try and committee and the pensioners in that hall came and asked kid the Manx people that there is a way, without a great about the birch and supported the measures of this waste of energy and resources, that we can bring back the Government in having it still in place, because in society in birch for this case or any other case that might come along... the United Kingdom it is deteriorating. You have only got is totally wrong.’ The hon. member then went on to give to watch the TV, listen to the radio, see how their society a history of the birch, how it was introduced by property- is going, yet all of these do-gooders keep saying, ‘Do away owning people to protect their property, and how his friends with this, because the poor criminal - you do not match were wrongly birched for stealing. He argued strongly for violence with violence’. You do not do anything; let us look stiffer penalties and real time in gaol. So I hope to see him after them, let us give them a television in their cell and give support this Bill as a whole, as it should satisfy his demands. them a nice job in a prison somewhere and try and To take two more points from Mr. Delaney’s speech, the rehabilitate them. I agree there are people who can be resolution then, as well as this debate now, was like the rehabilitated, but there are those who cannot be; there is flogging of a seaman where the captain shouts ‘Give that the hardened criminal - no matter how much you try and man 50 strokes of the cat’ and the bosun answers ‘But he rehabilitate him he will never ever do that. is dead, sir’, and the captain replies, ‘Carry on with the I only heard on the news the other day that the Court of punishment’. It is exactly the same: it is a pointless exercise. Human Rights has talked about bringing back caning in Finally, Mr. Delaney finished by saying he would rather public schools and supporting that issue, and as far as spend his time doing more important and profitable things, leaving it on our books is concerned, let me tell this hon. such as negotiating the 12-mile limit and arguing the toss House, our society changes, laws change; they are always about submarines in the Irish Sea. He may not have realised changing. There may come a time in the future when it then but because of our attitude to homosexual law reform somebody elsewhere will say ‘Hang on, we were wrong in we failed to get total control of our 12-mile territorial sea. taking this out of the way, we believe flogging should be We could not come to terms with our international re-introduced’, (Members: Hear, hear.) and it is going to obligations on matters such as these, so we were not judged be harder to bring it back than it is to do away with it now. mature enough to be responsible enough to manage fairly But why are we tinkering with it? Has anybody been birched our 12-mile limit. That is why we have to make recently? No. We know we cannot use it, but it is there and representations to the United Kingdom every time we want there are people I have spoken to in the United Kingdom; to change a dot or cross a ‘t’. when they come to the Isle of Man, they do not know we As a point of interest, during that debate only three cannot use it, but they do know it is on our statute books Members of the House of Keys supported Mr. Gilbey’s and I do believe it is a deterrent. resolution and one of those lost his seat at the last election. We can speak at length on this, and I am going to try and Keeping birching on the statute book will make no do something now and I hope members will support it, difference here in the Isle of Man but it will certainly be because I listened to the Treasury Minister on the radio; he detrimental to our external relations. I would urge members said that the Council of Ministers will be listening to to support the second reading and I would urge members members talking today and see which way the wind is going to support the clauses stage fully at the next reading. Thank to blow as to whether or not they remove this from the Bill. you, Vainstyr Loayreyder. Now, I support this Bill. There are lots of good things in this Bill, but we are going to spend a lot of time debating Mr. Kermode: Mr. Speaker, I like this hon. House, one issue in this Bill: whether or not we take the birch out, because at times you can put forward your own personal which means by the time we have finished debating that more views, and that is what the last speaker did. She put forward time has elapsed, there are other forms of legislation coming her own personal views. I can honestly say to the hon. lady, forward that are more important, I believe, to our society having spoken to people in her constituency, that the reason that should be debated in longer lengths than this issue why she has not been approached by them is that they should be; that we should be looking at. already know her views and they feel it would be a pointless Therefore I would like to move an adjournment motion exercise to go and speak to her. that the Criminal Justice Bill be adjourned until such time This matter of birching has been debated many, many as Clause 6, Schedule 1, is removed from the Bill. Now, if times, even before my time in this hon. House and, to be members support that resolution today, if I get a majority quite honest with you, I feel that the public outside - there of support for that resolution, it means there will be an is much more important legislation coming through than adjournment debate of five minutes and I think members having to debate this time after time after time. Now, we can amply, in five minutes, tell the Treasury Minister how know that we cannot use the birch, we know what the outside they feel about it. Then, if that adjournment is supported, obligations are, but, you know, for ever the hon. member the Treasury Minister will then know that this House does keeps shouting about the Court of Human Rights and our not want to remove that clause from the Bill. If it is not international obligations. What about our obligations to supported, then we go on and we talk about this Bill and Mann that she is always talking about? What about our then, when we come to the clauses stages again, you are
Criminal Justice (Penalties, Etc.) Bill — Second Reading Approved HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 30th MARCH 1993 K389 going to debate the same issue again at clauses stages. Well, young offenders. That is dealt with within this particular I believe the correct... and not like the hon. member for Peel Bill. Now, hon. members have been given by the Minister has just done - we should have voted for this second reading for the Treasury only last week the indication that their today without a long debate on whether or not we should comments on any other aspect of this Bill will certainly be be birched, and left it until we got to the clauses stages and listened to, certainly taken on board, and if hon. members then, if members felt strongly about it, never mind the do not like a particular part of a Bill, when you get down Council of Ministers, then we throw it out, and then it will to the clauses stage then vote it out, chuck it out; it is quite be one against the other. Then we will see ministers who want simple. But the rest of this Bill is important. I believe it is that vote... never mind behind locked doors, we will see the very, very important. We need to uprate our penalties, we ministers who wanted to get away from that collective need to provide the judiciary with the tools to do the job responsibility issue on a matter of conscience, vote in this that we have charged them with doing. If we do not, then hon. House and show the people outside how they voted we are irresponsible as legislators. So let us not, as my hon. without doing it behind locked doors. That is what should colleague would say, save time by deferring it; all you are have happened today. But it is not, because the Minister for doing is wasting time. Education has just proved that point; we will go on debating this all day long where there are other issues that could be Mr. Kermode: Rubbish. debated more. So I am going to hope that somebody will second it, that we will adjourn this and then, if it is Mr. May: Let us get on with the second reading debate. successful, the Minister for the Treasury will have his answer It may mean the inconvenience that we might have to come and this House does not want to remove the birching issue back after lunch. What a shame! from our statute. So I hope members will support that adjournment. Mr. Kermode: Mr. Speaker, I did not infer that.
Mr. Duggan: I beg to second, Mr. Speaker. Mr. May: I never said you did.
The Speaker: Thank you very much. Now, before we The Speaker: Gentlemen! proceed with the adjournment debate which we will now enter - and obviously members will be limited to five minutes Mr. May: I never said you did sir, but what I said is that - I would just like to make one observation on the terms if we go on to the second reading we will be back after lunch, of the motion that has been put forward by the member for and it may be we have to put up with that. But the other Douglas East. He is quite right and quite proper to move items in this Bill - 1 believe it is important that this second an adjournment under Standing Order 84; I have no problem reading goes ahead, and if any hon. member wishes to with that. We may have a problem, however - dispute any particular aspect of the Bill at clauses stage, then they have the prerogative if indeed that particular situation Mr. Delaney: Taking the clauses. arises, and I believe my hon. colleague, and the member for Malew and Santon, has given a clear indication last week. The Speaker: Yes, with that part of the motion which So I would say let us get on with the second reading debate talks about removing Clause 6. Now, we are causing some and get that out of the way; then the clauses can be dealt enquiries to be made as to whether or not those words can with and either accepted or rejected as members see fit. be included within the motion,, and I think it would be right that I advise the House that, at this moment of time, that The Speaker: Before we proceed, hon. members, I have issue is, from my point of view, undecided. That is not to concluded my views on the issue of the insert that the say, however, that the principle of an adjournment cannot member for Douglas East had included in his adjournment be debated by this House. So I would advise members - and motion, and I have come to the conclusion that the wording one or two are apparently quite eager to talk (Laughter) to that he had put forward was perhaps ultra vires. But I have the adjournment - to limit their remarks to five minutes. suggested to him some alternative wording which I believe I will start with the member for Douglas North, Mr. May, will meet with his approval. My alternative wording which followed by the member for Douglas East, Mr. Delaney. I will advise the House - and I hope your seconder, sir, will also be prepared to accept - is: Mr. May: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I find it quite interesting: the hon. member for East Douglas, Mr. That the debate be adjourned to enable the Council of Kermode is getting quite a dab hand at moving adjournment Ministers to reconsider their position with regard to Clause debates, and it is very handy to get us out of the Chamber 6. before lunchtime (Laughter) and conclude the day’s proceedings. (Interruption) I find it quite interesting that he That, I believe, is acceptable to you as I am advised that referred to the fact that there is far more important that is a valid reason for an adjournment. legislation that we can be discussing instead of wasting our time discussing this Bill; as far as I see it, the remainder of Mr. Kermode: As it has been changed, Mr. Speaker, can our Agenda contains one two-clause Private Members Bill I make a comment? That would still give members the which I am sure is not going to take up the whole of the opportunity to give their views on Clause 6 regardless of afternoon’s proceedings. anything else. So, having said that, I think we should come back to the point of the issue: this is an important Bill, it is a package The Speaker: Yes, now, the next person to speak is in of legislation designed to bring in penalties which can be fact the member for Douglas East, who is looking slightly imposed by the judiciary particularly in respect of young unhappy - is it a point of order that you wish to raise? offenders, and there is a problem. There is no doubt that we have a problem in providing secure accommodation for Mr. Delaney: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have only been here
Criminal Justice (Penalties, Etc.) Bill — Second Reading Approved K390 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 30th MARCH 1993
17 years and I cannot understand what has got out of hand controlled by some strings outside this Chamber. If the here. If I am speaking to the situation, when has it become, members want to ask for adjournments so that the ministers in this illustrious assembly, the prerogative of the that are here, who are members of the Government, can Government to decide how this House acts? This is not the decide their position in the ante-chamber, let them so do. prerogative of the Government, and in the opening remarks We cannot wait around waiting for somebody outside to of Mr. Waft, the unfortunate person who has to move or decide how this House acts. I find it extraordinary starting not move the clause, he indicated that he was awaiting, or this morning, and last week at Question Time, that they were awaiting, the outcome of the Council of Ministers’ Government and the Parliament which the Government decision. serves and the people that it serves is controlled in some other place by its actions. That is not democracy and, whether you Mr. Cretney: You read a Bill before you take it. read Erskine May or anybody else, you will find that. This Bill has been given to the public as being so important, and Mr. Delaney: Mr. Speaker, that is my point of order. we all agree, as the member for North Douglas has said. This is against the interest of the democratically elected But what has been told to the public through one of his House. colleagues, the minister, on the radio was that the Bill was in danger. It is not the Bill that is in danger; it is the clause The Speaker: Could I just intervene on the point made that is in danger, and we will decide that at the clauses stage, by the member for Douglas East? We must not overlook but I hate the idea that we are telling it and selling it that the fact that this is in fact a Government Bill - if you do not support the Bill all those good things are lost. The parliamentary system we operate is for the benefit of Mr. Delaney: It is already in front of the House, Mr. the people through legislation, and each individual member Speaker. is his own master when it comes to a decision. I hope the members will consider what has gone on here The Speaker: - and it seems to me, and I so rule, that this morning. There is a danger this is taking in as being in fact for your colleague, the member for Douglas East, the practice that the parliamentary system which we serve Mr. Kermode, to move the adjournment to give the Council will fall to pieces. of Ministers time to reconsider their position on Clause 6 is to my mind a valid reason for an adjournment. Now, Mr. Gelling: Mr. Speaker, who suggested anybody was would you like to speak to the adjournment? pulling strings from outside this House? The hon. member for East Douglas, Mr. Kermode, has stood up and moved Mr. Delaney: I will Mr. Speaker. The fact of it is, we an adjournment, properly as he can, and there is nobody do not even know what their position is now. We have no from the Council of Ministers pulling strings of Mr. indication from the Council of Ministers, and certainly not Kermode. We are quite happy to debate this at second by what ministers have said through the media, of whether reading and allow the situation; as the hon. member for East they support the Bill or they do not support the Bill. To Douglas Mr. Delaney has suggested, it is absolutely proper. reconsider a position they have not yet established in a You, Mr. Speaker, asked Mr. Waft, the hon. member for democracy is ridiculous. But the hon. colleague is quite right Onchan, to take the Bill and Mr. Waft has taken the Bill, to move an adjournment so that the person concerned can find out exactly where he stands, because - am I not right I was asked a question that was put to the Chief Minister and in his absence I replied that the Council of Ministers in the position so that the public at least know and are not would be supporting this Bill at second reading. That was kidded again? - the fact of it is,* this Bill is introduced, as the answer to the question, and that was what the question it quite clearly states in the Bill, at the behest of ‘the Government’. The mover of the Bill was asked by you would was posed. I indicated that after hearing the members of this House and their feelings, we would then consider the he introduce the Bill; that is your prerogative and his way in which the Bill was to go forward in conjunction with prerogative is to accept it or not to accept it, which he Mr. Waft who had expressed some concern. It is our concern accepted, and in his opening remarks on the second reading, for the mover of the Bill who is taking a Bill on behalf of as laid down under Standing Orders, he indicated - am I not the Council of Ministers. correct? I think Hansard will show it - that the Council of Ministers in some way had control of this Bill at this stage. Mr. Delaney: It is not in your prerogative. The control of the Bill is in the hands of you, sir, and this House, (Members: Hear, hear.) not in the Government’s hands, and the fact that we now under... and it is the first Mr. Gelling: We could discuss with the member, Mr. I have ever heard of it; we have never ever referred a Bill Waft, as to in fact how he proceeds with the Bill; that was back to Executive Council to my knowledge. We have never what I said. So therefore, we are not discussing anything done that. It has never been done. If the Bill stands and falls about pulling strings outside this House, we are quite happy and each individual clause stands and falls on the vote of for this to have its second reading today and to vote upon this democratically elected House, and even the opponents it and move on to the clauses stage. We are not backing an and supporters and non-supporters must see that we are adjournment for any reasons - 1 do not know what on earth doing the public a disservice by allowing the rights of the the member for East Douglas Mr. Delaney is trying to state. House to be taken away by one body of the House who are We want it to proceed today. not elected by this House in their position; they are elected in another place, Tynwald. But we are the elected Mr. Delaney: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the representatives and we decide what legislation by democratic member has indicated that he intends to discuss the state vote goes through this Chamber. of this Bill which is in front of this House now, with the As far as the adjournment is concerned, members will mover on which way it goes forward. It is not your decide rightly whether they support the member and his prerogative, Mr. Speaker. Will you explain that to the move or not, but I cannot accept that this House should be member?
Criminal Justice (Penalties, Etc.) Bill — Second Reading Approved HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 30th MARCH 1993 K391
The Speaker: Could you try and get to the kernel of your Mr. Brown: Mr. Speaker, I just think it is unfortunate point of order? the way this has got out of all proportion to what is going on. The hon. member for East Douglas, Mr. Kermode, has Mr. Delaney: Mr. Speaker, it is not up to the rightly, as he can under Standing Orders, put forward a Government to tell a member who has accepted a Bill how motion to the House, and, quite honestly, half of the rest he proceeds with that Bill. It is your prerogative or the that has been said is absolutely irrelevant. Procedures of this House’s prerogative. House are quite clearly laid down in our Standing Orders, and as the hon. member for East Douglas, Mr. Delaney, The Speaker: Yes, but the point that is before the House knows, who has been here longer than most of us, we as at the moment is whether or not any of the members who Government cannot alter the work of this House, the House have spoken have contravened Standing Orders. That is the has it clearly defined in its Standing Orders and Government issue that is before me, and to the best of my knowledge within the House are only members of the House carrying there have been not contravention of Standing Orders. out their responsibilities. As far as I am concerned we should get on with the work Mr. Delaney: Misleading the House, Mr. Speaker. of the House, and the work of the House is that this is the place for members publicly to let it be known what they feel The Speaker: Now what has happened is that the about this question that is before them. What is important member for Douglas East has in my view, quite properly is that we have a second reading, and why do we have a moved an adjournment, and the members of this House are second reading? The second reading is because members use entitled, that motion having been seconded by the member that, not just in this Bill but in every Bill that comes before for Douglas South Mr. Duggan, to speak to that this hon. House, to indicate views of concern or support they adjournment for a maximum period of five minutes. Now may have with regard to the legislation that they are being the member for Glenfaba wishes to speak. asked to give support to, and that is what it is about. Now, if you need to adjourn it, I would suggest there needs to Mr. Gilbey: Mr. Speaker, following up the remarks by be a very good reason, and the hon. member Mr. Kermode the hon. Treasury Minister, the member for Malew and is making a point that he is saying it is to enable members Santon, he said that the Council of Ministers would like to to let the Council of Ministers know their views. With respect get an indication of the feelings of this hon. House so that to that - and I can understand him doing that members have a decision could be made jointly by themselves and the hon. already had two weeks to do that to the Council of Ministers, mover of the Bill as to whether Clause 6 should be removed and I have to say, as a member of that Council, I think one from it. Now, I think that the hon. member for East Douglas member has spoken to me briefly about their views on it, has suggested a quick way of getting that solution without and there has been that opportunity. If members have not every hon. member making a lengthy speech. His suggestion taken it - and they do not have to - they are here to debate is that if we vote for the adjournment for the purpose that it in this House, and that is where the public expect it to has been suggested, and if that was carried by a majority be debated. So I do not criticise the member for East of this House, the hon. member for Malew and Santon and Douglas - at all, Mr. Kermode, in what he is doing; he is his colleagues would then have a clear indication and putting that point forward. It is a question he thinks the perhaps, if we took the vote before lunch, they could discuss House should be asked, I have to say I do not agree with it over lunch and come back agreeing to the withdrawal of him; I think this is the place to debate it, and also because the clause, in which case the second reading could proceed. I do believe there are a number of issues within this I cannot see why they need long to decide this; it seems to legislation that are important, and he is not saying delay that me that if a majority of this House supported the as such, he is saying, ‘Give this opportunity for members adjournment it would be clear sign of the wishes of the to have their say.’ I think what is important is this is where House. It therefore seems to be quite a sensible arrangement members should be letting the public know what they believe to avoid very long, probably, and repetitious speeches which and that is what this forum is all about. will otherwise be the only way in which hon. members can express their views. So therefore I would support it as a way Mr. Cringle: Mr. Speaker, I think that as it has of finding out the wishes of the hon. members of this House. developed it actually got rather interesting, and I thank the hon. member, Mr. Delaney for East Douglas, for his comments this morning, because in fact I think it is right Mr. Downie: Mr. Speaker, I would support the that this hon. House should be reminded from time to time comments raised by the previous speaker, the hon. member that in fact it should be predominant. (Members: Hear, for Glenfaba, Mr. Gilbey. I think it is a good way of putting hear.) It is the elected parliament of the people of the Isle the question to the test, and at least then the Council of of Man, and I think that he was doing members a service Ministers will have something to work on. by drawing that point to their attention this morning. But in supporting the Bill, there is a desperate need for The question as to whether the adjournment of this will this Bill; there can be no doubt about that. Particularly to have any material effect - each member will make his own deal with young offenders, we need to upgrade penalties. balanced decision on that, and rightly so too. I will defend I understand a lot of work has gone on with the Department the other hon. member for East Douglas’s right to use the of Home Affairs and the Department of Social Security, and Standing Orders as indicated by the hon. member for it is sad to say that we have young offenders at the moment Castletown to use the Standing Orders in a parliamentary out of control, in some cases terrorising the people of the manner to try to achieve his aim. Now, he has made his aim Isle of Man. I must support the Bill, but I will not be a short-circuit of the time which could be spent on debating supporting Clause 6 of the Bill. Clause 6 of this particular measure, but I have to say that I have found that the case for the adjournment was muddied The Speaker: Now the member for Castletown, and I severely by the answers given via the Council of Ministers would remind members it is an adjournment debate. in regard to that we will take notice of how members vote
Criminal Justice (Penalties, Etc.) Bill — Second Reading Approved K392 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 30th MARCH 1993 at second reading. Frankly, I felt that that was an is crying about today! unnecessary comment to come out of the Council of Ministers and, to be quite honest, I find it totally insensitive Mr. Quine: He is a minister now! of the Council of Ministers that in fact, on an issue such as this coming forward in a Government Bill, they did not Mr. Kermode: Can I also say to him that when we - this have the common courtesy or decency to talk to members is in the back of my mind - talk about it was the Treasury in advance of it. Not members talking to them, but I really Minister in his radio interview who actually invited members’ think that there was some insensitivity, it was the Council comments, it was not (Interruption) - yes, he did, he invited of Ministers who are at fault (Members: Hear, hear.) by members’ comments and he said he would be taking note not in fact bringing it the other way around. They could have of what members had to say and they would go back to the gauged the feel of the House that way around, but primarily Council of Ministers and discuss this at the Council of onto the adjournment debate, I will support the adjournment Ministers. Now, that is the way my reading of the radio debate purely on the grounds that the member for Glenfaba interview, and that is why I felt that by moving an says that in fact we may be using a parliamentary method adjournment we could have got members’ opinions in a to short circuit a question. condensed version rather than have ...because the way the situation would have been is we would have debated the... The Speaker: Now before we take this any further, we and it is only one clause, and I support the whole of this should adjourn for lunch. How many more members wish Bill except for the one clause. That one clause would have to speak? Now the member for Onchan has indicated and been debated here today at the second reading and then we we will obviously have a reply. Now is that all? would have had to go through another debate at the clauses stages. So I felt it was a nonsense and a waste of time, and Mr. Cannan: There may be more after lunch, sir. I will support the Bill without that particular council. Can I just say, my colleague Mr. Delaney mentioned that The Speaker: Well, in that case, if there may be more, members asked Council of Ministers... he mentioned that I think the House will adjourn and the adjournment will be it should be done here in this hon. Chamber and not with until half-past two. the Council of Ministers, but he knows full well that members who get up in Keys and ask about collective The House adjourned at 1.05 p.m. responsibility and ask whether ministers have got a free vote or not, and that is what I was trying to get to the bottom of with my adjournment. If some ministers would get up CRIMINAL JUSTICE (PENALTIES, ETC.) BILL — - because I have heard it; ministers are not happy although MOTION TO ADJOURN DEFEATED — they have got this decision and they have got this Bill, there DEBATE CONTINUED — are ministers not happy with it, it is going to give them a SECOND READING APPROVED chance, if the adjournment goes ahead, to reconsider, and that is what they should be doing because I honestly feel The Speaker: Now, we continue with the adjournment that that clause should not be in and I am sure some of the debate, and the first person who caught my eye just before ministers do. we adjourned for lunch was the hon. member for Onchan, I am in no way trying to stop... or cause more problems Mr. Karran. for this Bill or even inhibit the work of this House. I honestly believe decisions should be made at this House. More often Mr. Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, I would just like to than not we debate things here, the debates are so repetitious say on the adjournment debate that if the hon. mover of and we go over the same thing over and over and over again the adjournment debate was moving it because there was when one simple vote, either yea or nay, after making the no Chief Minister here and he felt that it was a major issue speech when moving clauses could be done, and I must admit that the Council of Ministers should have their captain at I was trying to short-circuit that to come to a decision, and the helm, then I would have said, ‘Well, maybe I could I hope that members will support this adjournment. support the adjournment debate,’ but I do not see that. I Taking up the point of the member for Onchan, Mr. hope we will simply get down to the job of making a decision Karran, he is quite right: he should support this amendment here today. I think the Council of Ministers will have to take because he answered that with his own arguments that the on board what is what, but I find this whole adjournment Ard-shirveishagh, as he puts it, is not here. So I would have debate rather strange because you cannot, actually - as far thought he would have wanted to support that amendment as I am aware - take out a clause of a Bill unless you because he would want to know what the Chief Minister has discharge the Bill. So, really speaking, we are debating to say as he is not here today, so I would have thought it nothing, so I hope we will simply get this issue resolved and would be ideal to support the amendment, to have them go let us get on with voting on the second reading. away and talk about it and come back again. I am only giving hon. members that choice. So, Mr. Speaker, I rest The Speaker: Does any other member wish to speak? my case. Reply, sir? The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before the Mr. Kermode: Yes, Mr. Speaker, just a few little points. House is that the debate be adjourned to enable the Council One particular point - and I was a little bit disappointed with of Ministers to reconsider their position on Clause 6. Will my colleague from North Douglas Mr. May, when he said all those in favour please say aye; to the contrary say no. (Laughter) Well, he set great store on the fact that I seemed The ayes have it. on a regular basis to try and defer things, and the hon. member, like myself, has always said if things are not right A division urn called for and voting resulted as follows: that is the way to do it to get it right. In actual fact he seconded one of my deferments, so I do not know what he In the Keys - Criminal Justice (Penalties, Etc.) Bill — Motion to Adjourn Defeated — Debate Continued — Second Reading Approved HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 30th MARCH 1993 K393
For: Messrs. Gilbey, Cannan, Quine, Dr. Mann, Messrs. European Court and it is certainly not an issue with the Cringle, Cretney, Duggan, Delaney, Kermode, Downie people of the Isle of Man. To raise the matter in the manner and the Speaker - 11 that it has been raised - and I do not dispute the fact that it may be raised this way - to me turns it into an issue that Against: Messrs. North, Brown, May, Corlett, Mrs. has generated much anxiety, quite a lot of anger and Hannan, Messrs. Bell, Groves, Karran, Corkill, Waft inevitably potentially very unhappy international headlines and Gelling - 11 for this Island. To me, that is an example of either a Government which may be said to be out of touch or an The Speaker: Hon. members, as you will have realised example of folly. there are 11 votes in favour and 11 against, and I have been I would not have picked this particular matter to create seeking a little bit of advice as to how I should cast my into an issue to demonstrate, as has been said on the radio, casting vote, and I have been advised to cast my vote, my that the Isle of Man Government is strong, tough and not casting vote, against the motion so as to retain the status afraid to make difficult decisions. There are some very quo. difficult decisions for this Government and us, as hon. So we will continue with the debate on the second reading. members of this House, to make, but I do not think that this The member for Ramsey, Mr. Groves. decision is one which the best interests of the Isle of Man currently demand. Why was it that only after the first Mr. Delaney: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order - the reading of the Bill and some weeks into public debate were member moving the adjournment, surely, sir? hon. members given the specifics of what this Bill proposes to repeal in Clause 6 by the learned Attorney-General? I The Speaker: You are quite right, sir, the member who doubt that very few people would disagree with those moved the adjournment has the right to speak first if he so sections of the relevant Acts that sentence birching for a man wishes. shooting at or striking at the King or the Queen, for children aged 10 years plus to be birched for any offence - riding a Mr. Kermode: Mr. Speaker, as you were aware I have bike without lights, perhaps, for any offence whatsoever. a personal problem, which I explained to you. I would like Clearly those are outmoded, outdated, unworkable and not to speak at this moment in time but I will leave at this barbaric. Nobody would disagree with that, I am sure. stage and, with your permission, withdraw. I understand clearly also the advantages to our magistrates having the law available to them being precise in what The Speaker: You have my permission so to do, sir. The penalties it allows them to dispense, to mean what it says. member for Ramsey, Mr. Groves. Meaningless penalties can render the law itself meaningless, and so I can support the repeal of those sections of the different Acts notated in Schedule 1 that are outmoded, Mr. Groves: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I voted just now outdated or barbaric. But, of course, hon. members will against the adjournment because I really did wish the know that alone is not what Clause 6 says. I do not join Council of Ministers to hear, as the hon. Minister for the the word the word ‘degrading’, which has been referred to Treasury indicated last week, what I thought on an issue earlier this morning, with the word ‘barbaric’. Barbaric is that publicly I have never expressed any views on before. whipping a 10-year-old child. We all know, we have been Unlike the hon. member for Peel, I have had quite a lot of told already this morning, that birching was held to be a discussion with constituents of mine in Ramsey, probably degrading punishment by the European Court of Human because I have searched out their views rather than waited Rights and that to carry out such a punishment would for the telephone to ring or the postman to knock. contravene Article 3 of the convention. More learned minds As has been said, this Bill addresses a number of than mine have argued the meaning of ‘degrading’. To me important issues relating to the penalties for criminal it means literally bringing down by degrees. If one is offences, and I particularly applaud the clauses whereby degraded, one is lowered in rank, position, reputation or combination orders of probation and community service character; one is lowered in value or esteem to oneself and may be made which thus considerably strengthen the latter. in the eyes of one’s neighbours and peers. Clauses 9 and 10 providing new rules for the use of secure It is 20 years since the Tyrer case, and this judgement by accommodation for children in care and provision for the European Court. Given that this judgement purported detaining juveniles in either a specially established secure to reflect the thinking of the day it would be reasonable, juvenile unit or separate accommodation in a prison are, would it not, to expect that standards in society have I think many will say, long overdue. It is true that these two improved in reaction to that thinking. In 1973, in a forward clauses in no way address the causes that put juveniles before to a paper entitled, ‘The Roots of Violence and Vandalism’, the courts, but nevertheless I believe they are very necessary Mr. Louis Blom-Cooper QC, then head of the Howard in the interests of our community. League of Penal Reform, said, and I quote, ‘ We have never Interesting to note that this Bill has 13 clauses, you might in our long history been made more aware of the violence say it was a baker’s dozen of a Bill. As you know, a baker’s in and around ourselves. The communicators have made it dozen is where the numbers are 13 and the baker has one a certainty that from now on we will not be spared the ugly for himself, and as far as I am concerned the baker can take scar of aggressive behaviour’. I suppose that our instinctive back Clause 6. (Members: Hear, hear.) I will support the reaction to violence tends to be a violent one itself, and it second reading of this Bill, but I will not support Clause must be right to check our intuitive reactions and substitute 6, dealing as it does with the abolition of judicial corporal cool appraisal. That way we would more properly be able punishment. I confess that I cannot understand why the to understand the causes which should then lead us to the Government has created an issue where no such issue exists. beginnings of conquering them. But today, more and more The Island retaining the use of the birch on its statute book, people are questioning the wisdom that has guided albeit not using it as far as I am aware, is not an issue with authorities’ thinking over the past 25 years or so, an attitude the United Kingdom Government, it is not an issue with the which appears to have muddled up the order in which the
Criminal Justice (Penalties, Etc.) Bill — Motion to Adjourn Defeated — Debate Continued — Second Reading Approved K394 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 30th MARCH 1993 crime, the criminal and the victim are viewed. I do not corporal punishment for acts of severe violence. To use the believe that the same view of what was, for example, judged hon. member from Glenfaba’s words, which he said quite to be degrading in 1975 would be taken today. The hon. recently, ‘Who would have thought that 10 years ago there member for Douglas East, Mr. Kermode, referred to a recent would be no such a thing as communism left in Russia?’ judgment of the European Court only last week that ruled We are living in changing times and I personally think it in favour of corporal punishment in a private school - or would be foolish and against the wishes of the people just at least did not rule against it. to cast judicial corporal punishment to one side and to say We on the Isle of Man have considerable advantages over it was finished, it was a dead issue. our large neighbour, the United Kingdom: we do not have We have got to look at what is going on around us, we massive urban redevelopment, high-rise, high-density living, have got to look at the real world, and I am sorry to say, job mobility, all of which has helped to tear communities hon. members, that every time I put my TV set on or I pick apart, creating therefore a much more impersonal up my newspaper, the facts of the real world are there for environment for young people. Being known by sight by all to see, that in most of our inner cities in the United your neighbours, by tradesmen and the local bobby are all Kingdom now, law and order at certain times of the day is positive advantages that help to impose restraint. Anyone virtually uncontrollable. We have got gangs of youths, you might care to stop in our streets will probably admit hoodlums, rapes, we have got vicious assaults on people, that off the Island this Island is known for, amongst other we have got to such an extent now where all the psychologists things, still having the birch. No-one has ever produced - and the criminologists have virtually run out of answers. You that I have seen - a shred of evidence to show me that can understand the psychological effect that that is having retaining judicial corporal punishment on our statute book on the population of the United Kingdom. I think that lots does not itself help impose restraint, even though I realise of people over there in the United Kingdom would like to we are not using it. Of course it must, and I believe it does. feel that they had a real serious deterrent. As the hon. Today I understand that even Sweden, the archetypal liberal member for Ramsey said when he spoke previously, he has thinkers, leaders in the field, are asking these same questions. no evidence to show that the birch does not work. I would How do we deal with the actions of some in our society back him up; as far as I am concerned, to me any form of where we need to take action to protect the rest of our corporal punishment I received at school... and I know if community? They have not found an answer yet. It is quite I had a lad and corporal punishment was still on the statutes wrong, in my view, for our Government today to be seeking of the Isle of Man and I thought that lad was out of control to persuade this hon. House to remove judicial corporal I would be saying to the magistrates, ‘Well, you give him punishment from our statute book. what he deserves,’ and I would support it. That is the way Of course, as I have said, we should repeal in proper I think that in some circumstances justice should be done. manner those sections of different Acts referred to earlier I would support the former speaker when he said that we which are outmoded, outdated or barbaric. But I believe we have got to look at all these old statutes. In particular it is should retain judicial corporal punishment and the birch on sad to see that in the part of the Criminal Justice (Penalties our statute book for crimes of violence and assault, battery, Etc.) Bill where we are repealing some of these old Acts, GBH, mugging. I can see no advantage to the people of the where a person could be birched for pointing a revolver or Isle of Man, and I believe that is what I am here for, to for throwing a missile at the King or Queen. We know that remove this from our statute book today. is nonsense, but when you look at the old statutes there are I believe it has been a grave mistake to include Clause 6 lots of other anomalies in there that have never been repealed in this Bill, (Members: Hear, bear.) It is an excellent Bill over the years. I understand it is still an offence in the Isle which must be supported to the hilt for every other clause of Man to carry a corpse in a hackney carriage or to have in it except this one, and I believe that Clause 6 - and we mixed bathing on Douglas foreshore - lots and lots of them! have seen it this morning - is in danger of hijacking the Bill. The birch has its own little place in there with all the rest, Including the matter of judicial corporal punishment in this but you bear with me, hon. members: if we remove judicial Bill in this way has sent a very strong signal of weakness corporal punishment from the statutes it is gone for ever, for the people of the Isle of Man, to our detriment, I believe. and I think you would be doing an injustice to the people At my election in November 1991, when I was elected to of the Isle of Man; I am convinced that the vast majority this hon. House for the constituency of Ramsey, I said that want it to be kept there. if they honoured me with their trust, I would honour it. I I listened to the hon. member from Peel when she spoke, do not intend to let them down. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mrs. Hannan - she went on about the Examiner. I actually went into the Examiner offices on Saturday, and there were Mr. Downie: Mr. Speaker, hon. members, we have some 700 people who had taken the time to fill in the coupon heard a great deal today about the relevance of corporal and there about 30 against. That is with one coupon insert punishment; we have heard people speaking for it, we have into the local paper. I know that you should not use that actually heard people speaking against it. But whether it is sort of medium for gaining any sort of an accurate opinion, a myth or some sort of psychological effect that corporal but that, coupled with about 130-140 individual letters or punishment has, I can assure you, hon. members, that there telephone calls I would have, convinced me that the vast are an awful lot of people out there in the Isle of Man who majority of my constituents, although they would accept that think it is one of the finest deterrents to violence that we corporal punishment could no longer be given in a court as have at our fingertips. When you go on to talk to these a sentence, would like to see the whole issue left on the people, they would say, ‘Well, it may be outmoded, it may statutes of the Isle of Man. be a thing of the past, it may be something that you are I attended the seminar upstairs that was given by the prepared to put away on the top shelf and not use anymore, Attorney-General, and I can tell members that when I spoke but let us leave it on our statutes. Who knows, the day may to him afterwards he informed me that we are not in breach come when the Isle of Man may drift further away from of any sort of convention or international agreements; all the United Kingdom, law and order might get to such a state we were looking at here was a tidying-up operation where that we could possibly be in the position again to restore we would be just putting this little anomaly finally to rest
Criminal Justice (Penalties, Etc.) Bill — Motion to Adjourn Defeated — Debate Continued — Second Reading Approved HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 30th MARCH 1993 K395
and removing it altogether. Now, as far as I am concerned, the punishment. Which doctor are we going to get to carry if the Council of Ministers want to use this debate today out that out that exercise? As far as I am aware, the BMA as a sounding board I would suggest to you that it would guidelines are well against that. But, as an aside, I am be an act of ministerial madness to remove the birch from concerned that over the last couple of weeks and even more the statutes of the Isle of Man on the conditions that have so today, there have been rumblings coming from the been stated to the members - that it is just part of a tidying Council of Ministers and rumours that my hon. colleague, up operation. the other member for Onchan, Mr. Waft, who is mover of The Bill as far as I am concerned is excellent. It is worthy this Bill, may be persuaded not to move Clause 6 when the of support, it contains lots of provisions here that will benefit time comes, depending on what members say at this second both the Department of Health and Social Security and the reading, and I regard that as a Council without much Department of Home Affairs; it gives us a start to try and backbone. Where is the consensus opinion of the Council combat some of these problems of these young tearaways of Ministers that we have come to expect - the block vote, are giving to people in the Isle of Man but, as I said early as it is called, where we know that the Council of Ministers on, with the exception of Clause 6 .1 think Clause 6 should puts forward a measure and supports it wholeheartedly with not be removed and, as far as I am concerned, I will be a block vote? Are we going to start governing by referendum voting for judicial corporal punishment to remain on the all of a sudden because it suits? I find that very statute books for the Isle of Man. Thank you Mr. Speaker. disappointing. But the public must not be misled and it must be made clear that whatever the outcome of this Bill, and Mr. Corkill: Mr. Speaker, it seems some time ago now in particular Clause 6, it will not make one scrap of since I indicated my willingness to speak on this subject - difference to our ability to give out judicial corporal punishment. If the birch was ever a deterrent it certainly has The Speaker: I think that is right, yes. not been since the Tyler case, as has been already detailed. But one point which has not been mentioned is that I find Mr. Corkill: - before the adjournment debate, and I it ironic that there are those on the Island who wish to have really listened with considerable interest because, as the hon. more independence. We are accused of following the UK member for Ramsey said, when it was election time - it was and we have got this struggle to retain judicial corporal our turn in November 1991 - this just was not an issue, and punishment which, to my knowledge of history, is a practice I know it has been an issue at several elections in the past. pretty well peculiar to Britain over the last 200 years or so, But I have never made it anything other than clear that I and yet Britain has dispensed with it some time ago. Why am anti-corporal punishment and I cannot in any way do we want to retain a measure that was imposed on the support the retention of the birch on the statute book, and Island by the once great British Empire? To those people I must make that clear. outside of the Island we must appear to be living in another I welcome this Bill because it introduces the possibility time zone. If the Island wants to live in the real world and of constructive penalties and measures to help combat crimes comply with its international obligations, then we must within our community, and I welcome the increase in fines support this Bill in its entirety and I would make that point and the ability that is conferred on the Council of Ministers expressly to those ministers who were thinking of a U-turn. in the particular clause, that these fines can be increased on Thank you, Mr. Speaker. a regular basis so that the value of these fines is maintained. Like, I am sure, all the members in this House, apart from Mr. Delaney: Little can be said. The Bill is good; the this contentious Clause 6 I support the other clauses. I think clause that we are concerned about is bad. It is not bad for it is generally realised that the Sexual Offences Act 1992 had the reasons given; it is bad because we have no need to an anomaly in it and this Bill seeks to put that right and remove it, and in answer to the last member, he might be I fully support that. People who have already spoken have totally correct but I doubt it, because the idea is outside this mentioned the custody of juveniles and serious offences, and Island - and you referred to Britain - that the Isle of Man this Bill is a step in the right direction. still has the ability to impose the birch; whether or not we But we come back to the contentious Clause 6, and I have know that to be a fact or not is irrelevant. The people in listened to the ‘Mannin Line’ as usual when these subjects Britain think it is a fact that the birch is imposed for crimes come up, the social issues, and it never fails to amaze me of violence particularly. Now, when we get down to the how the situation is wound up by certain members of this situation where the British people or the British Government House, because whether this clause is successful or not when have changed their minds from the days of the British it comes to that stage is irrelevant, because birching will Empire I am asking you, hon. members, do you not believe, never take place in the Isle of Man again. We know that. The if you watch the television every night and you read the Attorney-General made all this information available to us, papers and you read the press and you read our own Chief and the briefing was very informative. The Attorney- Constable’s report, that there is going to be a change in General’s address to the Isle of Man Magistrate’s society in the very near future? Association in 1981 - we had a copy of that. It was quite I believe there will be a change because all the specialists, clear then that whipping was not available for all these the experts, all the people who are the pundits about society reasons that we have gone into. Hon. members, that was unfortunately - and violence against people and certainly in nearly 12 years ago, and still we have got these obscure and crime generally - have been wrong. They have said - and it archaic laws, as the hon. member for Ramsey detailed some is there on record from all these experts - ‘Ah well, we will of them, and the words of the Attorney-General are ‘obscure do away with all these things and what will happen is that and archaic laws’. I think also he said at that presentation society will adjust to them’ - the new regulations, the new that they were an embarrassment to the Island. rules that govern us. The fact of it is that it has not You only have to look at the details: it is only males that happened. The word ‘do-gooder’the member for Peel has can be whipped. Where is the equality of the sexes? The used is a slang word but it is appropriate, but the one thing other aspect is the person to be whipped has to have the that always - and I ask the people outside - confuses us is that blessing of a doctor to make sure that he is fit to receive they are always saying ‘Get rid of this, get rid of that’, but
Criminal Justice (Penalties, Etc.) Bill — Motion to Adjourn Defeated — Debate Continued — Second Reading Approved K396 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 30th MARCH 1993
when the actual problem occurs, I have never seen one of majority of the House to put that clause through when we them about to give their opinion after a mugging has taken get to it, as this reading of this Bill needs the majority. But place. I have never heard of them being interviewed after we who are against that clause will not be caught in the trap offences have been committed. You cannot see them of trying to throw out this particular whole Bill of which anywhere; you never hear of them. They are only brought it has magnificent pieces of legislation in relation to the to light or rolled out when an issue such as this, which is welfare of the Island. Just because the mistake has been put in front of us by the Council of Ministers, is to be made of including a clause which none of us in this House, addressed, but they are never there to give their expert to my knowledge, told the people during this term of office opinion after a couple of old ladies have been mugged. They we were going to put into legislation to get rid of it, not one are never there, they are never asked, because there would person that I can find in their manifestos - maybe there is not be any answer from them on ‘What would you do to a manifesto or a secret agenda somewhere, but not that I deter this?’ can find, and I believe that that is where the decision of the The thing that concerns me is not whether you support Council of Ministers is sure to come. They should have asked or do not support birching; it is the way that this has come themselves, ‘What is the mandate we have to include the about. Not one (that I can find) manifesto of any elected removal of corporal punishment from our statute books?’ member said specifically that they were going to get rid of And you know what the answer would have been? None, corporal punishment from the statute, this very clause that because not one minister, not one public representative we are concerned about, but every member who was asked elected said in his manifesto that this was their political on a platform prior to that who came to the House, if they philosophy, and that alone they did not have to wait to see were asked, went and put down and said they would keep what members said in this House. it on the statute book, and since that time nothing has The second reading will go through; I will support it, but changed. It was not in use at the election before last; it was if the minister honestly believes that he is waiting to hear the same position. But it has done no harm to us although what we say, he could have asked us walking down from we have not been able to use it. It has not done any harm the canteen from lunch, or all the other canteens, or any to the Island; in fact, the opposite is true: people think that other function. We are not strangers; we are in this building, we have a strong law and order policy because we have it most of us, during the week. A letter to us asking us what on the statute book. The fact we do not use it does not worry was our opinion before the Bill was printed would have told them. It might worry those people who want to use it, but him. And the Bill is printed, the Bill has gone through its the member for Ramsey and the member for Onchan are first reading, it is now on its second reading. The clause is correct: the Bill is sound, but what I would like to know contained in the legislation in front of the House. The only is who, other than the Attorney-General in the Council of process to remove it is either the mover of the Bill not Ministers - and we keep getting it thrown back at them, they moving that clause, which does not put it in front of the have brought this on themselves - was in favour of this clause House, and in that case, of course, what can happen, one being retained in the Bill? Are we never to know because of the supporters who wishes to remove it can put forward the minutes of the Council of Ministers are secret? But the new clause as an amendment to do that. So just because covering and hiding behind this idea that somebody else this debate takes place does not mean to say we will not be made the decision is not fair to us, the members, and debating birching at the clauses stage, because any member certainly not fair to the public. can move an amendment to put it back in again. But that We have a right to know and I am waiting for ministers procedure is laid down for the efficient running of the - 1 am sure some of them will - to stand up and say ‘I am House, and I believe that some of the ministers have been in support of this clause’. We have had the member for Peel put in this position, wrongly, but they have accepted it. I who has been honest enough to make that clear, but there honestly think that no service has been done to the House must be other members, and we know the minister by including a clause which the Chief Minister in his absence responsible for law and order, the Minister for Home - somebody must explain. If he wanted to genuinely find Affairs, is on public record of being in favour of retaining out whether this clause had any standing in this House he this particular statute. He is on record only as recently as only had to write a short one-sentence letter to us ‘Are you 10 days ago, so what is going on? What is so secretive? If in favour of the removal from the statutes of corporal the ministers supported it, as the member for Onchan has punishment?’ and the answer he would have got back would said and the member for Ramsey, tell us. On this occasion, have told him the thing it has taken him months now to find if it is a vote that you have had and the majority voted in out, and he has got to wait for a debate, and then we would favour of this clause being retained in the Bill, what has not have got to the expensive exercise of having a Bill which, happened that has made the member who is moving the Bill if it fails on that clause, believe it or not, will have to go to start with... because he must have understood that this for reprint before it goes upstairs, or any other member if had the support of the Council of Ministers, he must have it comes to that. understood that because it is promoted by them. But what I am not opposed to the member for Peel, that is the has happened since then to make this uncertainty? It is no political view, the member for Onchan, that is their view, use standing up and saying ‘Ah, well, we are waiting to hear but to try and kid us that there was some difficulty in finding what is going to happen at the second reading’, because the out what support in this House this clause had is an abuse; second reading is only relevant to the main Bill; it is not there is no doubt about it. There are only 24 of us and 24 relevant to the clause that is in contention. We cannot affect phone calls, if not letters, could have found out how the that clause until we get to the clauses stage. But what are House felt. I will support the second reading because I am they hoping for? That members like myself and those of us not prepared to lose the good things in the Bill for the sake against the removal will vote against the whole Bill? Is that of a political mistake. what they are hoping for? It is not going to happen. We will vote for this because we want to get the good Mr. Corlett: Mr. Speaker, the debate seems to be on two things in the Bill through, but the clause itself, I believe, separate and possibly irreconcilable levels: on the one hand, will fail because it is mathematical once again; it needs the the Attorney gave members a clear and explicit statement Criminal Justice (Penalties, Etc.) Bill — Motion to Adjourn Defeated — Debate Continued — Second Reading Approved HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 30th MARCH 1993 K397
of the legal position and the background and the people on the radio and elsewhere who have claimed to have anachronistic provisions which have little relevance to been birched and who are saying that in fact it made their present-day penal guidelines. He also made it clear there was lives a misery et cetera. This is a letter written on 27th no pressure to change the law but it was a logical step in November to the Chairman of the Bench of Castletown the cause of what I might term good housekeeping. On the Juvenile Court; it was written from a gentleman in Sidney, other hand, proponents of the status quo view the issue from New South Wales, ‘Sir, as a former resident of the Isle of an entirely different perspective. This so called anachronism, Man I write to commend you and your fellow magistrates this penalty which is no penalty, is seen, I believe, and on the four strokes of the birch ordered on a 16-year-old perhaps illogically, to represent a statement by peace-loving boy. In 1965, I received eight strokes of the birch and so people who put the protection of the defenceless and the care did two of my friends. It really hurt, but made us understand of the elderly who are unprotected as their first priority. The we had been fools. One of my friends became a Royal endless and sometimes fruitless industry which clamours for Marine commando, the other a bank clerk and I came to the welfare and rehabilitation of wrong doers has, in the Australia and am now a successful partner in a private eyes of many ordinary citizens, overlooked the tragedy of business. If we had been put away for six months or a year the victims whose own humiliations are now a daily we would have felt bitter. We knew we had done wrong, occurrence. took our punishment like men and then started with clean I believe this issue was essentially the raising of a warning sheets.’ There are two sides to the argument, and I can finger, but many people deplore the infringement of Human appreciate the views that the hon. member for Peel strongly Rights perpetrated on the defenceless and they do reserve holds and spelt out so plainly to this hon. Court this their right to protest at the degradation they see. I find yet afternoon. I think if you hold one view, that is perfectly fair, again that the time of this hon. House has been diverted and I think the side which holds for retention has equally from the real priorities facing the Island. (Members: Hear, and firmly and strongly been made by the hon. member for hear.) The practical and justified objectives of this Bill are Ramsey this afternoon, for the first time politically making being delayed and, in terms of public perception, they are his comments in relation to the birching issue. So I simply subordinated to a clause which is highly emotive and quite say to the hon. House, let us give unanimous support to the unnecessary. Bill, but question sincerely Clause 6. I suggest we move as quickly as possible to agree the second reading and I respectfully request the hon. mover Mr. Quine: Mr. Speaker, along with a number of other to use his best efforts, as I am sure he will with enthusiasm, members that have spoken I shall have no difficulty in to have this contentious clause removed without delay. supporting the second reading of this Bill. There are certain Thank you, sir. matters in it which I believe are worthwhile. But first of all we have this matter of a general increase in penalties and The Speaker: Does any other member wish to speak to the putting in place of a mechanism for the periodic the second reading? The member for Rushen, Mr. Cringle. adjustment of penalties, and that obviously is worthwhile. We have the provision for substantial increase in the penalty Mr. Cringle: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, just say that it for indecent assault - a maximum of seven years - and that strikes me that - I used the words this morning in regard is fully warranted. I have no problem with that at all; pleased to the adjournment debate - the Council of Ministers had to see it come forward. We have, of course, what is in effect been insensitive; I think I could actually strengthen that up, a re-write of Section 14 of the Sexual Offences Act 1992, but I think, as the hon. member for East Douglas has yet and that again, dealing with the words in play there, is ‘with again said this afternoon, I genuinely feel that it was a or towards’ in acts of indecency, and that is very much mistake to use this method, this vehicle, and the hon. House wanted and overdue; that is correcting something that was members will have a letter which we received from the Chief wrong. Secretary and in fact the reason given in the letter which was We have in Clause 8 a provision for the combining of received simply says ‘The case for including the repeal for probation and community orders and, fair enough, that the Criminal Justice (Penalties) Bill is to give the branches slightly widens the options open to the Court but, quite the opportunity of considering whether it is time that the frankly, I have my reservations as to the value of probation whipping provisions were deleted.’ Frankly, I think, without and community orders. I still feel they are soft options and it being in Bill form - and this was after the event - the not very effective options. I would have liked to have seen Council of Ministers could and in fact should have sought examined in a Bill such as this the adequacy, for example, the views of the hon. House. of the existing provision in the Children and Young Persons I have always made my position for a considerable number Act dealing with parental responsibility in respect of persons of years now on the issue of corporal punishment very plain in their charge for criminal acts which they commit, and that indeed, and I am not going to go over old ground in relation is a matter which I am pursuing separately. I would like to to that this afternoon. I certainly am going to support the have seen matters of curfew orders and it being given some Bill which is in front of us for second reading. There is no teeth; these are matters which would have far greater impact doubt about that and I think it will get unanimous support than the simple facility to combine probation and amongst the membership of the House, (Members: Hear, community orders, but it is there and I have no objection hear.) but Clause 6 will certainly not get in any context to the combining of them; it widens the options slightly. unanimous support. But when we come to Clause 6 that is an entirely different I rise particularly this afternoon because I feel I have had matter. It has been said, I mean, ‘for what reason and for a considerable number of calls - and my views are well what purpose?’ and frankly there is no purpose of removing known in the constituency - asking for support for the this from the statute book apart from the fact that some retention, and in fact I wish this afternoon just primarily people seem to be slightly embarrassed by it being there. It to read a very short letter which has come into my hands, does not embarrass me in the least. I think it is quite a proper and it was written on 27th November 1969. I read it just punishment in certain circumstances, so I have no worry to balance the argument, because from time to time we hear about it staying on the statute book. Of course, we are well
Criminal Justice (Penalties, Etc.) Bill — Motion to Adjourn Defeated — Debate Continued — Second Reading Approved K398 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 30th MARCH 1993
aware of the fact that it is not available to our courts as a has some bite, then we will do more to address our problems sentence and we know that that flows from our of law and order. constitutional and legal subordination to the United As far as I am concerned the only redeeming feature of Kingdom. We have to accept that and, to a certain extent, Clause 6 is that it calls a spade a spade or, if you wish, a that puts the question mark over the deterrent effect, but whip a whip. At least it is straightforward in the sense that it does not move the deterrent effect; it puts a question mark we can understand what that provision provides for. My over the deterrent effect aspect. But it is not a matter akin regret is that we cannot apply it. to the legalisation of homosexuality; in that case an Act was proscribed which allegedly brought us into conflict with an The Speaker: May I call upon the member to reply? Mr. international convention, an entirely different matter. It is Waft, sir. certainly not in the same category or class as the removal of the death penalty. The death penalty was a mandatory Mr. Waft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to sentence, and clearly that was a different situation entirely. thank all the hon. members who made a contribution today. This is something which is on the statute book and for no I do not intend to go through each and every one in turn good reason, frankly, we are saying that it should be because there was a lot of repetition there, but I will make removed from the statute book. I believe it should not be a few comments. removed from the statute book and I have in mind the fact Mr. Karran I thank for seconding the Bill and his that, firstly, I think we have a right to make known the fact comments about the pressure that all the members have that, certainly as far as I am concerned, I believe it is a received from the different sections of the community, and wholly appropriate sentence which should be available to he asks us to live in the real world. He spoke mainly on the the court in certain circumstances. I believe it; more birching issue; unfortunately a lot of the members followed importantly, I am convinced the vast majority of the people this pattern throughout the whole of the debate. He spoke of this Island believe it, and we should make that known, of his problems with the department regarding the policing and by leaving it on the books we are making known that of the Island and he thinks there are problems there and we believe it is a punishment that should be available to our maybe he will be able to sort them out. courts; secondly, to signify to the law-abiding citizens, the Mrs. Hannan, the hon. member for Peel, spoke in support potential victims of crime, our commitment to fight crime of the Bill on all aspects. She made special mention of the and to play up the external limitations which are imposed United Nations Covenant on Human Rights and the on us in trying to do so, because we have not put them on Attorney-General’s talk to the magistrates in 1981. Spoke ourselves, they are external limitations; and thirdly to make against physical violence as she usually does, and gave a known to the criminal element our determination to fight comprehensive summary on her views on today’s society. crime - fire with fire if only we had the matches. That is I am sorry that Mr. Kermode for East Douglas the problem I am concerned with - we do not have the unfortunately had to leave us earlier on. The member for matches. Ramsey, Mr. Groves, related that he has had full discussion No doubt it will be asserted that this amounts to little more with his constituents and supports the Bill, but he will not than posturing. I believe it has a much greater value and be supporting Clause 6. He was concerned about the underlines our determination to fight crime and to maintain generation of so much anxiety and anger within the the quality of life we expect on this Island. Our differences community, which I am sure is quite correct, and agrees that are important, and I certainly believe that we should and the more outdated aspects of the whipping clause should must draw the line even if we ha\fe these limitations imposed perhaps be removed. upon us. Mr. Downie, the member for West Douglas, reckons that I am also concerned that we are in a situation where we the best determent to violence we have and we should leave are following the UK in terms of criminal law and criminal it on the statute book. We are living in changing times; the jurisdiction. We follow it slavishly, and I sincerely hope we birch could be gone for ever if we lose it this time and it are not going to follow the Criminal Justice Act 1991 because would be ministerial madness to remove the birch as a the ink is hardly dry on that and they are about to cast part tidying-up exercise. Clause 6 should be removed. of it aside because it has been found to be completely The member Mr. Corkill from Onchan, who puts himself impractical. But also we remove matters from statute books, on an anti-corporal punishment level, welcomes the increase but what are we putting in their place that is a realistic in fines and supports other clauses, mentions the birch will substitute? Frankly, we are not putting realistic substitutes never take place in the Isle of Man again, obscure and back in place and that is what concerns me. It is all very archaic laws, asked about consensus of opinion from the well for those, whether you call them ‘do-gooders’, or Council of Ministers. whatever, to say ‘Oh, it is a human right, it is degrading, Mr. Delaney was concerned about the impression of you should remove this from the statute book.’ What about people outside the Island, the birch, the increase in juvenile the other people? What about the ordinary citizens we are crime. Actually in the UK juvenile crime is decreasing, but supposed to be protecting? It is this soft attitude and that, that is an aside. It has done no harm to the Island, he states, I am afraid, is going to make a further contribution towards and asks who was the instigator of putting Clause 6 in the a sliding or a deterioration in the standard of law and order Bill. Well, I am afraid I do not know who put that clause on this Island as it has done elsewhere. It is a softness which in, but it is certainly in there, and perhaps the Chief Minister I believe is not in the public interest. It reminds me, just could have sought the views of members, and he will be to demonstrate that point, of, using the hon. member for voting against the clause. He will, however, support the Peel’s words, the do-gooder who is walking down the street second reading. and she saw this old lady lying there bleeding, having been Mr. Corlett from North Douglas spoke against Clause 6 mugged, and she looked at the old lady and said ‘Whoever again, concerned about the care of the elderly and the did this needs help.’ That is the situation we are in; that is defenceless and perhaps we are being diverted from the real the situation we are heading for - a complete lack of balance, issues. and the sooner we come back to basics and something that Mr. Cringle, Rushen, said perhaps we should have sought
Criminal Justice (Penalties, Etc.) Bill — Motion to Adjourn Defeated — Debate Continued — Second Reading Approved HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 30th MARCH 1993 K399 the views of the House prior to this clause being inserted. The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Does any Mr. Quine, the member for Ayre, he went through the member wish to speak? The member for Malew and Santon, whole Bill and through the varying clauses with his views the Treasury Minister. on them all, and asked what was the reason for this clause being removed. Mr. Gelling: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This Bill seeks to amend I am sorry that the members did not encompass all the Section 10 of the Treasury Act 1985. Now, this presently clauses in the Bill. It is a very important Bill, as I stated requires Bills to receive the concurrence of the Treasury earlier. It is of concern to the magistrates particularly as to before they can be introduced into either the Keys or the how we are seen today and what moves we are going to make Council if a Bill increases public expenditure or reduces the to relieve the problems that they have. I have no further income of the Government. This authority was granted to comments to make, Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Council of the Treasury under the Treasury Act 1985 which gives the Ministers will be taking note of everything that has been said Treasury certain statutory responsibilities. Section 3(l)(c) of today and with your help, sir, I would ask for the second the Treasury Act states, ‘It shall be the duty of the Treasury reading to be progressed. to supervise and control all matters relating to the financial affairs of the Government.’ This Bill being considered today The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Hon. members, leaves the Treasury with this burden of responsibility but the motion before the House is that the Criminal Justice removes what authority it had to carry out these duties. The (Penalties, Etc.) Bill be now read a second time. Will all proposed Bill will make it very difficult for Government to those in favour please say aye; to the contrary say no. The be able to control the spending and control finances within ayes have it. The ayes have it. Government. When leave to introduce this Bill was granted it was suggested that to amend Section 10 of the Treasury Act was to bring back some democracy to this House. It was also suggested that the authority vested in the Treasury had been TREASURY (AMENDMENT) BILL — passed down on an historical basis from the Governor. This SECOND READING APPROVED may have been so originally; however as recently as 1985 this hon. House, and the Legislative Council, considered it The Speaker: The next item is the Treasury necessary to vest in the Treasury the duty to supervise and (Amendment) Bill for second reading, and I call upon the control all matters relating to the financial affairs of the member for Onchan, Mr. Karran. Government. Now, Section 10 of the Treasury Act is not about the Mr. Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, this Bill has had a Treasury having the power to veto any legislation proposed long gestation period. Even though it may only have two by a member; it is about ensuring that the Government, like clauses in this Bill, it has been a battle to try and get any business, has proper checks and balances and, when something reasonable and equable. This is why I have been necessary, financial constraints. It is about good so long in trying to get this to this state at the present time. housekeeping, ensuring that there is sufficient money in the This Bill addresses a simple principle: that a Government bank before a cheque is written, or, more usually, finding department with a minister and its officials at present can out the amount that cheque is for and not just providing dictate to this hon. House, the power-house, the elected body a blank cheque. The policy of the Treasury Department of the nation, what can be brought in front of the House, when concurrence is being sought to introduce a Private and I believe that this is wrong and I hope that this House Member’s Bill is to concur to the introduction of the Bill will act as legislators and agree with the principles of my but to reserve the right to speak and vote against that Bill. Private Member’s Bill to amend Section 10 of the Treasury That policy is not, I would suggest, interfering with the Act 1985. democratic process. What it does is to give the Treasury The clause replaces the existing powers of veto and Department the opportunity to consider and calculate the censorship in the Treasury Act 1985 where it requires the effect of the introduction of such legislation on concurrence of the Treasury for any Bill to be debated in Government’s finances. this hon. House; it has to have financial concurrence. It As I have said, I understand that the justification for the creates a new procedure under which the Treasury must be Bill before us today is that the present legislation is advised about new proposals in such a Private Member’s considered by the hon. member to be defective in Bill not less than 28 days before the members seeking leave safeguarding the democratic rights of the Island’s legislature. to introduce such a Bill. In addition, in the explanatory He considers that the decision that some proposed legislation memorandum for such a new Bill in future it will include is too costly to introduce should be made in this House. the Treasury’s version as far as the expenditure and income Therefore the mover proposes the Treasury should be implications of the Bill if they differ from the mover of the advised not less than 28 days before the member seeks leave Private Member’s Bill. to introduce a Bill. Such Bill is to include a statement from I do hope this hon. House will give this Bill a second the member as to the expenditure and income implications. reading as I believe that it is maybe a small Bill but a very I would contend that the consideration of such Bills by this important Bill to free debate within this hon. House, and House will therefore further slow down the legislative I do hope this hon. House will support the second reading process and will result in this Government making less of this Bill. I beg to move the second reading, Vainstyr legislation. Our time and the resources of this Government Loayreyder. will be wasted in considering items of proposed legislation that in the end it is decided are just too costly to introduce. The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Do I have a The Treasury has vested in it certain powers. These are seconder? granted so that it may carry out the responsibilities it has to supervise and control all matters relating to the financial Mr. Quine: I beg to second and reserve my remarks, sir. affairs of the Government. The Treasury is a responsible
Treasury (Amendment) Bill — Second Reading Approved K400 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 30th MARCH 1993
Government department; it does not seek to interfere with might believe in after political argument, and this is the place the democratic process and therefore I would suggest that for that particular argument to take place, not in the back it be left with the authority to carry out its statutory room of the Treasury. This is the place. responsibilities. So therefore I would ask members to I hope the members will support it, because it will not do consider these very important points whilst considering this anything to undermine the politicians elected to this particular Bill, because it is the Treasury’s responsibility and Chamber who have taken up the ministries, or the therefore giving it the responsibility without the power, I Government who are the ministers. All it will do is thwart would suggest, would lead us into difficult avenues so that those who might be there in the future, who are in charge we would be finding possible Bills on the Floor of the House as civil servants of the Treasury, of advising a minister that with any type of expenditure which then would be very, very they should be against this because of the possible difficult to rationalise within the overall spending of the connotations of public expenditure, and if the minister then Government’s finances and the finances that would be is directed by his outside non-elected persons to stop it at available. that stage, they would do so and deny the benefit of the So I would, as I have already said, Mr. Speaker, ask members of this elected House to decide whether the members to consider this very, very seriously before making legislation is worthwhile or not. That is taking democracy such a step as to take the power and responsibility away from by the throat in a dark alley. Here it should be done in the the Treasury. light of day and, if it does not stand scrutiny and it cannot get support from the House, it should be defeated on the Mr. Cretney: Mr. Speaker, as one who has had to floor of this House. The public expenditure will be borne endure the difficulties which a member comes upon when in mind by the members who sit in these seats. They will trying to introduce private members’ measures, I am aware understand whether the Bill has far too much expenditure of the current policy of the Treasury which is to reserve their contained in it for the exchequer to stand; they will decide position when to speak against or to vote against an item that, not civil servants outside this Chamber. when it comes before the House of Keys. But the fact is that Mr. Speaker, I believe that the member is doing a service that is the present policy and we have jolly reasonable people to the House. The Bill had to happen and I am delighted in there at the moment, but we might not always have jolly the member has brought it forward. If at the end of the day reasonable people, and what we are talking about here is the House thinks that people outside of this Chamber are the legislation, and what we need to have in place to protect best suited to say what is in the best interests of the people the rights of Members of the House of Keys, the duly elected of the Isle of Man, let them stand for election and be body which represents the people, is that the law provides answerable to the public. At the moment they are not. This it to be decided in here rather than outside and for that is the place to decide on whether a Bill is too expensive for reason, Mr. Speaker, I do hope the members will support the Isle of Man or not, not in the back area of the Treasury. the second reading and will support this Bill.
Mr. Delaney: Mr. Speaker, in his address the Treasury Mr. Cannan: Mr. Speaker, I have no hang-ups about Minister indicated, and continually indicated, that he was this Bill. The Treasury Act 1985 of which I was a signatory dealing with Government. This Bill does not address was introduced when there was a board system of Government’s position; it addresses the elected Government and no collective responsibility, and the Finance representatives’ position and you only have to read the Board then stood or fell without any supporting explanatory memorandum to understand that. As far as the membership, if that is the right way to put it, and it needed archaic position - and it is archaic, Mr. Speaker - we have protective powers. Since then maturity has set in and the the ludicrous situation where we in this Chamber can, on government has advanced and we now have ministerial any Bill, move an amendment, it can carry the same, if not government with a Chief Minister, a Cabinet or Council of more, financial implications, by a democratic decision, but Ministers, and collective responsibility - a big step forward, a member putting forward a political Bill which he believes strengthened over the years since November 1986. If a in can have it hijacked by the Treasury under this archaic member now wishes to bring forward a Private Member’s clause. When you speak of the Government in the modern Bill I see no reason, other than what is outlined in the terms of the Isle of Man it is the Government’s job to defeat preamble here, for him not to do so - and the permission the legislation they are against in this Chamber if they of this House obviously, 28 days notice to the Treasury, but disagree with the expenditure contained in it and not to be not told whether that Bill can go forward or not by the defeated undemocratically by a piece of archaic legislation Treasury. It is up to the Treasury Minister and the Chief passed when the Governor was the Treasurer of the Isle of Minister who will be in this hon. House, and his ministers Man. That is the fact of history. It was to stop the collectively, to convince this House if the measures in that procedures of elected members actually doing anything to Bill are financially irresponsible. That is what democratic spend the public moneys which then the Governor was government is about, and if they cannot convince the responsible for as his position of grand master of the Island. majority of the members of this House that a Private Times have changed, and I welcome the Bill in front of us Member’s Bill and the implications of expenditure, or because what he is doing, the member, is saying quite clearly revenue implications of that, are wrong, then that is what is that this is the place where members’ political thoughts democracy is all about. The will of this House must prevail and decisions on what is good in public expenditure in and it is up to those, the Treasury Minister supported by legislation will occur - in this Chamber, not at a private the Chief Minister and his fellow ministers in the Council meeting of the Treasury and the member. The hon. minister of Ministers, to say to this House, if a member’s Bill is not says they will reserve their right, and, as the member for going to be in the best interest of the Island, to persuade South Douglas points out, isn’t that nice of them? But they the House accordingly. That is why we have a parliament, still have the power of the legislation, unless this member’s and that is why each and every one of us has been elected Bill is put through, to stop a member coming forward with to represent possibly all shades of the community in this a Bill he believes in and which the majority of this House Island.
Treasury (Amendment) Bill — Second Reading Approved HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 30th MARCH 1993 K401
There is no need for civil servants to determine at a spoken himself, as to whether the Treasury actually oppose Treasury meeting any longer should the Bill be allowed to this Bill, want it referred to a committee, or want to amend come in and to thwart a private member writing to the Chief it at a later stage, because it is not clear to me from what Financial Officer and to get a reply from the Chief Financial the hon. minister said what his attitude actually is. Officer whether he can or cannot bring forward a Private Member’s Bill. That is archaic; we have moved on. We are Mr. Delaney: Give him a 28-day notice. a responsible parliament, we must accept responsibility for our affairs and the Government of the Isle of Man, the Chief Dr. Mann: Mr. Speaker, I tend to agree with the last Minister and the Council of Ministers must lead an show speaker, that the hon. Minister of the Treasury did not by their leadership what the Isle of Man can do, or may not clearly indicate whether he was actually opposed or not, and do, or alternatively those Members of the House of Keys my experience in the Finance Board of some years ago was must accept responsibility for the decisions of the House of that I could not recall a single time when the Finance Board Keys. actually opposed any move by a private member to put an issue before this House, and I suspect that the current Mr. Gilbey: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the last hon. Treasury Minister has not opposed one either. member would not have made those remarks if he was still Minister of the Treasury. (Members: Hear, hear.) It shows Mr. Cannan: Neither did I, Edgar. how people seem to change, going in and out of the Council of Ministers - Dr. Mann: If we look at the current practice - and I must say I was a little apprehensive, when I saw it in my own Bill, Mr. Cannan: Yes, he would. that the Treasury did not oppose the measure but would have the right to speak against it; that is rather double-talk to Mr. Gilbey: I rather doubt it. I certainly have my way of thinking. So if that is the current policy then it considerable sympathy with the remarks made by the hon. is doing nothing different to what the hon. mover of the Treasury Minister. The only thing is, I wish he had made Bill is suggesting. Now, I am sure it is correct that this is it clearer, if I might say so to him, whether he actually a measure that dates back to the time when the Governor opposed the Bill - 1 would be glad if he would listen to what was the head of the Finance Board or the Treasury, and it I am saying rather talk to his neighbour; it does not show has been just moved on from Bill to Bill, so one could quite much interest. (Laughter and interruptions) I was saying that correctly say it is an archaic piece of legislation but, unlike I wish the hon. Treasury Minister had made it clearer the previous Bill we were considering, we have an archaic whether he actually opposed the Bill or wanted it amended, piece of legislation that could be used rather than one that or wanted it referred to a committee, because I think many is not going to be used, and I would suggest that if that of the concerns he expressed about it are very valid. power does exist and it could be used but should not be used, First of all, a point that has not been brought up - as I then I see no problem with the Bill at all. Certainly in the see it, it would make the position of Bills in this hon. House previous Finance Board we had no problems about this, nor totally different from the position of resolutions in another would I have argued for or against its retention at the time, place because, as I understand it, no hon. member in another and I am sure in the current situation where we are supposed place can move a resolution to increase expenditure without to be in a consensus situation, surely we should accept the Treasury concurrence. Now, when you consider that the right of an individual to introduce a Private Member’s Bill; other place is considered to be the main forum for discussing the full weight and argument of the Council of Ministers financial and policy matters it Seems very strange that they would be used against it if in fact the Treasury Minister so should not have that power when this House, which is meant wished. I can see no great difficulty about this at all; in fact, to be the place for considering detailed legislation, would we are making a bit of a mountain out of a molehill. then have it. A further point which seems to have been overlooked - Mr. May: Mr. Speaker, I think the Bill as it stands - it I think I am right in saying that in another place no is a Private Member’s Bill, and each and every one of us department of Government, even, can move a resolution have that right and indeed it is something that often is made with financial consequences without the approval of the great play of - the right of an individual member to put a Treasury, and here I would stress that we are talking about, Private Member’s Bill before this hon. House. Now, the fact in all these cases, the approval of the Treasury, not the that a Bill with financial implications becomes subject to Council of Ministers, so this is not a question of getting at approval by the Treasury, I think, has been pointed out and the Council of Ministers; it is a question of the overall it has been made perfectly clear by the preceding speaker, financial control through the Treasury, and I personally feel the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, that this that one of the strengths of the Government of the Isle of is a situation that is there but in actual fact does not apply Man has been its control of expenditure compared to the because the Treasury will allow a Bill to come forward on lack of control which is so evident in other countries where, the floor of this House and then produce the relevant for example, they now are forecasting a public expenditure arguments to argue against that Bill if Treasury believe that deficit of no less than £50 billion a year. Therefore I feel the Bill should be defeated at the relevant time. Now, I think, we should be extremely careful before we alter the in the procedures that are tied up in putting a Private arrangements and the safeguards which have kept us on the Member’s Bill before the House, there are a number of straight and narrow financially, particularly compared to safeguards: first and foremost an hon. member has to come other countries. before the House and seek our leave to move the Bill. That Therefore I feel the whole of this needs much more is the first thing; he has to get the principle of what he or consideration and, at the very least, it should be considered she, I might add, is trying to do accepted by this hon. House. in relation to the position in another place, but I would be Then the hon. member needs to go to the legal draftsman, glad for a much clearer view from the Treasury and the get the Bill drawn up, it is subsequently published and Council of Ministers, as the Treasury Minister has now Treasury have ample time, and hon. members have ample
Treasury (Amendment) Bill — Second Reading Approved K402 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 30th MARCH 1993 time, to evaluate the content of that Bill and assess whether that the rest of the House will not oppose that Bill. So I think the financial implications of that Bill are acceptable or not that is important to be clear on. and, if it proves to be that they are not, then the case can But again I come back to the point. We must be very be argued against the Bill on the floor of this House, and careful in this House that as members of the House, we do I am sure my hon. colleague, the Minister for the Treasury, not make it very difficult for a member to introduce would be the first to concur with that, and indeed, as Dr. legislation privately through the House because in fact by Mann has said, that has been the case in the past. tying up the system you will end up with a situation where So if that is the case, where is the problem in proceeding we as individual members who may wish to pursue a policy with this Bill through the second reading stage? I believe of our own for whatever reason are put into considerable that there is a far greater danger with financial implications difficulty of providing information where we have not got for this Government, for this assembly, on amendments, the back-up to provide that information, we have not got where a member, any one of us, can put foward an Treasury officials to do it, we have not, maybe, got amendment at the drop of a hat to any piece of legislation departmental staff to do it and we are therefore in a position - and it has happened recently - which has severe financial as a private member having to research the cost implications implications for Government which are not catered for and for introducing new procedures that we think are important. which we do not have time to research and evaluate and So that is going to be quite difficult for members to deal assess and they go through, they tend to get carried along with, and I just think we should keep that in mind. on a surge of emotion, which is the wrong way for financial The other thing I think is important is that this Bill will procedures to go, and that, I believe, is the greater danger. in fact have major implications in the way the work of the I would say to hon. members that as far as this Bill is House is done, and I do not think we should underestimate concerned and the second reading stage, I do not believe that that. But there is also then going to be a built-in anomaly: it presents any problem whatsoever. I believe the greater you are going to have a situation where a private member danger to hon. members, and the one that we should look does not require the concurrence of Treasury to introduce at, is the situation that presents itself regarding the facility his Bill but a department requires concurrence of Treasury to placing an amendment before this House with no to introduce their legislation into the House, and that, notification which has major financial implications, and that therefore, is something that I believe Government will have is something that we all should rightly, if we are responsible to look at and I have no problem with that at all. But it also and if we are carrying out our duty properly, have regard goes further down the line, because in all our procedures for. it means that we in Tynwald, as departments, require concurrence of Treasury to introduce matters that we need Mr. Brown: Mr. Speaker, as a member who has moved to there, and maybe that is something that we have to look a number of Private Member’s Bills in this House myself, at because again the whole procedure - the hon. member, I have to say that while I am going to support the second as I understand, is saying - is that the Treasury Act 1985 reading, it is not all wonderful for members, and I think is too restrictive. I have to say I do not disagree with that they should read it very carefully. The hon. member has because it was actually formulated for the old board system, made out the case that this will give members of the House and I think the whole Act needs reviewing at some stage. freedom. I would suggest, in fact, it will make members of In fact, it will clearly define where the Minister of Treasury the House, their work with regard to introducing Private is and where his department is and so on and so on and that Member’s Bills, even more difficult, because if you read it is something that is going to have to be done in the not-too- carefully what it actually says is - and the hon. member who distant future. is moving it is in fact a perfect example; the hon. member So, as I say, I do not oppose the second reading on this has moved, I suppose, more Bills in recent times as a private Bill. I do think members need to be sure that they are not member than any other member of the House and, I have misreading the Bill and I think it is important, for me, to say, with very little research. This Bill will mean he will certainly, as a member who at some stage in the future may have to, because it states it quite clearly that the member wish to introduce a Private Member’s Bill like anybody else, must provide the House with the information regarding the just to make it clear that it will in fact make the job of a costs. So therefore it is actually going to make the work of member more difficult. (Interruption) I am talking about a member, in introducing a Private Member’s Bill, far more the Bill as it is and the hon. member for East Douglas knows difficult and far more onerous in their responsibilities to the that. As the Bill is before me, I as a member will have a House, and I have to say that might not be a bad thing. difficult job to come forward with a Private Member’s Bill But I do not think we should be pointing the finger, which with the information that the hon. member is now seeking I suspect has been made really at this stage, that in fact the because I will have to research the implications financially reason for this is because it is difficult to get Treasury of my legislation for this House without the back-up to do concurrence to introduce a Private Member’s Bill. In fact, that, and Treasury itself will have 28 days’ notice, which that is not the case. As the hon. member for Garff said, and is plenty of time, because that is only notice of leave to the hon. member for Malew and Santon, both who have introduce; it could be another year or two years before the been in Treasury, there has never been a problem, and in Bill appears before hon. members and therefore there is fact the only problem I can recall was in fact when the hon. plenty of time for them with all their back-up. So I will just member for Michael, if I remember, did not concur with fire that warning shot across the bow because I do believe the Credit Union Bill which Mrs. Delaney, the hon. member it is important to realise the implications of this Bill before then for North Douglas, wanted to introduce because I us and, as I say, I will be supporting the Bill. remember her being quite upset at that time when she tried to do that. So, in fact, in my time here I only remember it happening once where Treasury would not concur with Mr. Cannan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, sir, I the Private Member’s Bill. That does not mean, of course, just wish to clarify that in no time during my period of office that Treasury will not oppose the Bill or, for that matter, was a Private Member’s Bill by the former member of this the Government will not oppose the Bill or, for that matter, House, Mrs. Julia Delaney, opposed by the Treasury.
Treasury (Amendment) Bill — Second Reading Approved HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 30th MARCH 1993 K403
Mr. Delaney: I will ask her in bed tonight! (Laughter) now adjourn until 10.30 a.m. on the 6th April in Tynwald Chamber. Thank you, hon. members. Mr. Cannan: And furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the only Bill that was opposed by the Treasury at the time was a Bill The House adjourned at 4.15 p.m. of the Government of the Consumer Affairs Department which the Consumer Affairs Department wished to bring in and the Government of which Mr. Brown was a member did not approve.
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member, I take that as a statement of explanation.
Mr. Brown: I accept that. I said I understand that that happened, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member; you are all being most agreeable. (Laughter) Does anyone else wish to speak or may I call upon the member for Onchan to reply? Reply, sir?
Mr. Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, I am a little bit disappointed that with some of the comments - and obviously that of the hon. member for Castletown - we are getting grudging support over this proposal in front of us today. (Interruption) The simple fact of the matter is, and what I am saying, is that it should not be left on a grace- and-favour basis so that the Treasury and faceless bureaucrats can stop this hon. House addressing issues that this hon. House wants to address, and that is what I am saying. I think that is the important thing: that what we have to do is accept that we now have a governmental system and what we have to do is put checks and balances to protect this Legislature, because we cannot allow for the grace-and- favour of who happens to be the Treasury Minister - that that policy will carry on. That is bad law, in my opinion, very bad law, and I think that some people around here need to remember that as far as that is concerned. I am glad that this hon. House will be supporting the second reading of this Bill. I am fully aware of the fact that it puts more liabilities onto the private members to do more work as far as their Bill is concerned, and I am sorry that certain people have such a bad memory when they actually end up bringing Private Member’s Bills through as Government policy after they have been Private Member’s Bills. But the point is that it is important, I think, that when it gets to the clauses stage this hon. House looks seriously at the issue of making sure that we protect free speech in this hon. House. We might not always have the Treasury Minister with the liberal views that he has got (Members: Hear, hear.) you might have someone - (Interruptions and laughter) I found, when we look at the ministerial system of government, I think what somebody described it as like a bus that you cannot see out of, and the only time you can see the state of the bus when you fall off the bus or you do not particularly want to catch the bus, but the problem is, because you are in the bus you cannot see outside it, so what I do hope is that members who are inside the bus can take on board what somebody who is outside and say that they might fall off it one day and that they were glad of this Private Member’s Bill here in order to protect the freedom of this hon. House.
The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion that is before the House is that the Treasury (Amendment) Bill be now read a second time. Will all those in favour please say aye; to the contrary say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. That concludes our business for today, and the House will
Treasury (Amendment) Bill — Second Reading Approved