P R O C E E D I N G S

T Y N W A L D C O U R T O F F I C I A L R E P O R T

R E C O R T Y S O I K O I L Q U A I Y L T I N V A A L

D A A L T Y N

HANSARD

Douglas, Wednesday, 20th January 2021

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

www.tynwald.org.im/business/hansard

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

Volume 138, No. 10

ISSN 1742-2256

Published by the Office of the Clerk of Tynwald, Legislative Buildings, Finch Road, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 3PW. © High Court of Tynwald, 2021 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

Present:

The President of Tynwald (Hon. S C Rodan OBE)

In the Council: The Lord Bishop of Sodor and Man (The Rt Rev. P A Eagles), The Attorney General (Mr J L M Quinn QC), Miss T M August-Hanson, Mr P Greenhill, Mr R W Henderson, Mrs K A Lord-Brennan, Mrs M M Maska, Mr R J Mercer, Mrs J P Poole-Wilson and Mrs K Sharpe with Mr J D C King, Deputy Clerk of Tynwald.

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

______1116 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

Business transacted

Order of the Day ...... 1119 26. Coronavirus – Isle of Man Government response – Amended motion carried ...... 1119 27. UK–EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement – Motion not moved – Statement made . 1147 28. Telecommunications – Review of permitted development – Debate commenced..... 1148 The Court adjourned at 1 p.m. and resumed its sitting at 2.30 p.m...... 1153 Telecommunications – Debate concluded – Motion carried ...... 1153 29. Tynwald Commissioner for Administration – Motion not moved ...... 1157 30. Public registers of conflicts of interests – Motion not moved – Statement made ...... 1158 31. Trading relationship with Europe – General Debate not moved ...... 1158 Supplementary Order Paper No. 1...... 1159 1. Standing Orders suspended to take the business on Supplementary Order Paper No. 1 ...... 1159 2. Papers laid before the Court ...... 1159 3. Public Health Act 1990 – Public Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 approved as amended ...... 1160 Procedural – Treasury concurrence for financial motions ...... 1164 4. Public Health Act 1990 – Public Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021 approved ...... 1165 5. Financial Provisions and Currency Act 2011 – Coronavirus Business Support (Amendment) Scheme 2021 approved ...... 1175 The Council withdrew...... 1175 House of Keys ...... 1176 Procedural – Happy birthday to Mr Cannan; upcoming business ...... 1176 The House adjourned at 3.54 p.m...... 1176

______1117 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

PAGE LEFT DELIBERATELY BLANK

______1118 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

Tynwald

The Court met virtually at 10.30 a.m. Proceedings were conducted and broadcast live from the Legislative Council Chamber.

[MR PRESIDENT in the Chair]

The Clerk: Mr Speaker is now in the Chamber.

The Speaker: Moghrey mie, good morning, everybody. Please be seated. (Laughter)

5 The Clerk: We are now on air and the Sword is in front of the President, who is now in the Chamber.

The President: Moghrey mie, good morning, Hon. Members. The Lord Bishop will lead us in prayer.

PRAYERS The Lord Bishop

10 The Lord Bishop: And on this first sitting of the new year, a prayer for this year. God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, whose years never fail and whose mercies are new each returning day, let the radiance of your spirit renew our lives, warming our hearts and giving light to our minds, that we may pass this coming year in joyful obedience and firm faith, through Him who is the beginning and the end, your Son, Christ our Lord. Amen.

Order of the Day

26. Coronavirus – Isle of Man Government response – Amended motion carried

The Hon. Member for Douglas Central (Mr Thomas) to move:

That Tynwald: (1) commends the Council of Ministers for having brought forward the Public Health (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 under the powers contained in sections 51B, 51C, 51F, 51PA and 51Q(3) of the amended Public Health Act 1990; (2) welcomes the introduction of a new and evolving regime for testing within the isolation period and continuing exploration of additional options to manage infection risks and other considerations;

______1119 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

(3) reaffirms the COVID-19 Stay Safe medium-term response principles as follows: (a) Protection of life; (b) Maintenance of critical national infrastructure; (c) Maintenance of public safety, confidence and welfare; and (d) Support for a controlled return to normality, balancing social, economic and health impacts; (4) reiterates its call for regular and continuing review by Tynwald of the Borders and Stay Responsible policy frameworks and the Government’s approach to living with COVID-19, considering the risks and different scenarios arising from the evolving local and global COVID-19 pandemic situations; and (5) requires a report by the Council of Ministers at the February sitting on the establishment of the Emergency Advisory Group including details of the broad advice and input this group has provided to support decision making in a collaborative and transparent manner.

The following documents are relevant to this Item: Public Health (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 [SD No 2020/0599] Stay Safe Isle of Man Government medium-term response to COVID-19 [GD No 2020/0013] Isle of Man Borders Framework 2020 [NN No 2020/0047] Stay Responsible: the Isle of Man Government’s long term framework for COVID-19 [NN No 2020/0048]

15 The President: Hon. Members, having completed up to Item 25 on our Order Paper yesterday evening, we resume at Item 26: motion on coronavirus in the name of the Hon. Member for Douglas Central, Mr Thomas, and I call on him to move. Mr Thomas.

Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr President. 20 This motion is in five parts and I will speak about each part separately from first to fifth. Mr President, I imagine it might be helpful, depending on what is said and moved in the forthcoming debate to have each part voted separately. Would that be okay?

The President: I take it the Court is in agreement. Thank you. 25 Mr Thomas: The first part is commendation of the Council of Ministers for having brought forward the Public Health (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 under the powers contained in various sections of the amended Public Health Act 1990. Why a commendation? Well, firstly, because the amended 1990 Public Health Act is now being used just as intended, 30 especially after it was amended in 2013/2014 to address previous potential deficiencies which have been shown up by coronavirus and similar public health situations outside the Island. As was made quite clear in respect of the 2013 Public Health (Amendment) Bill at the time, it was intended to introduce amendments to the underlying Act to enable the Island to manage public health better and to prevent and control the international spread of disease and in particular to 35 comply with international health regulations, specifically International Health Regulations (2005) which were adopted by the World Health Organization in 2007. Members might be interested – because I was – in a discussion at clauses in the Legislative Council in November 2013 between Mr Downie and Mr Butt particularly, which is particularly helpful I think to understand the relevance for COVID-19. Mr Downie asked about dangerous 40 diseases from China, from the Middle East and from West Africa, and Mr Butt responded:

… obviously this part of the legislation deals with very serious incidents where maybe there are mass outbreaks of illness or disease such as bird flu, SARS, or even radiation poisoning … there are requirements on people not to gather in public places together, children not to attend school …

Interestingly, Mr Butt also advised of a reviewed pandemic plan describing: ______1120 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

… an emergency incident plan in place … to deal with bird flu, SARS … where they have locations for mortuaries, for isolation wards, for rooms … but of course, if it becomes a serious threat, it is quite likely the services will be overwhelmed. This gives, I suspect, a power to the authorities to actually regulate and legislate what is going to happen in those situations.

I hope that plan has been helpful to the Chief Minister, the Ministers and the Chief Executives in recent months as they have managed our current very difficult situation. Secondly, in respect of this commendation, and as I summarised on 30th December in this 45 place, use of Regulation 51Q(3) of the Public Health Act 1990 means that we can actually have a debate and Tynwald can make a decision in terms of the text of regulations when such regulations need to be made afresh or amended. I repeat my request that CoMin is not tempted to use the powers it continues to have to make regulations without giving Tynwald the power to amend them, the powers I regret it used on 15th December. The attention that many Hon. Members 50 outside of the Council of Ministers give these regulations is truly admirable and why not take advantage of that? This advantage from Member, and even public scrutiny of regulations surely means it would have been better not merely to have published to Members the regulations we will consider today after they come into force. I have got to confess this actually tarnishes my personal commendation, something Mr Speaker has written and spoken about. But let’s not be 55 churlish. However, although I applaud the way the Government circulars and regulations are now brought together on a special page on the Tynwald legislation website clearly, I do regret that that was not done earlier, and I hope it did not hinder either compliance or enforcement of those regulations – I cannot really see how it did not. You need to publish something before it can be 60 complied with. I hope my tweeting and phone calls were helpful in getting speedy progress in that. Thought also needs to be given to whether the four-layered approach of the primary legislation, regulations, directions and other Government circulars, and then guidance is really the right approach to making law and communicating it. Professor Edge has raised this matter in a recent blog of his. I hope this approach can be reconsidered. Certainly, the use of Government 65 circulars had reduced substantially until 2020 and it is making a comeback, or is it just in this situation? If so, why is this situation different? Is guidance presented as law too much? Certainly there are members of the public in Douglas Central who are now furious they initially misunderstood what the Chief Minister and Ministers said as being something they must do, rather than something that was only being suggested to them or advised. So I hope these are 70 points that can be considered during debate. Mr President, of course today is not the time to review what happened last March and April, unless it is going to help us live with coronavirus this March and April in 2021, but the final element in my commendation for using the Public Health Act for Regulations is that it shows Government now has the confidence to deal with the matters which are not public health matters which were 75 identified by the Attorney General in his letter of 27th May 2020 to the Public Accounts Committee which the Public Accounts Committee published as an annex in one of its reports. Essentially, the Planning Committee proceedings, it has now been acknowledged, can be changed to allow digital involvement of the public and members using a negative resolution order made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1999, as appears on our Supplementary Order 80 Paper today, as I think appeals could have been dealt with differently in comparison to the way they were unsuccessfully on 26th May 2020 when Tynwald voted against changing planning appeals process using emergency powers. Likewise, I applaud and commend the Council of Ministers for now thinking about using the underlying legislation to do with housing, road traffic, fair trading and elections. 85 Mr President, that moves me on to the second part of the motion before us today, and that is that Tynwald welcomes the introduction of a new and evolving regime for testing within the isolation period and continuing exploration of additional options to manage infection risks and other considerations. Discussion of this part commenced in Questions yesterday I think, and I look forward to its continuation today. Issues of vaccines: where, how long will they last, when they ______1121 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

90 should be given, how many doses should be given. My over-80 parents had their first injection three weeks ago in the United Kingdom in a modified GP surgery within their region. They were scheduled to have a second dose today, but that has been postponed in the national interest. They are very happy with that, and they have had another appointment rearranged. I have got two additional questions of my own that I hope will be discussed today. The first one 95 is: could the Isle of Man have made arrangements with the suppliers of vaccines outside the NHS supply arrangements, as we did for things like PPE and oxygen earlier on in the crisis? Secondly, who actually made the decisions about places for vaccination? Why was the Airport used? As far as I can see everybody seems to be backing away from that decision at the moment. Testing is on the table, and I will not talk about that very much because I am sure it will come up a lot. But I 100 wanted to put on the table contact-tracing apps and using genomics. Two aspects: firstly, I spent many hours reviewing and, dare I say it, improving the legal direction in respect of our proposed COVID-19 information centre, but I am not sure that work was actually useful. It does not seem to have been given the way we seem to be processing information for contact tracing and given that that piece of legislation that I mentioned, the 105 information centre direction, was not actually continued. Would it not have been helpful then and would it not be helpful now for us to work with our digital private sector to produce some sort of private ‘digital diary’, similar to the New Zealand COVID Tracer or the thing they use in Taiwan? Also, secondly, perhaps we can pioneer use of genomics to actually help the contact-tracing and cluster-busting process, as we have begun to discuss yesterday. There certainly seemed to be 110 a couple of interesting clusters in the initial dataset that was presented to Members back in October from cases between 17th and 26th March that I can only imagine would have been helpful if they had been followed up. Shielding is another topic that I think will come up today, and I wanted to say something about it. The first thing is I think, personally, it is embarrassing for all of us that at least one Douglas 115 Central constituent only got their shielding letter on Monday, on day 13 of this 21-day circuit breaker. It was faster than last time, because then it came three weeks after the lockdown was launched, but it does seem late. Also, there is another pivot in the policy about shielding because we have gone from no exercise recommended to exercise and back. In this current letter, it now says please do not go 120 out for leisure, and I thought actually exercise was being encouraged for some people, at least for them to make up their minds whether they need it for their physical and mental health. The issue is now on the table about whether or not fines and prisons are the best measures to effect behaviours in the course of a lockdown, or perhaps they influence poorer people wrongly not to test because of the risk of actually the cost of isolation. There is certainly some research to 125 that effect across and our Public Health Director helpfully confirmed that that issue needed to be addressed. I think that has raised a couple of really large issues that we now need to think about as we move towards the new normal and our exit strategy, and the first one is that this pandemic has shown us in the Isle of Man what I have known, and many of us have known, for a great number 130 of years: that there are a great number of families and households on the Isle of Man who are one rainy day from wipe out and we now need to look afresh at the employment situation and the economic situation for real people, on the Island, in the light of that revelation that has come home during the last nine months or so. Also, we need to review the social security system, the National Insurance system, because I 135 think the anomalies in people’s situations and the precariousness of their households’ income has been exposed by what has happened in the last nine months. So I close this part of my contribution with a reminder to everybody of the Swiss cheese respiratory virus defence approach which Dr Glover shared with us at the end of October, although I know it is widely used and not original to her. There are personal responsibilities: 140 distancing; masks; hygiene; where you go. There are shared responsibilities in terms of fast and sensitive testing and tracing, ventilation, financial support, quarantine, isolation, vaccines. Each ______1122 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

intervention or layer of the cheese has imperfections, or holes, but multiple layers improve success in an overall, well-organised, well-planned process, and I think that is something that this debate can try to make sure we are taking the most of that knowledge. 145 Mr President, the third part of the motion is that Tynwald:

More recently, there has been talk of the approach of local elimination, and I am sure that is going to be discussed a lot today, but quite clearly at the beginning of this process we talked about flattening the curve, which clearly is not consistent with an approach, at that time, of local elimination. It could be described as an objective at that time, or an approach perhaps, 150 conceivably, but we need to explore a bit more about how that has changed. Most importantly in this section, and I have already put this on the table, we need to think through how we are going to move on towards the new normality. The exit strategy has to be on the table today, and had to be on the table in fact earlier, but at least today we can have a really good discussion of it. Compassionate travel is something that I hope would come up and we will make decisions 155 about, because the regulations around that have changed recently, and I think we need to revisit that; and also the key workers and the critical national infrastructure definition, which includes UK and Isle of Man economy, is also very much on the table and I am sure it will come up from other speakers. Mr President, the fourth part is a reiteration of the Tynwald call:

for regular and continuing review by Tynwald of the Borders and Stay Responsible policy frameworks and the Government’s approach to living with COVID-19, considering the risks and different scenarios arising from the evolving local and global COVID-19 pandemic situation …

160 I have to say, Mr President, that I am actually disappointed that there was no coronavirus policy or strategy or plan motion for today’s Order Paper from Government, especially as Government decided to put a motion to that effect on a Supplementary Order Paper back in November and during the debate which I initiated that month about coronavirus, the Chief Minister clearly mentioned, and in fact even promised a debate in December Tynwald about that topic, which 165 obviously did not happen. Again, with reference to part (4) of this motion, Tynwald’s call for its involvement in the regular and continuing review of the Borders and Stay Responsible policy frameworks seems to be inconsistent, given that at recent press conferences there has been absolutely no mention that I have heard of this important Tynwald debate from the Chief Minister or the Minister for Health 170 and Social Care. They talk about ‘Today’s meeting of the Council of Ministers’. They talk about ‘Ministers have decided’. They talk about ‘Council of Ministers have decided’. They have even, on Monday, talked about the Council of Ministers making decisions on Thursday. I really do hope that the Council of Ministers will take into account what is said today in the Tynwald approach, and that was the spirit in which I brought the motion back in November with colleagues, and that is 175 the spirit in which I table this motion today. Tynwald needs to be involved in continuing and regular review of policy. Mr Robertshaw reinforced that by moving the amendment which was unanimously endorsed by all Tynwald Members, obviously. Mr President, basically, Tynwald can be important in helping Government pivot policy at this time of national difficulty whenever necessary. Tynwald has engaged and Government needs to 180 understand that and what means. That moves me to the fifth and final part of the motion before you today that Tynwald:

______1123 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

requires a report by the Council of Ministers at the February sitting on the establishment of the Emergency Advisory Group including details of the broad advice and input this group has provided to support decision making in a collaborative and transparent manner.

I thank the Council of Ministers for circulating in advance a proposed amendment to this part, which suggests that the report will be due in March, which implies they are going to accept it, except for the timing. 185 But I just wanted to say a few things about what this Emergency Advisory Group might mean, what it might consider and what it might constitute and comprise, because the most important elements of this are engagement with Tynwald and beyond with specialists and experts, and the wider public, listening, learning, communicating, explaining. Collaboration aided by a transparent and informed approach to provide what I called SAGE information when I was summing up in 190 November in the motion that put the Emergency Advisory Group establishment on the table as Tynwald policy after Mr Shimmins’ amendment. Not an operational body, but an expert advisory group different from the operational structures of gold, silver and bronze commands. Hon. Members might remember that I had something similar to an advisory group, in an enabling format, with my unsuccessful amendments to the Public Health Act through the Courts, 195 Tribunals and Local Authorities Procedures, and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill in October. The only amendment that was not eventually successful was for a public health protection body – the creation of one. Mr Shimmins more successfully persuaded Tynwald to support his amendment in respect of the more general Emergency Advisory Group. I have got three specific suggestions around matters for this group to put on to the table, which 200 might translate into membership, action and activity. The first is a thought about the role of military types. A Douglas Central constituent has given me the big picture in respect of some excellent communication he enjoyed with Members in respect of the value of what is called the Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre (JARIC) set-up, which he believes could be usefully employed in our pandemic response. Very high specialist levels of joint logistics, planning, 205 organising and implementation and action, not what he mischievously, and I think perhaps tongue-in-cheek suggested was a lucky and quaint Dad’s Army approach. I think he also discussed the BBC TV series Survivors, which he described as ‘prophetic’. The second matter is that of the big business perspective, rather than the local domestic economy perspective, smaller firms and self-employed trades, that is. There are now concerns out 210 there that the big businesses on which our Island depends for high-value employment and the public revenue for public services so much are or will be taking decisions behind the scenes, decisions that are taken without referral to Government, as a result of the continued nature of the current border restrictions and lack of any published exit plan. I have been told of frustration in meetings with Ministers that there is actually disbelief from 215 those Ministers that firms are making decisions about the Island which are not in the medium- term interests of the Island, and I am seeking reassurances from this debate and Ministers today that big businesses in the key sectors are being asked the right questions and the right questions include: is the current approach to dealing with coronavirus and the apparent absence as yet of a medium-term strategy for living with COVID-19 affecting your investment and location and 220 employment plans for 2021 and beyond? I think we might well be already losing a small amount of employment and investment, and let’s stop the drip, drip, drip of big business decisions away from our Island earlier, rather than later. Earlier, rather than later, if they are really happening already. Finally, the third matter is scientific advice. I start this consideration taking us back to the 225 opening of Dr Glover’s presentation back at the end of October. She described scientific method, the way we design, carry out and interpret controlled experiments to provide unbiased data and opinion, and then juxtaposed that with a graphic showing the public potentially being lured by what she described as a ‘big, reassuring lie to ignore inconvenient truths’. In this context, I was delighted to have brought to my attention, by a political friend, the Institute for Government

______1124 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

230 ‘Scientific advice in a crisis’ publication dated December 2020. Every paragraph is worth a read, but I just thought some of the insight I would just cite very briefly. For instance:

… many of the problems identified by inquiries into those crises have returned: the blurring of policy decisions and expert advice; the need for politicians to interrogate advice, and for advisers to understand the policies they are informing; the risks of relying on uncertain modelling and of ‘groupthink’; and a lack of transparency in explaining how evidence and advice are used.

A lack of transparency about membership of certain groups and advice which creates ‘suspicion about the Government’s approach’. Lack of ‘access to evidence’ which affects and undermines 235 ‘the implementation of specific policies’. Communication of risk around key activities ‘often’ confusing. Ministers switching ‘back and forth between alarm and reassurance’, which fails to ‘drive home key messages’. Obviously this report was written about the United Kingdom, not about the Isle of Man, but I think we could always learn from other people’s experience and I put that on the table. Also it 240 would be helpful to have on the table that that report concluded with some recommendations for the United Kingdom government for now and for the future of dealing with the pandemic. Again, selectively, those recommendations include:

• The government should ensure any new public health measures are announced and explained in parliament. • The government should be clearer about the purpose of press briefings and allow scientist-led briefings more often.

Ministers:

should prioritise developing strong working relationships with their scientific advisers, including through inductions and planning exercises [in the future]. • The government should strengthen science capability across the civil service, including by ensuring … chief scientific advisers have sufficient clout and resources. […] • The government should apply the technique of ‘red teaming’ – groups that are tasked with finding a weakness in a proposal or system – more consistently, particularly in complex future crises.

Hon. Members, I close with a statement of the main point for this debate today, in my humble 245 opinion, and as I described it to Council of Ministers and Tynwald Members in the run-up to this debate, that is to consider where we are, next steps, try to form a wider consensus about practical policy and operational responses to help us get through this episode for people here and everywhere. Hon. Members, I beg to move. Thank you, Mr President. 250 The President: Hon. Member, Mrs Barber.

Mrs Barber: Thank you very much, Mr President. I rise to second the motion in the name of my hon. colleague Mr Thomas and to support the 255 many very sensible statements that he has already made, but also to put my perspective on this. For me, this second, hopefully short, circuit-breaker lockdown presents an opportune point to reflect on the position that we are in, as well as the areas where we have improved our position from the first lockdown. This lockdown will hopefully yield the necessary results of achieving elimination of local 260 transmission of COVID-19 in a relatively short period of time. However, it is imperative that we do not lose sight of the damaging effect any lockdown can have on our society, not just our economy and our health services. In fact, people’s emotional and mental health seems to be worse affected the second time round than it appeared to be the first time.

______1125 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

Looking at the motion point by point, one imagines that the first four elements are relatively 265 self-explanatory and sensible. Commending the Public Health Regulations that allowed us to move away from the Emergency Powers Act; welcoming an evolving testing regime as well as the focus on use of masks, social distancing, hand hygiene and adequate ventilation, among other things; reaffirming the strategic principles contained within the Stay Safe Medium Term document, although in doing so recognising that an update to that document seems, on rereading it, now 270 overdue. Which brings me nicely to the fourth point: reiterating the call for this Hon. Court to regular and continuing review of the Borders and Stay Responsible framework and how we continue life with COVID-19 remaining present throughout the world. The Stay Responsible document is markedly shorter than the Stay Safe document and the presence of the numbers of rolling three-day averages for different levels of our plans did not 275 seem to correlate with the actions that we took this time. That is certainly not to discredit any of those actions taken. I support and commend the robust and swift actions taken by CoMin to enter a circuit-breaker lockdown. Rather, it is an observation that the presence of specific numbers in any longer-term document can lead to speculation and expectation that is not necessarily helpful. I am certain that everyone would rather see a situation where we had 50 cases of COVID 280 isolated and identified through a comprehensive borders programme than five cases of COVID of unknown origin within our community. Although, I also am sure we would all prefer to have none. It stands to reason but the document is silent on this. For me, a framework should be more flexible, a progressive sequence of actions that we can take and the level they associate with, but without defining the numbers, recognising that these change depending on the circumstances. 285 I would like to see a dashboard on the website with all of the main actions that could be in place, with the ones in place at any given time highlighted so that at quick glance people know the current situation. The information on the website is comprehensive, but I still feel it is not what might be described as user friendly. The final point of the motion is to require a report on the establishment of the Emergency 290 Advisory Group, a group that was to provide broad advice and input to support decision-making in a collaborative and transparent manner, and is already the settled will of this Hon. Court. By compelling a report on this work that can be debated in this Hon. Court, I hope we will then go some way to achieving the ongoing constructive dialogue that we need to continue for a truly collaborative process. I would like to put on record my thanks to the Chief Minister for the helpful 295 and insightful Members’ briefings that have now been established. No one is asking any one person to have all the answers, simply that a well-rounded group allows for well-rounded consideration and, therefore, well-rounded policy. There remain a number of elements that continue to attract wide public interest, and I would like to just mention a few – but this is certainly not exhaustive. 300 The elimination strategy: there are questions around is this complete elimination or elimination of local transmission and community spread? Is prison the most appropriate route of disposal for COVID breaches or are there areas where we need to review the support that we are giving some people? How do the schemes interact with local businesses and where is the support best focused to ensure maximum coverage? Could some workers have continued to work 305 throughout this circuit-breaker lockdown where they work alone or could stay over two metres away from others and work outside? How can businesses access additional essential workers to allow their businesses to continue to operate given the borders closures currently in place? How can a testing strategy evolve to enable the opening up of the borders for specified reasons? And I am certainly not suggesting or advocating a free-for-all. 310 Should we be looking for a more permanent testing location, and perhaps regional testing locations to avoid the travel for those people who we know are COVID positive? In what circumstances are masks best used and what support can we give to those who are vulnerable to ensure that they have access to them? How should our self-isolation rules look and do we need to review the case for permitting self-isolation with another person in specified compassionate 315 circumstances? How will we strategically withdraw vaccination administration from the Airport to ______1126 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

enable the unlocking of tourism on the Isle of Man, and how will the timing of this look? What does ‘long term’ look like? How do we unlock the border to allow life to continue, remembering the incredible emotional and mental health strain on our community? The saddest thing is that many of those contacting me about the impact of this are key workers, those who cannot travel 320 as their service simply cannot facilitate it. We need to find a way to support travel to the Island under a 3A-style system by using that robust testing and isolation regime. COVID is not simply going to disappear because the vaccine has arrived. It is a little bit like a playground bully reassessing its position and working out how to strengthen itself. We need to outsmart it, and to do this we should draw on the expertise within our community from a well- 325 rounded group allowing for well-rounded consideration and well-rounded policy. Thank you, Mr President. I beg to second.

The President: Hon. Member, Mr Ashford.

330 The Minister for Health and Social Care (Mr Ashford): Thank you, Mr President. The Council of Ministers broadly welcomes the spirit of the motion; however, at recommendation (5), the motion as drafted calls for the Council of Ministers to report to the February sitting. This results in an extremely tight deadline for submission of the appropriate Government business paperwork. That deadline would only be one week after this sitting, which 335 is unrealistic given the present circumstances. Given the present COVID-19 operational priorities, deferring to the March sitting of this Hon. Court would therefore be preferable. If this is agreed by Hon. Members of the Court it will leave enough time to prepare a substantive response. Mr President, I beg to move the amendment that has already been circulated, standing in my 340 name:

In part 5 of the motion to leave out the word ‘February’ and insert the word ‘March’.

The President: Chief Minister.

The Chief Minister (Mr Quayle): Thank you, Mr President. I beg to second, look forward to hearing the comments and reserve my remarks. 345 The President: You are not able, Chief Minister, to reserve remarks on an amendment.

The Chief Minister: Okay, thank you for that, Mr President. I had forgotten. My apologies. 350 The President: Thank you. Mr Hooper, please.

Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr President. 355 Really, I do not have a great deal to say about this motion; I think Mr Thomas has set out quite a lot of detail in his opening remarks. I would just like to say that I do welcome the introduction of the three-stage testing that has been brought in. I personally still think we need more explanation or more information as to how this is a more effective measure for controlling and mitigating the risk of household spread, than 360 whole household testing would be. I am sure that information will be coming eventually. The question I really have about this, though, is if we have now introduced an effective isolation regime of up to 21 days, an effective three-step testing regime which is sufficient to mitigate household spread, I am a little bit unclear as to why some of the measures we have are

______1127 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

still in place; for example, why travellers are still required to isolate away from their home if they 365 can isolate safely at home with these new testing measures in place. This has come across quite clearly to me in a number of cases over the last week or two, notably inside the patient transfer service where patients who are travelling to the UK for surgery are actually finding themselves in great difficulty. The UK are under a lot of pressure and cancelling things at very short notice, which then results in people having to undertake multiple periods of 370 isolation away from home, simply on the basis that they have travelled to the UK for essential treatment. I am not really clear on what it is that is driving that particular element of policy. But, as I said, I do welcome that introduction of the additional testing and I do hope that additional testing is going to stay with us going forward, and it is not something that has been put in place simply for the lockdown. 375 The one thing I want to talk about, though, is about slightly longer-term implications of some of the decisions that we are making. I think going into lockdown very quickly was very well received. I think a quick lockdown, a short, sharp break as has been described, has been quite effective at tackling these concerns. The question in my mind, and in the mind of many others that are contacting me, is actually about how we get out the other side and whether or not the Island 380 is capable of a quick unlock, as it were. Some of the language that has been used around the lockdown has been received and has caused quite some concern out there, I think, amongst the public and amongst a lot of people in industry and a lot of our professional services on the Island. It is clear the Island is a safe haven and we want it to be a safe haven, but I think the message that we need to get across is that the 385 Island is proactive and flexible in our response to dealing with this virus, which is likely to be with us for some time to come. But amongst some of the other issues that have been raised is the decision to prevent Manx citizens from coming home, the message that if you leave the Island you might not be able to return; and the cancellation of already granted relocation exemptions, almost overnight, all of 390 which caused concern amongst a large number of people, especially those who were looking to relocate, or were already part way through relocating, or who have recently relocated to the Island, a lot of whom work as key professionals within our public service. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the Isle of Man is heavily interconnected with the rest of the world, especially and probably no more so anywhere than the UK, not just economically 395 connected but also socially connected to the UK. A significant number of Manx residents have essential connections to the UK, whether that is family or business connections. We can see this through the travel records. Over 8,000 Manx residents have used that travel exemption since the start of this lockdown. That is eight times as many as the compassionate exemptions and nearly 10 times as many as 400 contractual exemptions. So really it is Manx people who already live and work and have their lives on the Isle of Man who are the ones most reliant on these connections with the UK. That is not a surprise. To me this shows very clearly that whilst closing the borders almost entirely might have been necessary, it is definitely not a sustainable position for the Island, even in the shorter to medium term. It also shows me that getting our border strategy right is absolutely critical to the 405 medium- and long-term future of the Isle of Man. A managed border is likely to be with us for some time to come. I have very real concerns. I am hearing very real concerns about the current approach and how that is impacting on longer-term business and individual decisions. The Island is in a reasonably good place. We have been in a very good place for months with a system that was working 410 effectively. We now have an enhanced system in place that actually should do what the previous system was lacking. Yet in amongst all of this the Island is risking developing a reputation that we are a place that has tackled COVID well, but only by taking measures that disproportionately impacted not only individuals, but also our wider society and our future economic activity. That is especially true when we look at how some of our competitor jurisdictions, like 415 Guernsey, have managed to fight off the virus without having to take such draconian measures. ______1128 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

Guernsey have very recently tightened up their border controls, just like we have; but they have retained the ability for people to travel for essential reasons, which includes compassionate reasons, and actually goes a lot broader than the essential travel reasons the Isle of Man has had in place for the last six months. 420 Without clear messaging then about how we are going to exit from this lockdown, and about how we are going to quickly unlock the Island, a clear plan, clear and transparent information about the vaccine roll-out, and a clear message that we are an Island that is open for business – we do want people to continue to relocate here and make their lives here, we do still want businesses to establish here – and that this can and will all be managed in a sensitive and 425 compassionate way, as we continue to deal with the threat posed by this virus. I think this clear message about the medium- and longer-term future of the Isle of Man is what we are lacking right now. Unfortunately, the rationale and evidence to support some of the actions that have been taken to put us into lockdown has in part been unclear. That is not just coming from me as a Member of 430 Tynwald, I am hearing it quite a lot out there in the wider sphere that actually some of these decisions, whilst people are quite supportive of them, they are not entirely sure where the logic came from or where the decision came from to shut some of these things down; especially, for example, allowing people to exercise out of the home, allowing people who work by themselves outside to continue to do so, amongst a wide range of other concerns. 435 What this is causing is uncertainty. Uncertainty is the thing that is most damaging to us right now. People are uncertain about what the plan is with the vaccine. They are uncertain about our future border management strategy. They are uncertain when they will be able to see friends and family. They will be uncertain about when they will be able to travel for a funeral. They are uncertain about if they do relocate to the Island, if they do bring a business here, whether they 440 will be able to maintain some of those essential connections – family connections with the UK. We need to ensure that we tackle this uncertainty absolutely as critically as we are tackling the threat posed by the virus itself. The virus will eventually be cured; it will eventually be something that is in the past and has been addressed. But, unfortunately, this uncertainty risks causing much more longer-term damage. 445 It is kind of in this vein that I have tabled this amendment in respect of the compassionate exemption route. I have never been convinced that removing compassionate exemptions for travel was a good thing. I believe very strongly that the Isle of Man is a very compassionate and sensitive place. I think we always try as a community to take into account some of those less visible and less tangible, I suppose, elements of life. I cannot imagine for a moment any sensible reason 450 why you would prevent genuine, compassionate travel; someone who, for example, needs to come over for a funeral, or to deal with a sick family member, whether that is going to the UK or coming back on to the Island. It is that kind of interconnectivity that I mentioned that really is important here. I think families – and it is families for the most part, the families are spread across the British Isles, they 455 are not entirely living on the Isle of Man. That is something we are never going to get away from. Putting some of these barriers in place, whilst I appreciate the logic behind them in reducing the number of travellers, really does not sit well with me. It does not feel that morally it is the right thing to do, to make people sacrifice so much when actually we know that we have an effective border regime in place. We know we have effective testing. We know we have effective isolation. 460 And actually the risk posed by people travelling for compassionate reasons, or people travelling for any reason, can be mitigated. We have seen that for six months or more. The Isle of Man has had an effective border regime in place that has allowed compassionate travel. So the amendment really does not go so far as to insist that the Council of Ministers reinstate this immediately, we do not have access to all the same medical advice and information that they 465 do, but it is calling for the Council of Ministers to review the operation of this particular aspect of the border policy as a matter of absolute priority. I think it needs to happen, but it needs to happen as soon as possible, and we need to be in a position where we can start providing clarity for people ______1129 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

about where the Island is going, and how we are going to get out the other side of what has been an absolutely awful year for so many people. 470 With that, Mr President, I beg to move the amendment that I have tabled, which simply adds on to the end of the motion an additional item which I would ask we vote on separately as with all the other elements of the Item. It simply calls on the Council of Ministers to review the resumption of the compassionate exemption route for entry into the Island as a matter of priority. Thank you very much, Mr President. I beg to move the amendment in my name:

To add at the end the words – ‘6. Calls on the Council of Ministers to review the resumption of the Compassionate exemption route for entry into the Island as a matter of priority’.

475 The President: Thank you. Hon. Member, Mr Shimmins.

Mr Shimmins: Thank you, Mr President. I am pleased to second Mr Hooper’s amendment. I agree strongly with his points and support 480 the need for an urgent review of compassionate exemption. I also welcome the motion from my hon. friend, Mr Thomas, and I will be supporting that; and, whilst doing so, I would like to associate myself with Mrs Barber’s remarks. Once again Mrs Barber has provided the balanced view. She asked many pertinent questions, which I believe deserve a balanced and thoughtful response. So I hope that will be forthcoming. 485 In terms of the detail of Mr Thomas’s amendment, I fully support the various points, but I would particularly like to talk about the formation of the Emergency Advisory Group that was proposed by me back in November. It is disappointing that no progress has been made since then. We are all aware that the Council of Ministers collectively voted against that motion in November, but we all of course remember that it was approved by this Hon. Court. We will also 490 recall that the Council of Ministers collectively voted against the additional testing motion in November and unfortunately they dragged their feet on this until it was too late to implement. That is a matter of deep regret, Hon. Members, because if only Council had taken note of this Tynwald-approved resolution agreed on 18th November, which stressed the need for urgency, perhaps we would actually be sitting in the Chamber today. 495 Hon. Members, you recall the Chief Minister strongly resisted the motion, with a number of interjections on the grounds of cost. Of course the inconvenience of a virtual sitting is inconsequential to the pain and hardship that this second lockdown has created, and so many people have been impacted and have had to work incredibly hard to help us recover. It looks as if things are improving, which is great, but it is just so regrettable. And of course, the cost to the 500 taxpayer is already in excess of £10 million. So, why am I going over this old ground, Hon. Members, when actually we should look forwards not backwards in everything that we do? But this is just one example of why an emergency advisory group would be very helpful. Yesterday, again, we heard the evident lack of strategic thinking on a number of aspects of this 505 crisis response and an emergency advisory group would help provide support to the Council of Ministers, particularly on these strategic issues. I think it would also provide challenge, and hopefully that challenge would be listened to perhaps more than some of the challenges that have not been listened to from Members of this Hon. Court. I would reiterate what Mr Hooper said earlier in terms of businesses, and particularly the large 510 employers who have been on Island for a long time, who are frustrated and concerned by the evident lack of strategic thinking. They complain about the clumsy messaging from Ministers, and really that is a big concern for me because that could result in many hundreds of people losing their livelihoods on this Island. So the messaging really needs to improve. We are not asking for all messaging, in terms of open or closed, but this simplistic style of messaging is not at all helpful ______1130 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

515 at this time. We must be able to explain the complexities in our border situation in a more balanced way to the wide population and especially the business community. So I really hope that an emergency advisory group would help Ministers during these deliberations, and the various other important decisions that will have to be made as we continue through this crisis. Hopefully, potentially, an emergency advisory group would help Ministers pivot 520 when that it is needed, because that seems to be really difficult when faith is potentially at risk. Ultimately we need to find a way to achieving a more balanced, thoughtful, strategic approach and always put the national interest first during this crisis. I believe that an emergency advisory group will help us do that. As such, I would again urge all Members to support the motion, and the Council of Ministers 525 to stop delaying and to quickly set up the Emergency Advisory Group. View the positives that this will bring and ultimately, for me, what this will bring is better outcomes across the board during and after this crisis, and that is why I strongly support it. Thank you, Mr President.

530 The President: Thank you. Hon. Member, Mrs Lord-Brennan.

Mrs Lord-Brennan: Thank you, Mr President. I do not think I can follow the previous speakers and their excellent contributions in the same 535 way, but before I start on mine I would like to say 100% that I absolutely support the Council of Ministers in terms of their response to this recent outbreak and introducing the restrictions measures. I would like to follow others who have commented on where we go next and how we get out of this; in particular, though, focusing on the broader impact of the elimination strategy, which 540 was really just put out there almost as a fait accompli by the Council of Ministers. Also, secondly, to comment on the approach and the communication in respect of that. I share a lot of the concerns raised by Mr Hooper and Mr Shimmins about how that is working out in terms of larger organisations. But I will get on to those points separately. First of all in terms of the elimination strategy: how many more lockdowns will this mean, 545 because it is quite a blunt instrument? The adoption of an elimination strategy is coming across in a way which is immovable, which is highly restrictive; and crucially, to me, which is not really presenting the level of hope of moving through this that I think we might reasonably expect at this stage, because we will soon be coming into it being 12 months since this first reached our shores. I just have a lot of concern that this elimination approach is being pursued without 550 anything else coming into play about how we are going to get out of this. I much preferred the messaging in terms of suppressing the virus, and I do not know really if the public understand what it will really mean to pursue an elimination strategy. Would it mean, for example, in a few weeks or a few months’ time, we are going to have another lockdown? The second point is about the sensitivity and importance of communications around that 555 because I think that when Ministers, in particular when the Chief Minister and the Health Minister have to stand up and talk to the public through the press briefings … First of all, I think it is amazing that they manage to do this so consistently in terms of giving these public briefings, but there is a huge responsibility with this because people are hanging on their every word. Whilst we can get into many details here, the issues are that the public need to understand what will get us through 560 this. Secondly, the way some of the messages are landing with larger organisations, and also some of the other instances that have recently popped up in the media, is coming across as if we have something of a closed and repressive system over here. I think that is really unfortunate, because that is not really how we position the Isle of Man. So we need to have something that is going to take us through this with some hope. 565 I really think the messages that are put out there in the press conferences need to be handled with such sensitivity. I feel actually we have reached a bit of a turning point. I am not so sure the ______1131 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

public are as on board with Government and some of the moves made, or perhaps some of the comments made, as they would have been last year. So we need to seriously … Perhaps the emergency group could help hold a mirror up to some of that messaging and the implications it is 570 having. So turning to the implications on larger organisations, we heard yesterday about the cost of a lot of the schemes that will be used to support smaller businesses. Everybody in this Court knows about the importance of keeping these businesses going and making the Isle of Man a good place to do business, and for businesses to help grow the economy and keep jobs. But I am quite sure 575 that unless there is a change of tone and a change of style in the handling of this virus – which includes the matters already raised about testing, about genomics and all the other things already raised – Hon. Members, we will not get chance in this Court to scrutinise what went wrong in terms of larger organisations reacting to this, because they will simply make their decisions. We will not be able to address the cost in the same way that we attempt to address the cost and 580 impact in terms of smaller businesses. So I just worry it is the sort of thing that is so serious that it will actually creep up on us, and that we need to be super aware and sensitive of the communications around that now. We talk a lot about combating the virus and we talk in very blunt terms. Mr President, I think we need to talk about the people and the economy, and start putting the heart into some of this, showing 585 that we are a caring society overall. Because what it comes down to in a few months’ time, if we have people not wanting to live here because some of the measures – whether they are too extreme, or whether they are just individual instances reported as seeming to be incredibly unfair or uncaring, and that are just going too far … We will not be able to turn around in a few months’ time, Hon. Members, and just say, ‘Well, we followed the advice of the medics.’ 590 I will leave it there. We need both forms of input and we need to be really serious and understanding about how this is going to be perceived in the longer term. We need a way out in a way that is much more effective than just saying, ‘We are going to eliminate.’ Thank you, Mr President.

595 The President: Thank you. Hon. Member, Ms Edge.

Ms Edge: Thank you, Mr President. I just want to say that I fully support this motion; however, I do have a few concerns with regard 600 to the processes that are currently in place. We started this pandemic and it was about the protection of life and our NHS. I am quite concerned, following many email exchanges with regard to compassionate exemptions and the way they are dealt with. I support Mr Hooper’s amendment, but I do not feel it goes far enough. I feel that all exemptions need to have an end date. Having had many email exchanges with the Chief Secretary, 605 I have established that a person on an exemption who has been on the Island for three months can become registered with a GP as a full-time resident. This does concern me, Mr President, that we might be putting additional strain from exemptions on to our NHS. I am not against compassionate reasons for people coming to the Island; I am not against people coming for contractual reasons. What I am against, Mr President, is an open-ended exemption. And I do 610 believe the previous information I have been provided with is not accurate, that an exemption can be revoked. So I hope that when the Council of Ministers come back to this Hon. Court, depending on whether it is February or March, they will consider it. I am also aware of the criteria within the exemptions and I do feel that the criteria need to 615 be … Sorry, there is somebody talking in the background.

The President: Carry on, Ms Edge. Sorry for the distraction.

______1132 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

Ms Edge: Obviously under criterion 7 that I have been provided with, it states that:

… an individual who does not fall within any of the descriptions above but who is able to provide other evidence to satisfy the Chief Secretary that he or she is a resident of the Island …

620 – that the Chief Secretary can approve an exemption. There are no checks of anybody’s National Insurance or their tax references, I understand. I also believe that checks are not carried out broader with the Constabulary. So I do feel that if this is being reviewed, it needs to be a full review, not just a review of implementing it again as it is. There are many people with concerns. One of the concerns that have been raised is: what is a 625 residence? Is it bricks and mortar, or is it a mobile home? My understanding of living in a residence, from legislation, was it had to be an address. Certainly that has caused some concerns recently. I hope that one of the Ministers perhaps will speak, but we did set up a recovery group following the previous lockdown. I think it would be really helpful for the public, taking into 630 account some of the comments that the Hon. Member for Middle, Mr Shimmins has made for this amendment, and to make sure that the Emergency Advisory Group is up and running. We did have a recovery group up and running, and it would be helpful to have all this information included in the report that does come back to the Hon. Court. With regard to national interest, that was mentioned by a couple of Members. I do feel that 635 anything we do has to be in the national interest, but we also need to be finding a way out for people so that they can actually understand. Certainly on this lockdown, I think it was the Hon. Member of Council, Mrs Lord-Brennan said the temperature of the residents is certainly different in this second lockdown than it was previously. I do think that is because … I am pleased that this situation happened, but we have continued with hospital appointments, which I totally agree 640 with. But people are not understanding why, if we have had to do a circuit breaker, some of these things have continued. I totally agree with that decision that hospital appointments have carried on, because we certainly do not want to extend our waiting lists. But I think some changes this time perhaps were not communicated well and caused some confusion. The Hon. Member for Middle, Mr Shimmins 645 also talked about cost to the taxpayer and that is exactly where my concerns come with open- ended exemptions, Mr President. I know the Chief Minister did not agree with me, and he felt that it was one of the most bizarre questions that he had heard; however, there is a lot of concern in the community that exemptions do not have an end date, and that we on the Island do not know who is staying for however long. 650 I welcome new people to our Island and I do not blame them for wanting to live in one of the best places in the world. However, I feel as a Government we do need to have some controls in place that help us further down the line, when some of the impact of decisions that have been made … I totally support this second lockdown and hopefully we do stay with no cases in the community. But there are some questions that need to be asked and I do believe that an 655 emergency advisory group could have a lot of this information fed into it, as long as it has got the appropriate people feeding in. We need security people in it, we need our Police Force, we need the Chief Constable – we need people who know what the difficulties are and how we can get this in the safest way for everybody, but to not hinder the future of the Island, and to make us the place where everybody wants to be. 660 Thank you, Mr President.

The President: Hon. Member, Mr Ashford.

Mr Ashford: Thank you, Mr President. 665 Speaking to Mr Hooper’s amendment it will be a very brief intervention from myself. It is just to say I fully believe we should always keep all of our processes under review, and that includes

______1133 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

what we are doing around compassionate exemption. So I am fully supportive of Mr Hooper’s amendment.

670 The President: Thank you, sir. Mr Robertshaw, please.

Mr Robertshaw: Thank you, Mr President. A pretty good debate so far, and I thank Mr Thomas for bringing this to the fore. 675 My contribution will come from a slightly different angle, and it is focusing on the concept of elimination and a comment that was made earlier on that, I think perhaps incorrectly, we can assume that we can eradicate this virus, and therefore I am looking forward now, a little bit towards family stresses where families are part on the Isle of Man and part away, and also economic activity if we remorselessly pursue the concept of elimination. Because at some stage 680 we are going to have to bring, I would argue, the concept of total elimination to an end. We are all learning all the time here. That is very clear. It has been a shock to everybody, to the whole system, and we are constantly learning. But if you parallel COVID with flu, flu has not gone away. Flu comes in and out of our society almost on an annual basis and the vaccine has to change with it. Why would COVID-19 as we know it be effectively any different? The vaccine does not 685 completely eradicate the virus, it simply diminishes the impact and we already know that the mutation rates around the world are quite extraordinary. It will not be that long, I would reasonably argue, before the virus, which is now right across the world, has mutated enough to effectively diminish the value of the vaccine. So on the basis that somehow or other, although we all support the current total elimination 690 process, that will absolutely have to come to an end. I would put it, Mr President, to Hon. Members that sadly we are going to have to find a way of actually living with this and we can only hope that in the future vaccines are able, as seems to be the case with flu, to keep up with the mutations that are actually taking place. I think that message has to start going out to the general public, because the idea in some people’s minds that somehow we can keep this virus totally off 695 the Island permanently is going to be wishful thinking. So I welcome this debate today, support everything that is currently going on, but just caution that we need in a strategic sense to be thinking forward now as to how the Isle of Man learns to live with the variations and mutations, access to vaccines and to find a new normal within all of this. 700 Thank you, Mr President.

The President: Hon. Member for Garff, Mrs Caine.

Mrs Caine: Thank you, Mr President, and like the previous speaker, I would like to thank the 705 Hon. Member for Douglas Central, Mr Thomas, for bringing this debate before us today and to say I wholeheartedly support his comments and those of the Hon. Member for Douglas East, Mrs Barber. I also am very much in support of the amendment brought by Mr Hooper. I completely acknowledge and commend the Council of Ministers because this health pandemic will be the 710 defining factor of this administration and there are so many social and other economic policies that have not been pursued as much as perhaps people had hoped for because of this imperative situation that we are dealing with. And – with a few missteps – the Isle of Man’s response has been great to date. We can balance that, we can judge that by the amount of public support and public buy-in to the measures that CoMin has introduced to enable us to have so long a period of 715 freedoms that were the envy of many another place. But we are where we are now because of the situation that arose over the Christmas week and again, I think the short, sharp circuit breaker people are supporting. But as other Members have mentioned, some public support is draining away. There is a balance to be struck here between ______1134 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

what people need socially and health-wise and economic factors, and when that is not 720 communicated, when the strategic direction is not clear, the vacuum into which there is no information is filled by people’s comments, people’s speculation and some of it perhaps … We all read different things. There is such an enormous amount of information about every aspect from the vaccines and whether we should continue to ensure that the second dose is given as per the manufacturer’s recommendation, rather than later; whether people leaving the Island on patient 725 transfers should receive them, because that is also feeding into the greater good. I have, this time, to disagree with my hon. friend Ms Edge over the open-ended nature of exemptions for compassionate reasons. My inbox is full of heartrending tales of hardship and separation of families because of the current block on any travel for compassionate grounds, and my feeling is that there is a pent-up demand there and that it would be much better to permit 730 compassionate travel now so that people come in week by week by week and not with a huge number and a huge pressure on serious compassionate grounds in the future. But so what if they determine that they prefer to stay here; that they can live and work here? The whole world is being turned upside down and when we are reaching out to people to say come to the Isle of Man because it is a great place to live and work, why would we not welcome 735 them with open arms once they have satisfied the 14 days with testing or the 21 days’ isolation? What risk are they to us and what potential better input into our economic Island. And –

The President: Hon. Member Mrs Caine, will you accept an intervention from Ms Edge?

740 Mrs Caine: Yes, of course.

Ms Edge: Thank you, Mr President, and thank you to the Hon. Member for giving way. It is not that I am expecting people to leave the Island at the end of an exemption. It is just that an exemption would need to be reapplied for. I just want to make that clear. I am not expecting 745 anybody on an exemption to be going straight to the Airport or that. It is that there is a reapplication process so that good statistical information is available to the Government. Thank you, Mr President. Thank you to –

The President: Thank you. 750 Mrs Caine.

Mrs Caine: Thank you. Even appreciating that, I think we would just be stacking up more bureaucracy, more red tape, more paperwork, when there is so much else that needs our current focus. 755 I think that generally we have … the public is coming along with the Council of Ministers, but as the Hon. Member for Middle, Mr Shimmins explained very clearly, the strategic direction, the strategic thinking of our exit strategy is what people are looking to now in terms of leadership. I cannot believe that the Government would be reluctant to facilitate the establishment of an emergency advisory group. Nobody has all the right answers – nobody across the world has the 760 right answers. Who would not, if they were in the position of having to make the decisions, want that level of expertise to be held up to them to be giving them the factual, scientific, economic advice to enable better decision making. I am also aware that some public approval is being lost because of the seeming illogical policy making. For instance, the outdoor working, and why would you switch off somebody who is able 765 to work on their own, trades or gardening, and it is also with evidence of perhaps the rules not being applied so strictly to other areas. So I have, for instance, an individual gardening business, a landscape gardener, who is forbidden to work, sitting at home, watching church-ground workers sweep up leaves together. Two different household workers – I am not sure whether in masks or not; I am assuming with masks – but the gardener with the business is not permitted to work. It 770 causes huge angst and a loss of support, because it does not seem logical. Likewise, today social ______1135 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

media is lighting up with a key worker, so called, who is bringing over a truck on the Steam Packet and the driver drove it down to the Airport to be a luggage tug or something. But is that really a ‘key’ worker? Is that really essential now when so many other businesses, so many other individuals who work on their own are not permitted to work? 775 So I think that the Government needs to be really careful how it withdraws from this emergency. I think it is essential that travel on compassionate grounds is permitted as soon as possible so that it can reopen and begin in a staged way without a huge influx. I would also like to see in due course, hopefully with the circuit breaker being effective, some signalling as to when travel on economic contractual basis will be permitted because, as other 780 Members have alluded to, we are aware that businesses will just make the best decisions for their businesses without reference to Government and if the conditions of doing business or attracting staff to the Island, or even physically bringing staff to the Island become too difficult, then they will simply make other arrangements. Indeed, some already have remote workers working in all parts of the world that are not based here and others perfectly happily working here and 785 additionally the family members of people who are able to work remotely staying here for long periods of time. So in closing, Mr President, I would just like to say I think this is an excellent motion because it does acknowledge the good decisions and the good eight or 10 months that we have had to see us through the health emergency so far, but I think that it does put an excellent level of expertise 790 at the heart of the decision-making process, and that can only lead to more openness in terms of how the decisions are arrived at and what professional advice is being received, more accountability and, particularly for me, a balance. A balance in terms of health issues and economic and social concerns. I am very happy to support both the motion and the amendment before us today. 795 Thank you, Mr President.

The President: Thank you. Miss August-Hanson, please.

800 Miss August-Hanson: Thank you, Mr President. I am not wishing to repeat the very good commentary from Hon. Members that I have heard so far. It has been a really great debate. But I would just also like to echo my support for the Council of Ministers presently, and certainly in terms of the lockdown that we are currently in and the measures that have been taken thus far. 805 These are very uncertain times, as we know, and people are anxious about their health, they are anxious about their jobs, they are anxious about their relatives. The acts of compassion, and I speak about Mr Hooper’s amendment in saying this, are transformative, as we know. And all around the world, and in our Island, we are seeing so many acts of kindness in this lockdown, as well as we have in the previous lockdown that are prevailing in uncertain times. 810 There has been, from what I have seen, a change in mood in the community. I think that what Mrs Lord-Brennan has had to say regarding the message and certainly Mrs Caine has had to say regarding, again, the messaging is quite right and I think it needs looking at. The Diocese of Sodor and Man wrote an article that was published on 4th November online suggesting that ‘Calm, courage and compassion are needed in the face of any new lockdown’ – and that was in 815 November. The messaging does need to change slightly. We do have international connections, certainly in the business community. Those people are listening and what is being said and they do have their own opinions on what is being said and the tone of how this is all coming across. I think the Hon. Member for Ramsey, Mr Hooper was right in saying the management of the 820 border is going to be a long-term reality, so we need to be thinking a little bit more long-term about these things. We have done very well. He mentions Guernsey have done exceptionally well as well and I know that we do look to them as a comparative jurisdiction. They kept compassion ______1136 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

front and centre and their compassionate exemptions have been kept up there. It is good to look at what they have been doing and perhaps have a little bit more conversation, perhaps, in terms 825 of how they have done that and their reasoning behind doing that – perhaps a little bit more of that needs to take place. Exercise out of the home and putting people isolating together. I know an awful lot of this has been in the news and all over social media. This is categorically compassion again. We need to start thinking a little bit more about our messaging and how all of this is coming across. The 830 uncertainty for people is very real and therefore the messaging needs to be very much on point. I do not think that we are there at the moment and I think that we can do a little bit better than perhaps what we have been doing thus far. Down the line, it would be nice to see a proper long-term plan to provide some level of certainty for people. Obviously we cannot plan for what we cannot plan for, but for what we know, 835 we can. Keeping adequate, concise, timely messaging needs to go along with that. I think that is extraordinarily key. People are listening to what the Council of Ministers have to say, and certainly in all of these briefings. We have worked very hard to get to this point and I think a lot of the right things have been done. I just would like to point out, though, that I think Mr Shimmins is quite right in his suggestion 840 that Mrs Barber has asked an awful lot of pertinent questions and saying that they would need answers. I hope that the Council of Ministers will take some of those points on board and will perhaps supply answers to all Members of Tynwald so that we may be able to see what their response is. I do think that elimination, as Mrs Lord-Brennan had to say, has become a bit of a fait accompli. 845 Just dipping into that slightly, I do agree with what we are doing at the moment, and I do think that elimination is right for now while the cases are low. However, it does not seem like a long- term strategy for anybody, because, as Mr Robertshaw had to say, this is not something that we are just going to be living with on a short-term basis. This is going to be something that we will be living with probably for a very long period of time. 850 We do not know how long the immunity produced by the vaccination is going to last until more data, more research has been done on how well these vaccines actually work. We have no idea whether or not more variants will appear as the virus inevitably evolves. Likely they will. Will it be like the flu? We cannot eliminate the flu, can we? So vaccinations once a year, once every three years, but not elimination. So that messaging there as well, as Mr Robertshaw said, it does need 855 to change. But as I said, I do support elimination on COVID for now at this particular point in time, but a longer-term solution is perhaps needed. I just want to add one more point really, and this is just hopefully that the EAG will actually pick some of this up, because I think that there are areas that before lockdown, before COVID actually, that we have not pinned down, we have not gotten right, and because we have not got certain 860 areas right they have then ended up linking into the lockdown situation and making it 10 times worse in terms of compassion and how we treat individuals, and particularly vulnerable individuals where they have ended up suffering an awful lot worse than perhaps they needed to. And those two particular situations I had Questions down for that I did not quite get to ask in this session of Tynwald. 865 One of them was about domestic abuse. The pathway has not been produced thus far and therefore we have ended up in a situation where in the last lockdown there was a 71% rise in DA reported incidents during the first two weeks and from that, how much have we actually learnt from the last lockdown and applied to this lockdown in a comprehensive, cross-government way? The second point that I would make is about the sexual assault referral centre. Now, I have 870 been contacted by a mother who had to take an 18-month-old child following an alleged assault that took place in October of last year, was reported immediately to the Police and social services, it took a week from the point of that being reported to them then travelling across to the UK with police and a welfare officer. That is entirely inappropriate because the whole point and purpose in that trip to the UK, with that 18-month-old and the mother of the victim going across to the UK ______1137 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

875 like that … it is nonsensical that it took a full week before a mother and child were flown to Manchester for forensic testing because in the middle of a pandemic as well, after a time when all of that evidence could well have been lost, resulting in inconclusive examination results, which is precisely what happened. So these types of things that have not actually being dealt with thus far I think have made a 880 situation that perhaps would have been very difficult and very hard 10 times harder for victims and for the families around them. So I am hoping that going into … hopefully before the end of this administration we will see a very clear domestic abuse pathway. Hopefully before the end of this administration we will actually see a SARC so that we do not end up hearing stories like this that are 10 times worse during this pandemic because they have not been dealt with thus far. 885 Just going back to the amendment by Mr Hooper, when we are talking about compassionate exemptions, I think that there is an opportunity to hold on to what we have. We are a compassionate community here on the Isle of Man, and I would not take that away, regardless of the examples that I have just used. But we do need to celebrate it, we do need to grow it and we do want people to move here, we do want business to grow here. So I think that the messaging 890 and the compassionate exemptions walk hand in hand in trying to achieve that. Thank you, Mr President.

The President: Thank you. Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Callister. 895 Mr Callister: Thank you, Mr President, and I do thank my colleague and friend, Mr Thomas from Douglas Central for bringing this motion. I think most people have already added their comments. I will try not to duplicate any of them because there have been some excellent speeches, especially, as other people have said, from 900 Mrs Barber and from Mr Thomas. I think overall the general sense of this is the fact that this lockdown, for whatever reason, is more difficult than the first, and I do truly congratulate the Isle of Man, the people of this Island, the Government, for everything they have done since we had to deal with this COVID outbreak in March last year. I do not know if this particular lockdown is more difficult because it came just 905 after Christmas, or the fact that people have just not had time to recover from the first lockdown. But I think, as a number of Members have already alluded to, I know from the amount of messages and phone calls that I have received over the last few weeks how difficult this lockdown is and how difficult the people of this Island are finding this. It may simply be due to the time of year. It is a bit darker, people cannot get out as much. I am not too sure. But that is something that may 910 need to be looked at at a later point. More importantly, I do want to absolutely associate myself with the speeches from Mr Hooper again. I think his understanding on the compassion reasons is absolutely right and I do welcome that review because I know I have had one family contact me in the last week where they cannot leave the Island because they are scared they cannot come back. Although we have contacted the 915 Cabinet Office, they will not give reassurance that they can return two days later from burying their parent. I think that is quite shocking and I hope at some point that particular case is reviewed because people need reassurance. When things are really desperate, families need that reassurance from Government that people can leave the Island and return, and then self-isolate and move on with their lives. So there are questions to be asked. 920 I also want to focus my attention and my comments, Mr President, on the tourist sector. At some point, as Mr Robertshaw has already said, we are going to have to unlock our borders. We are going to have to get used to getting back to normal and I am not sure how we are going to achieve that. What I do know, if we take the responses we got yesterday and if we take on board the comments from the Health Minister, we know that the Isle of Man will have around 42,000 925 people vaccinated, that should be every risk category and everyone over the age of 50 vaccinated by May. At that particular point, we then have to look at the risks and see if we can unlock the ______1138 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

Island’s borders, even if it is on a staged approach, because the Island is desperately needing its tourist activities. We have to get some activities, wherever possible, during 2021, because if not, then the 930 Government would have to step in and support the industry going into 2022. I think if you speak to most people in the sector, and definitely the people that I have spoken to, the hotel operators, the other businesses associated with our tourist sector, most of them want to see some activities. They do not want Government handout. What they actually need is the opportunity; is the opportunity to actually get a little bit of business to see them through the winter months and then 935 to bounce back with a massive punch in 2022. We will have a new landing, a new ferry terminal opening in Liverpool hopefully by that stage, we will have the promenade open. The Isle of Man will be ready for business. But what we can capture, if we look at what is happening in the UK, the UK is driving forward its vaccination programme and the Isle of Man should be in a position to offer staycations, not just on Island but 940 also maybe to our friends in the UK. The UK has recently announced a major boost of staycation in 2021 and the Isle of Man must be ready for that. Now, I know that the DfE team, the tourism team are ready to go. I know the Visit Agency are ready to go. We have got airlines ready to go. But what we need is the clarity from the Council of Ministers and some understanding of how we are going to unravel everything that we have. How 945 are we going to manage the risks? How are we going to live with COVID-19? As my colleague Mr Robertshaw has said, COVID-19 is going to be with us for many years to come, so then we have to look at the risk levels and we have got to get the balance right between health, society and the Manx economy. At the moment there are sections in our Manx economy that are suffering and that needs to 950 be addressed because the Manx Government has lost a lot of money itself. I am sure the Treasury Minister next month will outline some of the concerns and the loss of income that the Isle of Man has endured since March 2020. We do have to bounce back. The question is all about risks and the people of this Island, we are going to have to live with COVID. I think that is all I need to say at the moment, Mr President, so thank you so much. 955 The President: Thank you, sir. Lord Bishop.

The Lord Bishop: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane; thank you. 960 I would like to begin by thanking Mr Thomas for his main motion and for giving us the opportunity for this debate, to associate myself with certainly the majority of that motion and to add my own thanks to the Council of Ministers for all that they have done. I think there have been a number of concepts, quite interesting concepts, raised in this debate which possibly would require further exploration. One of them is the idea of strategic direction. I 965 was taken with the Hon. Member Mrs Barber’s description of the virus as a playground bully. It strikes me that if one is going to anthropomorphise or personalise then that is a very good description. But as the bully reassesses his own position, his posture, so too does everyone else. We reassess our response. And so strategic direction clearly is not going to be set in stone. It is going to be an idea that evolves as the circumstances evolve. 970 In allowing that to happen, we look, for example, at things like national interest first and say, well, what exactly does that mean in terms of balancing it against the human interest? For practical purposes for this debate, I would very much support Mr Hooper’s amendment. It is quite a gentle amendment. It asks that policy be reviewed. Not immediately changed, but reviewed. But I think it does that for exactly the right reasons, and that is the balancing of the human interest 975 against the national interest. I suppose the other concept I would just want to reflect on, Mr President, is the idea of elimination, which has always struck me as a very ambitious policy to pursue. In the end, I think you have to draw a distinction between elimination of the threat and elimination of the virus. It ______1139 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

seems to me that to live with the aspiration of elimination of the virus is actually almost 980 impossible. Even if we vaccinate everyone, we cannot remain static. Our borders cannot be impermeable or watertight. But to say that we can eliminate the threat, eliminate it to the point where we have got it to an irreducible minimum, that strikes me perhaps as a more realistic strategy where you can continue to hold on to that concept of elimination, but you are modifying the strategy, modifying the policy as the circumstances dictate. 985 So my thought, Mr President, finally would be that to ask for a review on compassionate grounds of the border policy is utterly reasonable. There will always have to be, no matter how we understand our policy of elimination, an area for judgement and discretion on compassionate grounds. Other colleagues have spoken about economic and social grounds, and I will not say anything further on that. But for now perhaps just to commend to us that idea that as our strategy 990 evolves we might draw that distinction between elimination of the virus on the one hand and elimination or significant reduction of the threat on the other, because that I think is achievable and is being achieved through current governmental policy. So with those thoughts, Mr President, I fully support Mr Hooper’s amendment. I thank him for bringing it and again I thank Mr Thomas for the opportunity for this debate. 995 Mr President, thank you.

The President: Thank you, sir. Hon. Member, Mrs Poole-Wilson.

1000 Mrs Poole-Wilson: Thank you, Mr President, and I would like to add my thanks to the Hon. Member Mr Thomas for bringing this motion. As others have said, the debate is most welcome and there is clearly a strong desire for full engagement and debate on this critical matter. I think I would also like to echo all other speakers who have stated that there is support, very much so, for the current short lockdown circuit-breaker, and sincere appreciation for the ongoing 1005 work of Ministers and officers. I think one of the things that has struck me in this debate so far, it is interesting that the word ‘pivot’ has been used by several speakers, and I think the other reason that that is important is that there is absolute recognition that things continue to evolve and change. We are going to need to live with this virus. We do not know for how long, but certainly for the medium to longer term. 1010 We know it mutates; we are not yet sure about the full impact of vaccination in terms of the duration of effect and even, indeed, the possibility of it helping to reduce transmission. I think, Hon. Members, that is the essence and importance of elements (4) and (5) of this motion: the need to evolve policy and our approach, and the importance of obtaining timely expert input as we do so. 1015 I have just been very struck by the Lord Bishop’s distinction between elimination of the virus and elimination of the threat. I think he has touched on something that is absolutely critical. Living with the virus and how we respond now is a challenge, but Hon. Members, I also think it is an opportunity. It is a challenge and we see it in the comments that Hon. Members have made today about the difference between this lockdown and the previous lockdown. For example, the fact 1020 that hospital appointments and, indeed, visits to the dentist have continued, which I absolutely support and welcome. Questions that have been raised about who should be allowed to still work and in what circumstances, and in the many very valid questions raised by the Hon. Member for Douglas East, Mrs Barber. So it is a challenge because we are now into territory of having to evolve more layers, layers of 1025 approach. Because we cannot be, and should not be, binary, that also means that the communication around all of this is vital. We cannot communicate in binary terms. We do need to be able to think through the policy rationale for these layers but also communicate them well so that the public really do understand. However, Hon. Members, I also think that with this comes opportunity. There is no doubt that 1030 the approach so far, the approach to tackling the virus, has overall been a success and has had ______1140 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

strong public support. There is still an opportunity now to develop that more layered and thoughtful strategic approach to how we live with the virus and, as the motion puts it, to make sure that the policy and approach that we evolve balances well the social, economic, as well as health impacts. 1035 This, the fifth element is that we should focus on developing policy but with the rapid establishment of an emergency advisory group, so that this more subtle, layered policy approach can be developed with, as Mrs Barber put it, well-rounded expert advice and challenge. And so I wholeheartedly support the rapid establishment of such a group. Finally, I would like to support Mr Hooper’s amendment. Others have spoken about the 1040 importance of reviewing the exemption for compassionate travel. I hope that we can not only review but make that change as soon as possible. The Lord Bishop put it very well: no matter what the threat, there must always be scope for discretion and judgement that recognises the individual compassionate needs of different families and groups on our Island. Thank you, Mr President. 1045 The President: Thank you. Hon. Member, Mr Peake.

Mr Peake: Thank you, Mr President. 1050 I do think now is the time for leadership and I do support this motion, as well as Mr Hooper’s amendment and Mr Ashford’s amendment. I think Mr Thomas did actually make a very good point about businesses considering making decisions off Island. That is something we must be aware of, because that is our financial future. Leadership is not about having to make every decision yourself. It is about surrounding 1055 yourselves with considered opinion and you can promote the correct strategies and solutions. But I thought of Stephen Covey in his The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, and his seventh habit is ‘Sharpening the Saw’, because sometimes you can get so busy in trying to cut wood with a blunt saw, when you would really be better stepping back, sharpening the saw and being more effective. Thank you, Mr President. 1060 The President: Thank you. Hon. Member, Mr Henderson.

Mr Henderson: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. 1065 I would just like to add a few brief points to the debate. I am grateful to the Hon. Member for Douglas Central for bringing the debate and for causing a general discussion surrounding the points that he wishes to be voted upon. I think, Eaghtyrane, I have got to start by thanking the Council of Ministers and, in particular, the officers in the track and trace team for the extreme hard work that has gone into this 1070 operation in trying to keep the Island safe and put us into a sustainable position going forward, due to COVID-19 and the resultant impacts. Broadly speaking, I am in full support of what has been undertaken, both in the initial lockdown and in this lockdown. I do not think there has been any choice in the matter and I feel that there has been, in some places, a little unfair criticism levelled, and given that we are a small Island of 1075 85,000 people in the North Atlantic, as it were, the constructed response to this from a start position of nothing to where we are now is an incredible achievement. I do not think we can ignore that, and that has got to be praised and the position that we are in. However, to balance off that, Eaghtyrane, I fully support some of the Hon. Members’ points raised in the debate with regard to clearer communication and strategic direction to a point. I 1080 think to be fair to Government, they have outlined a strategic direction in overview, but I think some of the nuts and bolts of that need to be further clarified as we go along and certainly there has been some unfair lines of criticism through social media. But again, this is people’s frustrations ______1141 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

at the minute. But we are trying to manage something here, balance off something that is posing a national threat to our community, and balancing what is the right way forward, sustainable 1085 economy, sustain the community in a viable way, and it may be that we might have to grit our teeth a little bit longer to get us through this to where we hope to be in the next few weeks, Eaghtyrane. I would also like to point out, Eaghtyrane, that there has been a raft of pertinent questions placed in this debate and in Question Time, and in previous Question Times. I would have thought 1090 that we should have had a better response from the Health Minister. No criticism as such, but it was an apt opportunity to address the issues such as the vaccination questions that keep turning up at the minute, following the manufacturer’s advice and so on. As a backstop, as a former medical professional myself, obviously you would follow the manufacturer’s guidance and instructions without question. But I think we need some clarity on that and one or two other 1095 points as well. Some people have outlined, ‘Guernsey do this’, ‘Jersey do that’, other places have done the other. I think we need some clarity on that, why we are following the route we are, or can we follow a different route, and so on. Mr Thomas also made the valid point about can we source vaccinations outside the NHS UK pathway? That is an absolutely pertinent question and I think we could do with some clarification 1100 on those things, put the public’s mind to rest and lay out a set of reasonings, which then is more open, as Hon. Members have been saying, and we can accept the situation a little better and get on with where we are trying to get to. With regard to my inbox, generally speaking the messages I have had are overall of support of what we are doing at the minute and the biggest issue is regarding the borders and, indeed, ‘Keep 1105 border restrictions in place.’ I think again, if we are looking at compassionate reasons, it is again balancing the health risks off. We know why we are in the situation we are in now, because of the over Christmas possible influx of returnees to the Island and other people coming on and off the Island, and indeed the horrendous situation that the UK is facing itself just now with regards to the increasing number of deaths and reported cases. So I do not envy the Government in trying 1110 to work its way through this difficult balancing act, but would urge Hon. Members to consider all the impacts and all the situations in this going forward. But again, clarity to the situation or a little more information and, as I say, I am disappointed perhaps we have not had a fuller Government response this morning, so far. An absolutely great opportunity to put a little more information on the table, a little more explanation. 1115 In closing, Eaghtyrane, I go back to the issue last year that I was raising continuously with regard to wearing masks and face coverings. I was publicly castigated over that and I have to say other medical evidence from other areas was illustrating evidence for a different approach. I kept pointing it out and as we have gone along through this pandemic, opinions have changed and I have to say there is a certain amount of … I will not use the term ‘arrogance’ in this, but it is not 1120 far from it at times – ‘Who are we to interfere or make comment?’ – when in fact it is obvious other places are pooling different information sources in, evidence and so on. I think we need to be more holistic in how we look at things, rather than just inwardly protecting our own small institutions of expertise, if I can put it like that. I think we could look at a broader picture and take some different evidence into the equation, Eaghtyrane. 1125 Thank you.

The President: Thank you. Hon. Member, Mrs Christian.

1130 Mrs Christian: Thank you, Mr President. I join the debate to also support the motion put forward by the Hon. Member, Mr Thomas and also the amendment by the Hon. Member, Mr Lawrie Hooper today, and to support many of my colleague’s viewpoints. I would also like to thank the Council of Ministers for a swift action of the circuit break lockdown. ______1142 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

1135 I will make this quick. It is my opinion that the Government needs to act swiftly on establishing the Emergency Advisory Group. The role of Government is a privilege, but it is also a burden which comes with formidable expectations and responsibilities. Government have had significant amount of time to prepare for this event or similar ones and as far as I can see more needs to be done as a matter of national priority to establish a management strategy on outbreaks to ensure 1140 clear communication, information, accessibility is delivered to all Members of parliament and also the great Manx public and businesses. There is also a need to keep in touch with public view. There is support for this short lockdown, but I have heard many conversations with individuals and businesses that simply could not understand for some reason why they could not work, while some other areas could, i.e. like the 1145 example the Hon. Member Mrs Caine has given. But what I would like the Government to know and hear is that I, and I am sure many of my fellow colleagues this time, this lockdown, have spent hours in conversation with these individuals persuading them to remain at home. Communication is key here. Strong messaging coming from Government at all times is needed. The virus does not move, we do. 1150 We are hopefully entering back into a unique position of community elimination and it is clear today that the will of Tynwald wants movement of compassionate reasons, both to, from and I can see also on the Island – balanced with common sense, health and well-being, and safety of course. Thank you, Mr President. 1155 The President: Thank you. Hon. Member, Mr Cregeen.

The Minister for Justice and Home Affairs (Mr Cregeen): Thank you, Mr President. 1160 Mr President, I hope you can give me a little bit of leeway here, but I am brought to speak regarding the comments from the Hon. Member of Council Miss August-Hanson and part of it is just regarding her comments on domestic abuse and sexual offences. Mr President, I just wish to give a bit of reassurance to those vulnerable people. Mr President, since the current lockdown started, there have been 14 domestic incidents reported to the Police, 1165 which is lower than the same time period last year. Of course, these are reported incidents and there will be other incidents taking place that are not reported. My Department has established a working group consisting of the Isle of Man Constabulary, Public Health and the Department of Health and Social Care. They have also invited third parties, third sector and voluntary sector colleagues along to be part of this group. I am pleased to be able 1170 to confirm the information that has already been provided to the Hon. Member and it is now which the Police have already put a number of measures in place. (1) Working with supermarkets to create a safe place for reporting. This is a simple approach and should a customer approach a staff member, they will be taken to a private area and the Police called. The Police will then deal with this. Separately, we are engaging with the DHSC to 1175 request an approach be made to pharmacies to see if they will assist. (2) The Women’s Refuge continues to offer support to victims and are in contact with the Police. (3) The DHSC has identified a family refuge for use where a family unit needs to flee domestic abuse situation. 1180 (4) The Police and DESC continue to work together to safeguard children affected by domestic abuse. The Police website provides considerable information and contacts for victims of domestic abuse. In addition, work has been undertaken to extend the Bright Sky information website and app to the Island. All domestic abuse reports to the Police receive a follow-up contact and depending upon the circumstances and level of risk there may be a follow-up face-to-face visit. 1185 The working group co-ordinates a cross-Government approach from all Departments who have responsibility for vulnerability to be in with children or adults to ensure they are able to offer ______1143 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

support, especially in high-risk cases. The Police have been promoting the information available online to support victims of domestic abuse. Mr President, I hope this gives some comfort to those made more vulnerable because of the 1190 lockdown and who will be offered a number of different avenues to support during this difficult time. Mr President, it is with that support that we need to give these vulnerable people and I hope the message is getting out there that if anybody is vulnerable from either domestic abuse or sexual offences during this lockdown, please contact somebody. On a more positive note, Mr President, all the information out there is not negative about how 1195 the lockdown is being dealt with. I have had a number of people contact me praising what has been done. They appreciate the measures taken, they understand this is a difficult time, and I fully understand all those people who wish to come back to the Isle of Man on compassionate grounds and the Council of Ministers will be looking at this. So with that, Mr President, thank you very much for your time. 1200 The President: Thank you, sir. I call on the Chief Minister. Now, the Chief Minister has already spoken in seconding the first amendment. He is, however, entitled to speak on the later, second amendment moved by Mr Hooper. 1205 Chief Minister.

The Chief Minister: Thank you very much, Mr President, and I thank Hon. Members for their comments. Obviously we have a briefing at 1.45 p.m. today for a further update. I would just like to, 1210 regarding Mr Hooper’s amendment, obviously reassure Members that we are fully supportive of that. In fact we have a paper to discuss tomorrow that we had already requested on how we can turn back things like the compassionate travel. So it is not something that is new. We have been thinking about this for a little while now and the need to do that. So far the short circuit breaker has worked well, but we cannot be complacent on that. But we have now had two days with no 1215 cases in the community. Long may that continue. Obviously messaging on total elimination, I take on board Members’ comments. Obviously it is not our policy to have total elimination forever. It is a short-term position whilst the vaccination happens and more is learnt on how long the vaccination lasts for, does it stop the spread of the person, once they have been vaccinated, from passing on the virus. These are items that we still 1220 do not know, so as a short-term policy it seems logical to have total elimination. But that obviously cannot be, as Members rightly say, sustained forever. I take on the comments on messaging on this point and I am more than happy to do my best with the team to beef this up, and look forward to speaking to you all later and hearing any more views. Thank you. 1225 The President: Thank you, sir. I call on the mover to reply, Mr Thomas.

Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr President, and to all Hon. Members for their informed and valuable 1230 contributions. Firstly, I would like to thank my seconder, Mrs Barber, and I will come back to some of the comments she made a bit later in my summing up remarks. I also appreciate Minister Ashford and the Chief Minister welcoming the motion as put down on the paper, except for the date. It seems that the most important part of this motion is to encourage consideration rather than reporting 1235 and so it seems to me entirely reasonable that if a few more weeks make it easier to report on this process of consideration and listening, learning and pivoting, potentially, why wouldn’t we wait a few more weeks for a report about that process?

______1144 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

Moving to some of the more specific contributions from Members: what I heard, particularly from Mr Hooper, was a juxtaposition of being proactive and flexible and through that, or despite 1240 that, managing to avoid coming across as uncertain and unplanned and therefore that, to my mind, sums up what we are all trying to achieve today. We need a clear and transparent plan that is accepted with the consensus and that meets the real needs of people in the Island, whether those people be poor or whether they be powerful business people, whether they be born on the Island or whether they have come to live on the 1245 Island because it is such a wonderful place to live and so on and so on. It is about all people, all of our people actually signing up to that plan, and whereas it might perhaps be difficult for them, they can accept it in terms of the overall public good. What I heard from Mr Shimmins particularly was regret that there was a misunderstanding about what serious consideration of a testing regime meant, and I hope we do not fall into that 1250 mistake this time, I think that was the main point that he was trying to make. We are not going to go back and look for blame, to attribute blame; that is not the point. The point is to move forward in a better way, but at least at this stage we should note our regret about what happened next with testing, although at least we got to the right point in the end in a balanced way. I think he made an important point as well about explaining things in a more balanced way. It 1255 is not as simple as you are either for closed borders or for opening the borders. We actually need the right border controls and we need to respect other people’s opinions throughout as we are making comments. What I heard from Mrs Lord-Brennan were some powerful arguments made about the approach of elimination. She began that debate that was carried on more widely later on. She also 1260 made some important points commenting on the tone and the style in which messages were delivered, and I noted down particularly that we did not want to end up being in the situation where what people remembered about the message that had been given to us throughout 2020, and perhaps the early part of the 2021 pandemic emergency, was that we just followed the advice of medics. We need to actually reflect on what it says about ourselves as an Island because we are 1265 and we have said about ourselves for ages, just as Mrs Lord-Brennan has suggested, that we are a place where you can, where everybody can, where people can flourish, where everybody can flourish, which really is a wonderful place to live and to work. So we do need to constantly hold a mirror up to ourselves and to what we are saying about ourselves and how it would be picked up by other people. 1270 I thought Ms Edge made a valuable point about needing to see the exemption certificates in the wider context of residency. I had previously talked about the 2001 residency legislation and the language used recently in regulations is becoming similar to that language used in that unimplemented piece of legislation that has not yet been brought into force, if it will ever be brought into force. And certainly Ms Edge has begun the debate, which Mrs Caine took up the 1275 challenge of responding to from a Locate.im point of view, and I thought that was a valuable contribution as well. Mr Callister, another Member of the Department for Enterprise, made an excellent speech and I note two things particularly: the first one was beginning to speculate or hypothesise about why the second lockdown felt different and why it seems to be more difficult for people, and I think 1280 that is something that we will have to reflect on ourselves. And the second point is that we could not be closed to visitors forever, we have to think about how we would work with tourism and tourists, because the facilities that are created for us in part by tourists are the things that make living on the Isle of Man much better than it would be if we did not have those facilities created for tourists and for people living on the Isle of Man. 1285 Mr Robertshaw’s speech again was wonderful. He just disappointed me very slightly with one omission because I was absolutely adamant that Mr Robertshaw would tell us about the fact that the COVID-19 episode had been a black swan event, I was relying on that for my summing up remarks. So let’s pretend that Mr Robertshaw described the coronavirus period as an

______1145 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

unpredictable event that would happen eventually because that is going to be quite important. 1290 Mr Robertshaw also made some important remarks about total elimination and eradication. What I remember from Miss August-Hanson’s comments were her focus on the words ‘compassion’ and ‘kindness’ and she made those points powerfully. She made some specific points that Mr Cregeen has responded to in respect of domestic abuse, potential domestic abuse and sexual assault, and hopefully that is a separate debate that could be taken on in another forum 1295 properly. Mr Peake did not disappoint. I included ‘cheese’ in my opening remarks for Mr Peake to pick up on, and he surprised me with a new metaphor of sharpening a saw and blunt saws and cutting saws and so on, so I will have to pick up on that in the future. Mrs Christian and Mr Henderson made some very telling remarks. What I picked up and what 1300 I remember Mrs Christian said was that we need not necessarily think about baby steps this time as we come out of the lockdown because we have got intelligence and we have got learning from the first lockdown and that will surely be helpful as we devise our exit strategy in the short term from this lockdown and in the more medium term for how we come to live with coronavirus. I thought Mr Henderson’s comments were particularly pertinent and particularly important 1305 because I do think we have got to give the Council of Ministers the benefit of the doubt, as he was sort of suggesting, but we do actually now need more responses from Ministers about some of the questions that have been raised to do with the approach to vaccinations, where we are purchasing vaccinations; would it be possible to purchase more? Perhaps it would not have been fair given we were asking the questions today to get the answers today, although it would have 1310 been an opportunity, but I hope what I take from that is that Council of Ministers are going to reflect and consider the questions that have been raised today and respond to this Hon. Court in a more full, more complete, more transparent and more open way with more detail and more preparation in the future, because that is what Tynwald is requiring through this motion. It is requiring continuing and regular review of our approach to living with coronavirus and dealing 1315 with the issues it raises. And that comes on to my concluding remarks. I do think this black swan moment of coronavirus, this awful situation, as Mr Hooper described it, can actually help us move to a better future for all of us in the Island. It is certainly going to require some pivoting of policy, which is only a good thing. 1320 Mrs Poole-Wilson was right to focus on the fact that I used ‘pivot’ in my opening remarks. I have used it before this debate and am using it more and more, and is not a bad thing to pivot policy because, as the Lord Bishop explained, as ideas evolve and as circumstances evolve it is absolutely important that human interest and the national interest of all of us is actually balanced and policy is re-pivoted and implementation is refocused and re-resourced to make sure that we 1325 are responding with policy and implementation to evolving ideas and evolving circumstances. I think Mrs Barber summed it up for all of us, or certainly for me, when she used the excellent phrase, ‘well-rounded group with well-rounded consideration to have well-rounded policy’. We will need that because we are in difficult times. People have to be first but the emergency advisory group and this refreshed spirit of engagement with Tynwald Members and the public can only be 1330 helpful in making sure that we have a well-rounded group of everybody considering in a well-rounded way, well-rounded policy. And with that, Mr President, Hon. Members, I beg to move, fully supportive of both the amendments that are before you as well. Thank you. 1335 The President: Thank you, Hon. Member. Hon. Members, I put to the Court the motion in the name of Mr Thomas standing at Item 26, to which there are two amendments. We shall vote on each part of the motion. I put first to the Court part (1), I take the Court to be in agreement unless I see dissent. Part (1) is carried. 1340 Part (2), similarly, I put it to the Court. Part (2) carries. ______1146 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

Part (3) I put to the Court. Part (3) carries. Part (4) – I put that to the Court. No dissent, thank you; that carries. Part (5) – I put the amendment first of Mr Ashford. Mr Ashford’s amendment carries. Part (5) as amended. That is carried. 1345 I now put Mr Hooper’s amendment to introduce a new part (6). Mr Hooper’s amendment carries. I put the substantive motion as amended. That is carried. Thank you, Hon. Members. From the Chair may I just commend the Court for a very good debate: good from the point of view of not a debate in which opposing sides battle it out, but for the coherent and considered 1350 contributions of Members on a very critical subject. Tynwald doing exactly what it is supposed to do.

27. UK–EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement – Motion not moved – Statement made

The Hon. Member for Douglas Central (Mr Thomas) to move:

That Tynwald: (1) endorses the Isle of Man Government’s approval of the principles governing the future relationship of the UK with the EU consequent on the withdrawal of the UK from the EU insofar as they relate to the Isle of Man; (2) requests publication of all correspondence between the Isle of Man and UK Governments regarding the Isle of Man’s agreement of the final text of the Agreement as it relates to the Isle of Man; (3) requires the Council of Ministers to lay for debate by March 2021 a report on how the Isle of Man’s strategic objectives for the UK’s departure from the EU have been met and which identifies what questions remain open, which challenges need meeting, and which provides any other information that should be brought to the attention of Tynwald and the public concerning the Political Declaration on Harmful Tax Regimes and GDPR adequacy decisions; and (4) notes the legislative changes which need to be made under the urgent negative resolution procedure set out in the European and Trade Act 2019.

[SD No 2020/0602] is relevant to this Item. The following document is relevant to this Item: European Union and Trade Act 2019 (Deficiencies) (DEFA) (No. 8) Regulations 2019 [SD No 2019/0374]

The President: Moving on, Item 27 will not be moved. However, I have allowed Mr Thomas to make a brief personal statement. Mr Thomas. 1355 Mr Thomas: Thank you very much, Mr President, and Hon. Members. Essentially I was delighted that the Council of Ministers welcomed engagement about Item 27, which was scheduled to be ‘UK–EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement’, quite a detailed motion, and its General Debate, ‘Trading Relationship with Europe’. I have agreed with the Council of 1360 Ministers that both of those motions will be moved in March. I also wanted to commend the Council of Ministers for having circulated to Members the letters from the Isle of Man Government to the United Kingdom government, which were required in my motion and that will be helpful as we prepare for both debates in March. ______1147 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

Was that short enough, Mr President? 1365 The President: Thank you, Hon. Member.

28. Telecommunications – Review of permitted development – Debate commenced

The Hon. Member for Douglas Central (Mr Thomas) to move:

That Tynwald requires the Council of Ministers to review where telecommunications development has been permitted under the Town and Country Planning (Telecommunications) Development Order 2019, with special reference to (a) the extent of use of such permitted development and (b) the visual impact on the character and appearance of affected areas; and to report back to Tynwald by June 2021 with proposals.

The following document is relevant to this Item: Town and Country Planning (Telecommunications) Development Order 2019 [SD No 2019/0393]

The President: We turn now to Item 28, Telecommunications, a motion in the name of the Hon. Member, Mr Thomas. I call on Mr Thomas to move. 1370 Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr President. Hon. Members, this motion requires the Council of Ministers to review where telecommunications development has been permitted under the Town and Country Planning (Telecommunications) Development Order 2019, with special reference to the extent of use of 1375 such permitted development and the visual impact on the character and appearance of affected areas; and for Council of Ministers to report back to Tynwald by June 2021 with proposals. At first sight this would seem a very simple motion, to review the Telecommunications Permitted Development Order after around a year of use, with special reference to the visual impact. The Council of Ministers has kindly circulated an amendment already, after discussions 1380 with me, the mover, amending the reporting date for proposals – or at least proposing that – to December 2021, which suggests to me that Ministers agree with carrying out the proposed review, they just disagree about the timing of it. In fact that is hardly surprising, given that Minister Harmer seemed to already commit to this review in response to Minister Ashford’s description of the mast in Governor’s Hill as a launch pad 1385 for ‘a mission to Mars’ in answer to a question back in November Tynwald about whether developments made using the permitted development order were proportionate, balanced and in keeping with their surroundings – I think asked with particular reference to that mast in Governor’s Hill in the Minister’s Douglas North constituency, the constituency he represents with Mr Peake. This was a Question from Mrs Barber which built on earlier ones I had asked through 1390 the summer. But planning policy and the law through which planning development decisions are made have to reflect Government and Tynwald strategic planning for real things like housing, like population, like demography, like environmental issues and in this case telecommunications policy, strategy, budgets and operational plans. That was exactly the point I made in the Area Plan for the East 1395 debate and will continue to make. Planning policy and decisions put in place have to reflect Government and Tynwald policy and decisions about real things. If we want to change this planning order significantly it will probably ______1148 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

be necessary to change underlying Government and Tynwald policy around telecommunications to an extent. Certainly it will need to be considered in the review, whether that is necessary. 1400 This link between Government policy and the Telecommunications Permitted Development Order was made very clearly by Government, by yours truly in fact, in November 2019, when I took the Telecommunications Permitted Development Order through this Hon. Court, with nearly all Tynwald Members approving it. I described the Order as:

… [an Item] associated with the Action Plan to Improve the Planning System …

– which had been laid before Tynwald on 15th May 2018 for execution before 31st December 1405 2020. In fact the Telecommunications Permitted Development Order was already pledged as a Programme for Government commitment back in 2016-17 to ensure we are a Digital Island, specifically to increase permitted development and ensure there is an effective regulatory framework by introducing new legislation for national telecommunications. The Order was described specifically as one to change planning processes to make them faster 1410 and to:

… allow new smaller telecoms improvements … the intention is to ensure that our community and businesses receive the most modern and comprehensive mobile phone service and coverage which helps make our lives easier and businesses more profitable.

Let’s not beat about the bush, Hon. Members, Mr President, in terms of the nature of Tynwald’s commitments to this telecommunications policy and strategy. For instance, this is not a situation similar to the housing policy where for years we have been trying to settle what the policy is towards housing. Members approved the National Telecommunications Strategy without 1415 division in Tynwald in October 2018, which the Department for Enterprise had brought to Tynwald. The Chief Minister’s Sub-Committee on National Telecoms Infrastructure recommendations were also received and approved without division in May 2018. I clearly stated back in November 2019, on behalf of Government, that:

Both the Committee Report and the National Telecoms Strategy highlighted that access to world class telecommunications networks is essential for the future economic growth of the Island. The Committee found that developments of planning policy in law would be required as part of the evolutionary journey in the delivery of telecommunications. 1965 The Cabinet Office is able to bring forward Permitted Development Orders in general terms which, in effect, provide for the grant of planning approval for certain types of development, or development in specific locations which can be subject to conditions and/or limitations. Following in depth work between the Cabinet Office, the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture, the Department for Enterprise, the telecoms industry, and Public Health, 1970 Cabinet Office now feel able to bring forward the Town and Country Planning (Telecommunications) Development Order 2019.

At that point, I also stressed that public health issues were outside the scope of the Order to a 1420 large extent. But Hon. Members, Mr President, things started unravelling to an extent first in the Central Valley when the Chief Minister had to ask me and Bill Shimmins to help his Middle constituents in respect of the location of some telecommunications equipment, although it might be argued that the issues had been raised previously in Birch Hill, Onchan. Then, concerns were expressed in 1425 respect of the Governor’s Hill mast, as already discussed, then in terms of the Ballacriy fibre rollout, and finally in central Douglas around the future location of Sure 5G trial masts, all leading to those questions from me, Mrs Barber and Mr Moorhouse, etc. between August and November last year, culminating in Minister Harmer being asked whether telecoms developments undertaken to date under this permitted development order are proportionate and balanced; and 1430 what his Department is doing to ensure permitted telecoms developments are in keeping with their surroundings as much as possible, which led to the launch pad for the mission to Mars response.

______1149 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

Hon. Members should know what they are doing, Mr President, in asking for the Order to be reviewed. They are asking for a review which might lead to small but perhaps significant changes 1435 in the telecommunications approach. To help that, let me please lay down a few facts about the evolution of the Isle of Man telecommunications market which might be helpful, identifying some trends and some changes. Manx Telecom, Hon. Members, remains the dominant player in all markets in the Isle of Man and is the incumbent operator offering a full range of fixed and mobile services. It is a massive 1440 company with £80 million-plus annual revenue, and around £12 million profits each year, with tens of millions of debts and having been traded fairly recently for £255.9 million, when Basalt Infrastructure Partners acquired it. Sure also offer a mix of fixed and mobile services to the Island’s businesses and residents and launched a trial in November 2019 in central Douglas to get customer feedback on its 5G service 1445 plans, which I think involve masts providing a service through routers in people’s homes. The Island has a growing number of internet service providers offering fixed and wireless broadband services. MUA, through a subsidiary, has a role in telecommunications although I note it did not participate, I think, in its own name in the recent procurement for the National Broadband Plan. Fixed line subscriptions have continued to fall whilst the overall mobile market networks 1450 remain unchanged with market shares relatively static. Broadband subscriptions remain unchanged; however, there has been a continuing shift in the take-up of higher-speed broadband products with market shares transferring from ADSL to VDSL and now to fibre service. The last published data suggests there are around 2,700 subscriptions to the new ultrafast fibre to the premises broadband service. The roll-out of this continues with around 30% of premises on the 1455 Island passed already, and 20% of those premises who are passed availing of the fibre services. The National Broadband Plan (NBP), outlined in the Isle of Man’s National Telecommunications Strategy and launched in mid-2020, sets out to deliver ultrafast fibre broadband (FTTP) past more than 99% of the Island’s premises, with £10 million public investment – or at least £10 million- plus, now – complementing tens of millions of pounds of private sector investment. 1460 There are also leased lines, dedicated capacity circuits. By the way, Hon. Members, if there is anything wrong in what I have said above, it is entirely my own error, but I have found the Isle of Man Communications Market Statistics Quarter 3, 2020 report of the Communications and Utilities Regulatory Authority very helpful in preparing these remarks. I commend that organisation for the way it goes about its business, and is transparent 1465 and open about what is going on in the sector and how it is involved in the regulation. So in conclusion, Hon. Members, please support this motion for a review, but know what you are potentially doing when you do support it. You are asking for at least a review of key theme 5 in the National Telecoms Strategy, the Planning and Wayleaves part which says, and I quote:

The installation of Telecommunication services and infrastructure on and under publicly and privately owned land are controlled through primary and secondary legislation. […] We will support the modernisation of legislation to facilitate the implementation of new telecoms initiatives such as 5G. […] Any Government investment in a fibre broadband network must ensure it facilitates the connectivity of any future 5G network requirements which will need full fibre to meet the data demand. Investment in fibre, 5G and satellite technologies provides a comprehensive infrastructure well-placed to support a wide range of business activities. Access to Government-owned infrastructure (buildings, land, ducts, poles and masts) could bring down installation costs and speed up the delivery of any 5G or fibre network.

And note that the Chief Minister’s Committee had found that planning is part of the 1470 evolutionary journey in the delivery of 5G which would require different planning rules; but also, we have an opportunity in the Area Plan for the East written statement, which re-affirmed strategic planning policy. I quote from the Area Plan for the East:

______1150 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

In order to optimise the existing network, replacement and upgraded systems should seek to utilise existing infrastructure, however, this is not a reason to discourage or prevent investment in different types of networks and network infrastructure. It is recognised that the operational requirements of telecommunications networks and the technical limitations of the technology may make this impossible. Where new network sites are required, it is further acknowledged that height and clear line-of-sight are essential to make a radio telecommunications network operate. Therefore design considerations must be creative and ensure that support structures can be shared by different operators.

So that is a telecommunications proposal from me, in fact it was from the planners as well in that Area Plan for the East because I think we should focus on sharing masts, sharing equipment, 1475 sharing ducts as it was put in the Area Plan for the East, Telecommunications proposal 1 to Government from the planners, and I quote:

New developments should: a) Make provision for fibre optic cables directly to each dwelling or commercial premises. c) Design facilities so as to be able to host equipment from more than one operator, and that such sharing be encouraged.

I think that is the way forward, Hon. Members. There you have it. Will Government conclude like that in its review? Let’s see, but certainly I believe that a review is necessary and I will continue to campaign for mast-sharing and duct- 1480 sharing and the planning interpretation of what should be going on for telecommunications, rather than the perspective of encouraging competition without sharing of infrastructure completely, which I think is where we are at the moment. I beg to move. Thank you, Mr President, Hon. Members. 1485 The President: Hon. Member for Douglas Central, Mrs Corlett.

Mrs Corlett: Thank you, Mr President. I beg to second the motion. I understand that Minister Harmer has committed to a review, so I do feel that we are pushing 1490 at an open door with my hon. colleague from Douglas Central’s motion today. Opposition from residents to the siting of telecommunications masts is an issue that Members representing other constituencies have also had to respond to and it is very relevant within the constituency of Douglas Central. One example I wish to give for the need to review is the telecommunications mast currently situated on Woodbourne Road. I have asked the question 1495 several times: is this permanent? Is this temporary? Is this permitted development? I have yet to receive an answer. The mast has been in situ for over 12 months. No planning application was sought to erect the mast, and despite an official planning enforcement complaint being raised by Douglas Council nothing thus far has been done to address their concerns. It is situated right in the middle of a 1500 conservation area and within the grounds of a listed building. The current legislation prohibits permitted development in these circumstances. The owners of properties in the surrounding area have to apply for planning permission in order to make even minor changes to their own property, but residents have no ability to object to a structure that, quite frankly, is similar to that described by the Hon. Member for Douglas 1505 North, Mr Ashford, as a launch site for a mission to Mars! The purpose of permitted development is to cut out the red tape and avoid consultation and inquiry, but the legislation that allows this must be sufficiently robust to avoid it being misused. I completely understand that a balance has to be achieved between the need for access to networks, especially with more people working from home, and the visual impact these masts 1510 have on residential areas, particularly conservation areas.

______1151 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

I am very much of the opinion that there is a need to review how and where telecommunications development has been permitted up to now and any learning be taken into account when permitting further development. Thank you, Mr President. 1515 The President: Thank you. Hon. Member, Mr Harmer.

The Minister for Policy and Reform (Mr Harmer): Thank you. Mr President. 1520 I beg to move an amendment to Mr Thomas’s motion, namely to replace the date the Council has to report back, from June 2021 to December 2021. This to me seems a more sensible timeframe, given the need to collect and derive meaning from the data; as well as a more reasonable timeframe given all the other competing priorities. The monitoring period between the date that the Order came into operation and the reporting 1525 date will be just under two years in December 2021. I would like to take this opportunity to remind the Court that the Order was a Programme for Government commitment to ensure that we are a Digital Island. The driver has been to increase permitted development and to ensure that there is an effective regulatory framework for national internal communications. The National Telecommunications Strategy 2018 was clear about the need for more infrastructure and 1530 investment and so part of the Planning Action Plan sought to undertake a range of procedural changes which introduced faster processes to allow smaller telecoms improvements. As set out by the former Minister for Policy and Reform when moving the Order in November 2019:

… the intention is to ensure that our community and businesses receive the most modern and comprehensive mobile phone service and coverage …

He went on to reassure the Court that the Order:

… has been drafted to ensure a proportionate level of scrutiny that balances the need for technological improvements with the wider public interest.

1535 So in imagining where a review of the data may lead, it must be that a review of the Order itself will in the future be based on similar principles, and would need to balance the need for fast delivery of new services and equipment with the need to protect residential amenity and the character and appearance of local areas. Let me be clear, however: bringing in new legislation does bring with it a responsibility to 1540 undertake regular review of that legislation and ask if it is still fit for purpose, and I will wholeheartedly support this. It is evident that concerns have been raised about the visual impact of some masts and questions posed about what effective mitigation might entail. It seems sensible, therefore, to address this aspect as part of the research undertaken in the coming months. In looking at the 1545 project priorities for all of Government’s planning staff, there seemed to be little room for additional tasks without sacrificing the quality of the projects before them. I therefore beg to move the amendment standing in my name:

To leave out the word ‘June’ and insert the word ‘December’.

Thank you, Mr President.

1550 The President: Thank you. Hon. Member, Mr Hooper.

______1152 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr President. I beg to second the amendment. 1555 The President: Now, Hon. Members, a number of Hon. Members wish to contribute to this debate, I therefore intend that we take the lunchtime adjournment now and resume at 2.30 p.m.

The Court adjourned at 1 p.m. and resumed its sitting at 2.30 p.m.

Telecommunications – Debate concluded – Motion carried

The Clerk: The President is in the Chamber.

1560 The President: Fastyr mie, good afternoon, Hon. Members. We resume our debate on Item 28, Telecommunications, and I call on the Hon. Member, Mr Boot.

The Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture (Mr Boot): Good afternoon and thank 1565 you, Mr President. I would like to offer my support to the amendment brought by Minister Harmer and seconded by Hon. Member Mr Hooper. While in principle I believe that good governance is to review and reflect on policies and procedures and the impact of them, the Development Order brought forward by my hon. colleague Mr Thomas has only been in effect for a year and it would be more 1570 appropriate if we were to review the extent of use of the Order and its visual impact when we have more detail to review. To put this in context, I understand that only one development has taken place by making use of the Order. While there has been a separate application for prior approval under the provisions of the Order, this was refused, so a full application has now been submitted. 1575 Referring to Mrs Corlett’s comments with regard to Woodbourne Road, I did make enquiries over lunch with the Planning department to find out what the situation is there and apparently it was a temporary mast to assess the workability of the site and a prior submission was refused. The Department is now working with the provider for another site and that application for an alternative location has now been submitted. 1580 Some of the issues highlighted by Mr Thomas do not fall within the gambit of the Order and conflate a number of other things that have been going on around the Island. It is noted that development allowed in the Order is subject to conditions and limitations in terms of size, positioning in relation to residential windows and conservation areas amongst other matters. Such conditions and limitations could of course be amended, should it be considered appropriate 1585 as an outcome of the review. However, it is important that the visual impact of such infrastructure is not seen in isolation, as other matters, including the importance of telecoms infrastructure to many residents and businesses are important and have indeed been highlighted by access, or lack of it in some cases, during the pandemic. Thank you for that, Mr President. 1590 The President: Thank you. Hon. Member, Mr Moorhouse.

Mr Moorhouse: Thank you, Mr President. ______1153 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

1595 I am very supportive of this motion. What has happened at Ballacriy Park raises several questions about the locating of telecommunications infrastructure. Several constituents were horrified to find telegraph poles immediately outside their homes. In certain cases the poles were visually obstructive and looked menacing, and all were completely out of character in an area of bungalows on a sloping site. A solution has yet to be found and unfortunately, despite encouraging 1600 words about future behaviour, the current strategy enables minimum information to be provided before this type of infrastructure is sited. It is not simply enough to have the right to appeal. I am fully supportive of the need for telecommunications improvement, but this must be done in an appropriate way and local people must be part of the process. I am horrified by the date on the amendment being after the next 1605 general election. A highly complicated reassessment is not required. It is simply looking at the current situation and what has happened in 12 months. To take another 12 months to look at it is a real concern. I am sure a private company could do it in several days. We need to get this done and get certainty back. That is one of the key issues at the moment: the people have an issue, the telecommunication people have an issue, and it is solvable. If our 1610 current team needs until the end of the year to sort it, possibly we need to be readjusting that team. Thank you, Mr President.

The President: Hon. Member, Mr Callister. 1615 Mr Callister: Thank you, Mr President. I thank once again my friend and colleague from Douglas Central, Mr Thomas for tabling this motion this afternoon. I have personally had serious concerns around the Town and Country Planning communication Development Orders since around 2013. However, as a Member of this 1620 Court, I fully acknowledge that part of my role is to help and support the implementation of national strategies. This includes ensuring that our communities and our businesses receive the most modern and comprehensive telephone service and coverage, which helps make our lives easier and businesses more profitable through economic growth. I take those points on board, Mr President. 1625 However, I do feel that these telecommunications orders do give the telecommunication companies on our Island an unfair advantage, and possibly two bites of the cherry, something that the DEFA Minister has just mentioned himself. If I read the legislation and the guidelines correctly, if a telecommunication company fails under a Permitted Development Order, then the company can simply make an application to the Planning Committee. I do feel that this is wrong and I would 1630 welcome a review of this particular point. I also would continue to argue strongly that the installation of all new telecommunication structures should be subject to a planning application in the first instance, and if it is just simply replacing like-for-like, then I can understand why a Permitted Development Order would be a lot simpler in respect of the process. So therefore, I do very much welcome this review and it has my 1635 full support. Thank you, Mr President.

The President: Hon. Member, Mrs Barber.

1640 Mrs Barber: Thank you, Mr President. I am also pleased that Mr Thomas has brought this motion to this Hon. Court. To declare a starting point for me, I find permitted development to be a key tenet of our toolbox around the planning process, and we should seek to reduce bureaucracy where possible and where appropriate. We must be cautious with this debate not to get into those cases that do 1645 require planning permission but have not yet got it, except to comment that previous cases where planning permission should have been sought have shown that enforcement is not always a ______1154 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

priority and therefore, sadly, the roughshod nature with which telecoms companies have run over our planning system has led to a bizarre form of permitted development for masts that should have been subject to planning permissions. 1650 The mast at Woodbourne House is testament to the importance of a fully functioning planning system that reviews cases in a timely manner and acts accordingly. It is not appropriate that failure to use the planning system is seemingly rewarded. But it is also essential that a review is taken given the statement by Sure in their latest planning application that the mast at Woodbourne House is essential to ensure continued ability for Sure customers to access the 999 network. This 1655 is neither permitted development nor planning related, but we really do need to understand better a need such as this and where this fits within permitted development and planning policy for provision of telecoms. Perhaps we can all pictures ourselves sitting at the edge of a lake with ducks swimming by, perhaps the children picking blackberries with jam smeared around their faces, in the shade, not 1660 of a tree, but of a 15 m telephone mast. That is the situation some residents at Governor’s Hill have found themselves in. For me, the mast in Governor’s Hill shows the risk that is presented when there is no requirement on the telecoms companies to ensure that the mast is in keeping with the current surroundings and environment. This permission absolutely does fit within the schedules when it discusses those masts that can go within protected areas, but it is not there 1665 under permitted developments. There is actually a mismatch here and I think that for me is the key. If we could transcribe those same requirements into all of the telecoms masts requirements then for me that is absolutely where we should be working In Sure mobile’s latest planning application they talk of the importance of looking after the visual amenity of the area, and that is absolutely the position that 1670 we should all be coming from. The Town and Country Planning Act 1999 states that measures which may help to achieve a satisfactory balance will include presumptions against visually intrusive masts in sensitive landscapes, among other things. I think that again is where we need to be looking at. I recognise we cannot reject every mast in our constituencies, but we should ensure that they 1675 fit in where possible and for me, options such as mast painting so making sure they actually fit in in terms of the colour of the masts, looking at whether they can be disguised as trees and used with other foliage, as has already been shown within the Island, or options of siting the masts underground as opposed to overground, and all of these need to be part of that consideration to make sure that an extension of our telecoms network, which while absolutely vital, is done in the 1680 most appropriate way to the visual amenity and surroundings of an area. In terms of the reporting back timings, I am minded to support a shorter report back time. However, as a caveat, I would rather ask that the Minister acts as if he has just been told that permitted development is being used to put a 15 m hooded mask in the middle of his constituency, in the middle of a park. 1685 Thank you, Mr President.

The President: Thank you. I call on the mover to reply, Mr Thomas.

1690 Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr President. First of all, I would like to thank seconder Mrs Corlett, who made a very balanced contribution in general, national terms, but also bringing up some important Douglas Central constituency issues. I also appreciate the Council of Ministers paying attention to this motion, agreeing with it in 1695 principle and proposing an amendment to delay the date for reporting from June 2021 to December 2021, advocating a two-year review, rather than a one-year review, and secondly arguing that it was not as important as some other things that Planning are doing and that Government is doing more generally with Government strategy. Hon. Members should remember ______1155 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

that I tried to make the point that Planning is often a victim in all of this. Planning just puts into 1700 place development rules and guidance around complying with those rules, following on from directions from Tynwald Court about major policy changes, of which telecommunications is one. I just wanted to remind Hon. Members that we do not … Having announced a review, it needs to be completed quickly. So I actually prefer and I will be sticking to, in my vote, the original motion date of June 2021 because once a review is announced it creates uncertainty for Sure who are 1705 putting up these 5G-related masts, and it also creates uncertainty for Manx Telecom and everybody else who is involved in this important decision. Once a review is announced, it is better to conclude it sooner rather than later. The other problem with the date of December 2021, as Mr Moorhouse alluded to very clearly, is that it is after the General Election, so it will make sure that this issue is a General Election issue 1710 and, secondly, that General Election debate will not actually be informed by the review that I hope will have been completed before the General Election so we do not end up with ill-informed, even uninformed debate in the General Election about this. So for the reasons of providing certainty for the operators and others involved in all of this and also because of the General Election, I personally will be voting against it and urge Members to consider the points I have made. 1715 I thank Mr Callister for a very clear speech talking about national strategies and how difficult this is and also for beginning to describe the process of permitted development and the full application. Mr Boot actually worked with Mr Callister, it seems, indirectly through comments made, to support Mr Callister’s argument which was we need to really think again about what is permitted and what needs to have a full application because of something Mr Boot said, 1720 inadvertently probably. So what Mr Boot said was that the officers actually were working with Sure, the applicant for the mast in Woodbourne Lane, as a possibility to move it from the Masonic Hall/Woodbourne House a few hundred metres away. So therefore planners are in the unfortunate situation of trying to give advice of choosing the best location to get something done which is still under trial, we are told. We have not actually heard what the results are from the 5G 1725 trial in Douglas Central and in North Douglas as yet. But we now learn from Mr Boot that the planners are working with the operator to actually think about a better site than the Masonic Hall. Just to help Members make up their minds, I have actually got quite a few questions unanswered as yet which will be coming in the next week or so. The first one is that we did not actually get in yesterday’s Question Time to my Question about the Sure 5G trial, but I really hope 1730 that Enterprise is working with the Communications and Utilities Regulatory Authority, planners and everybody else, Public Health, to actually put together a very helpful, good answer to form a debate on that policy. Secondly, given the point I have made today passionately, and I hope with the arguments behind it as well, is that we need to think about sharing masts and to do that I put down a Written Question that I hope will be answered in full – two Written Questions, in fact. 1735 Firstly, I have asked in next week’s Keys to have a list of all of the masts in terms of their use, which operators share them, their character and so on. I have also asked for full information about what the expectations are about the fixed fibre roll-out in terms of four-digit postcodes, so that we can actually add some substance to this decision about planning. Of course competition is a good thing between telecoms operators. We have got an excellent regulator in this space. But we 1740 want to make sure about is absolute certainty that we are doing the right thing in terms of telecommunications policy, balancing that with people’s interests; with the value of properties; with visual amenity and other things. We could clearly tell from Minister Boot’s comments that Government intends to downgrade the scope of this review in the sense that they are just looking at the Order. As I think I have clearly 1745 laid out, the Order is a function of the telecommunications policy, key theme 5 of the National Telecoms Strategy and I cannot see how we can make decisions in terms of the Order without in fact reviewing the underlying key theme 5 of the National Telecommunications Strategy. So with that, Hon. Members, Mr President, I beg to move and personally I will be looking for an earlier report back date, rather than a later one. 1750 Thank you. ______1156 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

The President: Thank you. Hon. Members, the motion is at Item 28 and to it there is an amendment in the name of Mr Harmer. I put to the Court first the amendment. I take the Court to be in agreement, unless I see … 1755 There is dissent. We shall therefore move to a vote, voting on the amendment, for or against. Please vote.

Voting resulted as follows:

In the Keys – Ayes 12, Noes 12

FOR AGAINST Dr Allinson Mrs Barber Mr Ashford Mrs Caine Mr Baker Mr Callister Mr Boot Mrs Christian Mr Cannan Mrs Corlett Mr Cregeen Ms Edge Mr Harmer Mr Moorhouse Mr Hooper Mr Peake Mr Perkins Mr Quine Mr Quayle Mr Robertshaw Mr Skelly Mr Shimmins Mr Speaker Mr Thomas

The Speaker: Mr President, in the House of Keys, 12 votes for, 12 votes against.

In the Council – Ayes 4, Noes 5

FOR AGAINST Mr Greenhill Miss August-Hanson Mr Henderson Mrs Lord-Brennan The Lord Bishop Mrs Maska Mr Mercer Mrs Poole-Wilson Mrs Sharpe

The President: And in Council, 4 votes for, 5 votes against. The amendment fails to carry. I therefore put the motion as printed to the Court. I take the Court to be in agreement, unless 1760 I see dissent. There being no dissent, the motion carries. Thank you, Hon. Members.

29. Tynwald Commissioner for Administration – Motion not moved

The Hon. Member for Douglas Central (Mr Thomas) to move:

That a Committee of three Members of the Legislative Council be appointed to review the working of the Tynwald Commissioner for Administration Act, with special reference to (i) governance; (ii) scope of duties; (iii) adequacy of financing; (iv) operations; (v) system for reporting; (vi) co-operation from bodies which are investigated and (vii) follow up by listed authorities of investigations and reports of the Tynwald Commissioner for Administration; and, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 5.5(2), that the members of the Committee continue beyond the Dissolution of the House of Keys in 2021 and that the Committee report with recommendations by January 2022. ______1157 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

The following documents are relevant to this Item: Tynwald Commissioner for Administration Third Annual Report July 2020 [PP No 2020/0153] Tynwald Commissioner for Administration Second Annual Report July 2019 [PP No 2019/0104] Tynwald Commissioner for Administration First Annual Report July 2018 [PP No 2018/0119] Tynwald Commissioner for Administration Report on a Complaint made against the Department of the Environment, Food and Agriculture [TCA1801] Response to Tynwald Commissioner Case TCA1801 [GD No 2019/0036] Tynwald Commissioner for Administration Report on Case 1806 [TCA1806] Tynwald Commissioner for Administration Refusal to investigate a Complaint – Statement of Reasons [TCA 1810] Tynwald Commissioner for Administration Report on a Complaint Made Against the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture (DEFA) Case TCA 1818 [TCA 1818]

The President: Item 29 will not be moved.

30. Public registers of conflicts of interests – Motion not moved – Statement made

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Ms Edge) to move:

That Tynwald is of the opinion that every public body subject to Isle of Man Government Financial Regulations should publish in real time every conflict register which it holds as required by Financial Direction A2.4; and that equivalent registers should be published in real time by the Treasury, by the Clerk of Tynwald’s Office, and by any public body to which individual Financial Regulations apply.

The President: Item 30 will not be moved. However, I have allowed Ms Edge to make a short personal statement, Ms Edge. 1765 Ms Edge: Thank you, Mr President. In not moving this motion this month I had informed Hon. Members that I have been in discussion with the Audit Advisory Service. I just really wanted to add to that, Mr President, that I do feel that the debate deserves a face-to-face sitting when everybody can have the opportunity 1770 to discuss it, and I just wanted to add that into my reasoning for moving this, that I do feel it does not do it justice to do it in a virtual setting. Thank you Mr President.

The President: Thank you, Ms Edge.

31. Trading relationship with Europe – General Debate not moved

The Chief Minister to move a General Debate on a new trading relationship with Europe and beyond.

1775 The President: Item 31 will not be moved. That brings us to the end of the Order Paper. ______1158 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

Supplementary Order Paper No. 1

1. Standing Orders suspended to take the business on Supplementary Order Paper No. 1

The Chief Minister to move:

That Standing Orders be suspended to the extent necessary to allow the business on the Supplementary Order Paper No. 1 to be taken.

The President: We turn to Supplementary Order Paper No. 1. The first Item is the suspension of Standing Orders. I call on the Chief Minister to move.

1780 The Chief Minister (Mr Quayle): Thank you, Mr President. I beg to move that Standing Orders be suspended to the extent necessary to allow the business on the Supplementary Order Paper No. 1 to be taken.

The President: Hon. Member, Mr Ashford. 1785 The Minister for Health and Social Care (Mr Ashford): I beg to second, Mr President.

The President: I put the motion to the Court, if there is dissent please indicate. There being no dissent, the motion carries.

2. Papers laid before the Court

1790 The President: Item 2, I call on the Clerk to lay papers.

The Clerk: I lay before the Court the papers listed at Item 2 on the Supplementary Order Paper No. 1. Ta mee cur roish y Whaiyl ny pabyryn enmyssit ayns ayrn jees jeh’n Chlaare Obbyr Arbyllagh 1795 Earroo nane.

The President: Thank you.

Public Health Act 1990 Public Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 [SD No 2021/0012] [MEMO] Public Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021 [SD No 2021/0013] [MEMO]

Financial Provisions and Currency Act 2011 Coronavirus Business Support (Amendment) Scheme 2021 [SD No 2021/0022] [MEMO]

The remaining items are not the subject of a motion or debate on the Order Paper

______1159 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

Item subject to negative resolution

Town and Country Planning Act 1999 Planning Committee (Constitution) (Amendment) Order 2021 [SD No 2021/0024] [MEMO]

Items subject to no procedure

Public Health Protection (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020 Direction by Council of Ministers under Regulation 30 of the Public Health Protection (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020 relating to educational institutions [GC No 2021/0002] Direction by Council of Ministers under Regulation 30 of the Public Health Protection (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020 relating to child care service providers [GC No 2021/0003] Exception Notice by the Council of Ministers under regulation 26C of the Public Health Protection (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020 (exceptions from regulation 26B: general) relating to the circumstances in which a person may leave his or her home [GC No 2021/0004] Direction by the Council of Ministers under Regulation 30 of the Public Health Protection (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020 relating to closure of premises [GC No 2021/0005] Direction by Council of Ministers under Regulations 33C, 33D and 33E of Part 7A of the Public Health Protection (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020 relating to the circumstances in which persons may gather together outside of their household [GC No 2021/0006] Direction by the Council of Ministers under Regulation 30 of the Public Health Protection (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020 relating to closure of premises [GC No 2021/0007] Direction by Council of Ministers under Regulations 33C, 33D and 33E of Part 7A of the Public Health Protection (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020 providing exemptions where persons may gather or attend an event [GC No 2021/0008] Direction by Council of Ministers under Regulation 30 of the Public Health Protection (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020 relating to educational institutions [GC No 2021/0009] Exception Notice by the Council of Ministers under regulation 26C of the Public Health Protection (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020 (exceptions from regulation 26B: general) relating to the circumstances in which a person may leave his or her home [GC No 2021/0010] Direction by the Council of Ministers under Regulation 30 of the Public Health Protection (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020 relating to closure of premises [GC No 2021/0011]

Public Health Act 1990 Public Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021 – Correction Notice [SD No 2021/0013CN]

Report

National Housing Strategy Working Group – Terms of Reference [GD No 2021/0005]

3. Public Health Act 1990 – Public Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 approved as amended

The Chief Minister to move:

That the Public Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 [SD No 2021/0012] [MEMO] be approved. ______1160 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

The President: Item 3, motion in the name of the Chief Minister, Public Health Act 1990. Chief 1800 Minister, Mr Quayle, to move, please.

The Chief Minister (Mr Quayle): Thank you, Mr President. It is fair to say that I hoped to not have to bring regulations to Tynwald that reintroduce on-Island restrictions to protect our community from coronavirus. However, I am also absolutely 1805 clear that the Council of Ministers will always act decisively to protect the public, taking on board the advice from our professionals. By way of broader context, each of the nations of the United Kingdom is now under lockdown. The United Kingdom is seeing record-breaking numbers of daily COVID cases, and according to NHS figures, as of 8 a.m. last Tuesday, a record 32,202 people were in hospital with coronavirus, 1810 an increase of 22% when compared with a week earlier, and an 82% increase since Christmas Day. On 10th January, the UK’s Chief Medical Officer, Professor Chris Whitty, stated:

We have faced several grave moments during our battle against coronavirus. But right now, the country is perhaps facing the most serious yet.

He went on to say:

On Monday the 4 [January] UK Chief Medical Officers and the NHS Medical Director recommended raising the national alert level to the maximum of level 5 for the first time. This means that without further action there is a material risk of our healthcare services being overwhelmed within 21 days. Since then the situation has deteriorated further.

1815 The situation here on the Island is evolving quickly. Recently I announced the news that some cases had slipped through our measures, and I advised what we were doing about it. Subsequently, we had confirmation of further cases, some of which could not be traced to a particular source of origin. The Council of Ministers held an emergency meeting on the morning of 4th January 2021 and agreed a number of measures to respond to the threat now being seen 1820 in our Island. The situation we are responding to with these measures is evidence of further spread of infection to others from an index case associated with travel. We had confirmed cases of COVID-19 beyond the household of the traveller and these cases were associated with a number of different locations, involving potential contacts with a large number of people. This gave us a 1825 significant risk of reseeding widespread community transmission. At the point of introducing these measures there was a credible risk that further spread into our community would be seen in coming days. The response was decisive, aimed at meeting our primary objective to preserve life. In addition, alongside the imperative to preserve life, we have to protect our vaccination programme. We have to ensure that the plan we have in place to 1830 protect our people, starting with our care workers and our most vulnerable, is in no way put at risk. There are other important pieces of context that informed Council’s decision to bring in on-Island measures. The current vacant bed capacity at the Hospital is low. This is, of course, not unusual for this time of year, but it is important we understand the situation. Also, as in the spring, 1835 we are unable to depend on NHS England for any resilience; they are facing their own challenges. The Council of Ministers has determined to maintain our overall objective of local elimination, and this has shaped our decision making. Given what we understand about the new variant and the context we find ourselves in we therefore had to be bold in our actions. The Council of Ministers agreed to adopt a circuit break approach. I know that this has had mixed success across 1840 in the UK, but our starting point is different. This means we will have to go in hard and fast. This is the approach that worked well for us last spring. The Council of Ministers agreed that the following measures would be enacted and be in place from one minute past midnight on 7th January 2021.

______1161 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

In summary, the measures introduced by the Regulations and associated direction notices are 1845 as follows: the overarching and most important point is for everyone to stay at home as much as possible. This is set out in the Regulations, with detail provided in the direction notices. They introduce social distancing of two metres everywhere outside the home. Gatherings with anyone who is not a member of your household is not permitted. Exercise once a day is allowed and there is currently not a limit on how long that exercise may take, but it can be only with people from 1850 your household. Advice to support this is for individuals to do their best to avoid any crowded area and it is strongly advised that face coverings are worn. Wedding and collective worship will not be able to take place. Funerals may continue indoors and outdoors, only with a maximum of 10 people and with social distancing and the use of face coverings in place. The construction sector will have to stop work, except for emergency work and 1855 essential repairs. The manufacturing sector can continue to work if, and only if, it can do so with social distancing and other measures in place. Schools are required to close, but provision is made for the hub system to cater for the children of essential workers and any vulnerable children. All hospitality venues are required to close, which includes all licensed premises, all cafés, restaurants, bars, pubs and clubs, the only exception to this is for take away or delivery of food 1860 and alcohol only. All non-essential shops must close. Only food shops and pharmacies are considered essential. All lifestyle businesses must close. All indoor leisure facilities must close, this includes gyms and swimming pools. Those who return to the Island after these Regulations came into effect are required to undergo a new testing regime. This will be three tests: one on day one, another on day six or 1865 seven, and a third test on day 13. Those returning will have to pay £150 for the three tests; if people choose not to do this they will have to self-isolate for 21 days. For those that left the Island before these Regulations took effect, the £50 charge will cover all of the tests. Returnees will no longer be able to self-isolate with any other, other than those they have travelled with, and there will be no financial support for any returnees. 1870 We are unlikely to know the full extent of any community spread for maybe two weeks. We are putting these measures in place for an initial period of 21 days and within that period we will, of course, regularly review. We have turned back on some financial packages, Salary Support and MERA, our Manx Earnings Replacement Allowance, have returned for this initial three-week period. In bringing 1875 forward these measures, Members agreed that we needed to take decisive and bold action without delay to protect what we have achieved already and importantly to protect our vaccination programme. The Regulations are made to provide an effective means of responding to the threat we are seeing to the health of our community. An important change that has been made is to reduce the 1880 life of the Regulations from the original six months down to one month, from today’s Tynwald sitting. This is in recognition that the stricter measures being introduced are intended to successfully respond to the situation we are facing and allow for a return to local elimination in as short a period as possible. Clearly, further amending regulations may be required as the situation develops. We do not 1885 know what the future holds, but I am confident that our community will rise to the challenge and, once again, we will get on top of this disease. I would like to end by putting on record my thanks to all of those involved in the response, particularly over recent days and weeks. I am very proud of what our public service is doing right now and firmly believe that, with the help of our great Manx public, we will return to local 1890 elimination of the virus. Mr President, I beg to move.

The President: Hon. Member, Mr Ashford.

1895 The Minister for Health and Social Care (Mr Ashford): Thank you, Mr President. ______1162 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

The President: Mr Speaker.

1900 The Speaker: Thank you, Mr President. Like the Chief Minister, I look forward to the day in the not-too-distant future when these will not be necessary. However, in the meantime, I have what I hope will be an uncontentious amendment on page 10, in regulation 14, in terms of the spelling in the cross heading of ‘gatherings’ – all the right letters but not necessarily in the right order. 1905 I beg to move:

Amendment to regulation 14: On page 10, in regulation 14 (Part 7A (Events and gatherings inserted)), in the inserted cross heading replace ‘gatheirngs’ with ‘gatherings’.

The President: Hon. Member, Mrs Caine.

Mrs Caine: I beg to second the amendment, thank you, Mr President.

1910 The President: Thank you. Chief Minister, do you wish to reply? You have the right if you wish.

The Chief Minister: Thank you, Mr President. I thank Hon. Members, and I thank Mr Speaker for spotting the spelling amendment. I can only 1915 apologise for that happening. I am happy to accept the amendment. Thank you very much.

The President: Thank you, sir. I see in calling on you to sum up, as it were, since then Mr Thomas wishes to speak. 1920 Mr Thomas.

Mr Thomas: Thank you very much, Mr President. I am not sure whether I am interjecting into the Chief Minister’s summing up remarks, but I thank him for that if he has given me leave to interject in his closing remarks. 1925 I wanted to welcome the clarity that officers have brought to publication through these Regulations, which is something that was called for in Tynwald Court on 30th December, and so that has been clarified. I also wanted to welcome the reduction in the expiry date because that is surely good, and that demonstrates that Tynwald is being fully engaged by Government. Although I just want to 1930 comment on the fact that in the Chief Minister’s remarks moving this today he talked about taking advice from professionals, which is clearly what is required by law. But it might have been an opportune moment to mention the valuable Tynwald debate that has taken place about the issues that are covered, that show the spirit of co-operation and collaboration in an open and transparent manner. I think that is probably just an oversight, but to me that would have been an 1935 appropriate time to comment on some of the remarks that were made this morning. Finally, I do notice that the call for clarity on critical national infrastructure, which I made on … in terms of the application to UK critical national infrastructure, economic infrastructure perhaps has not as yet been addressed, so I would appreciate next time we amend these Regulations if that can be done, or perhaps I missed it and it has been done already. 1940 Also, as Ms Edge mentioned this morning, we are now into the realms of thinking more about what ‘registered resident’ means and what sort of building or other concept of somewhere where

______1163 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

you could have residence is about, and I think we need to think through the connections around registered resident in the light of 20 years of history in the Isle of Man about this very issue. Thank you very much, Mr President, Hon. Members. 1945 The President: Thank you. If no other Member wishes to speak I call on the Chief Minister to reply.

The Chief Minister: Thank you, Mr President. 1950 I thank Mr Thomas for his welcome on the clarity on publication and the fact that we have reduced the expiry date down from six months to one month. Of course, obviously we are taking advice from our Gold Committee, which includes a wide range of medical professionals, also the Chief Constable, who is well informed of what is happening in the community and the policing etc., but also I do take on board comments made 1955 by Tynwald Members today, going forward. Regarding the critical infrastructure, if that has not been moved on, then I will comment on that the next time we are moving amendments. So with that I beg to move, thank you, Mr President.

1960 The President: Thank you. I put the motion at Item 3 on the Supplementary Order Paper. First, I put the amendment to the Court. If there is no dissent, it will be carried. The amendment is carried. I put Item 3 then as amended to the Court. There being no dissent, the motion carries.

Procedural – Treasury concurrence for financial motions

The President: We turn now to Item 4. Before we start the debate, I have a procedural point I 1965 wish to put to the Court. Hon. Members, you have received by email Mr Hooper’s proposed amendment to this Item number 4. Treasury concurrence had not been sought by Mr Hooper to move his amendment to this motion, which seeks to reduce the Treasury’s income. However, the pandemic is a matter of national interest and as such the Treasury Minister can confirm that concurrence is being given 1970 for this debate to take place. I do ask Hon. Members to bear in mind that they must seek Treasury concurrence in writing to a financial motion and that Treasury retains the right to prevent such motions being moved. Just for the helpful guidance of Members, I am referring to section 10 of the Treasury Act 1985 which is headed, ‘Restriction on moving of certain resolutions etc, relating to finance’, and it reads:

No member of Tynwald may move any resolution in Tynwald, other than a declaratory resolution, or have leave to introduce into either the Council or the Keys a Bill, seeking — (a) to authorise expenditure of public monies; or (b) to increase any expenditure sought to be authorised by a resolution or Bill; or (c) to reduce the income of the Government, without the prior concurrence of the Treasury.

1975 I am grateful to the Treasury Minister for allowing debate on this particular matter of public interest to continue.

______1164 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

4. Public Health Act 1990 – Public Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021 approved

The Chief Minister to move:

That the Public Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021 [SD No 2021/0013] [MEMO] be approved.

[SD No 2021/0013CN] is relevant to this Item.

The President: With that, I call on the Chief Minister to move.

The Chief Minister (Mr Quayle): Thank you, Mr President. 1980 These Regulations were made to provide further clarification in a number of the provisions of the principal Regulations following their amendment by the Public Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2021. The major amendments are as follows. Regulation 12 is substituted to provide that a Category A person’s notified place of isolation may only be a place where the Category A person is 1985 occupying the place alone or with another Category A person with whom they travelled to the Island, except in the circumstances where the Category A person is a vulnerable adult or a vulnerable child, and it is necessary for the Category A person to share accommodation with a person who is not a Category A person for the purpose of that other person to care for the Category A person or it is necessary for the Category A person to share accommodation with a 1990 person who is not a Category A person but who is a vulnerable adult or a vulnerable child. Regulation 13A is amended in relation to the option to provide biological samples for analysis and clarify the fees payable and the circumstances when they are payable. Regulation 26C is amended to clarify the circumstances when a person may leave his or her home, including that a person may only undertake one period of exercise per day which may be 1995 of unlimited duration. Regulation 17 is amended to clarify the process when a Category B person voluntarily provides biological samples. The new definitions of vulnerable adult and vulnerable child are inserted into regulation 5. The definition of emergency or necessarily voluntary service in regulation 26A is expanded and the definition of household is removed from regulation 33A to the main definitions 2000 regulation to clarify that it is applicable throughout the principal Regulations. Mr President, I beg to move.

The President: Hon. Member, Mr Ashford.

2005 The Minister for Health and Social Care (Mr Ashford): Thank you, Mr President. I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

The President: Hon. Member for Ramsey, Mr Hooper.

2010 Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr President. As I have done previously, I am rising to move an amendment to these Regulations to try and remove the charge for testing of Island residents. I do apologise for not seeking Treasury concurrence in advance. That honestly had not even occurred to me; it had not come up in advance of either this amendment or the previous one. So thank you, Mr President, for clarifying 2015 this and thanks to the Treasury Minister for allowing this on the Order Paper. Currently the Regulations as drafted allow for an exemption from these charges for a very specific set of people: an ‘eligible patient’ or an ‘eligible escort’. These are defined very specifically ______1165 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

as a person who travels for medical treatment, or a person who travels with them. The measures also exclude explicitly Category B people, which is basically anyone who is isolating at home as a 2020 result of being contact traced or if they are isolating with a Category A person. So it is pretty much everybody covered apart from Manx residents who leave and come back, and anyone who is not a Manx resident. So really what we are saying is the only people who have to pay for this who are Manx residents are the ones who travel to the UK. Currently, the Government is advising essential travel only. 2025 Currently, anyone who travels has to isolate away from their family for 14 days if they are having a test, or 21 days if they are not. This means people are travelling for essential reasons; for compassionate reasons or where they physically have to for work. I cannot imagine anybody voluntarily going through enforced separation from their family for two weeks for any other purpose. I am not aware of anyone raising this issue with me who is doing so. 2030 So really the question I am trying to answer here is: is it appropriate to be charging Island residents when they have to travel to the UK for, say, compassionate reasons? No, it is not, is my view on that. Even if you were to accept the charge is acceptable in the broader context for residents, which actually I also do not believe, given that this is an NHS test which we do not charge for, and secondly it is clearly in the public interest to have as many people tested as 2035 necessary, putting additional cost barriers in the way of this is counterproductive. What makes this even harder to bear is that the cost has now gone up from £50 for two tests to £150 for the three tests, and this increase has disproportionate effect on people on the lowest incomes. So what Government is essentially saying with this policy is you can freely travel to and from the Isle of Man as long as you can afford to pay for the test. Because everyone has to isolate. 2040 All those conditions are applying to everyone. The only additional barrier is this test. There is no flexibility here in the cost. There is no means test. Those with means can travel freely, provided they accept the isolation criteria. Those without means cannot travel freely, even if they are willing to accept the isolation. Now, I know what will be said in response to this. It will be, ‘Well, people can just isolate for 2045 21 days if they want to avoid the cost of a test.’ Unfortunately, if this argument is propagated, it fails to appreciate the situation that many people on the lowest incomes find themselves in. We have seen this very clearly with the calls for financial support following Christmas – there are a lot of families who are on the lowest rungs of income that just do not have significant cash reserves that would allow them to not work for weeks on end. 2050 This really is putting these people in an impossible situation. We are seeing this reported in the UK press as well, where there are concerns that people are actually avoiding being tested in the UK because they cannot afford the risk of their isolation period being extended and being unable to work for those two weeks. Our circumstances are different, but the underlying concern is not. Often people who are on the lowest incomes cannot afford to take three weeks off work to isolate 2055 as an alternative to the testing regime – two weeks in itself is often very difficult just to start with. So people on the lowest incomes are being shafted twice here, because they really do not have the option to isolate for 21 days and cannot afford £150 per person for the test that would allow them to shorten this. There is nothing we can do about two weeks’ isolation, but if we are genuinely looking to give people the option of choosing between two weeks with a test and three 2060 weeks with no test, then this option surely has to be available to everybody and cannot disproportionately affect different groups of society and would have to be available to them all in the same way. In an ideal world, if Government is determined to retain charging for an NHS test, this would be means tested to balance out some of these inequalities. Unfortunately, working up a more 2065 nuanced regime is something that can only come from Government, which is why this amendment seeks to just remove the charge for Manx residents, because it is in the public interest to do this. It is in the public interest to have as many people be tested as possible. It is also ethically the right thing to do. Manx residents already pay into an NHS and as a result of that they should be entitled to get NHS tests without a further charge, without a further cost barrier. ______1166 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

2070 Hon. Members, I am not seeking to make substantial changes to our border regime. I am not seeking to open the floodgates. I am seeking, quite simply, to apply a level of parity in this testing. If Government is insistent that actually there must be an element of cost recovery through this NHS process, it needs to be means tested, it needs to be proportionate, and unfortunately a blanket charge applied in the same way to everybody is not. 2075 So thank you very much for listening, Hon. Members. I hope you can support this amendment. Mr President, I beg to move the amendment in my name:

Amendments to regulation 6 On page 5, in regulation 6(4) (regulation 13A (biological samples) amended), for substituted regulation 13A(3), substitute — ««(3) The requirement to pay the sum of £150 referred to in paragraph (2), does not apply to a resident of the Island (within the meaning of paragraph 6 of the Schedule).».».

The President: Hon. Member, Mr Thomas.

Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr President. 2080 I am delighted to second this important, well-developed amendment that has been presented with all of the crucial ingredients behind it justifying it, which I am just going to sum up in three ways. It has also been a privilege to work with Mr Hooper and a considerable number of other Members on coming up with this concept of making sure we are locating it properly inside evolving Tynwald policy and Government policy. 2085 The first point is the whole idea of NHS principles, and this is an NHS test to protect the health service and to protect our society. It is not like self-chosen travel to an exotic but dangerous destination in a vaccination sense. This is actually something to help us in our Island to protect our health services and protect our community, and in that sense it meets the NHS principles. Mr Hooper persuasively argued that fine, we can perhaps nuance this, considering means 2090 testing and all of the other things. We now have Tynwald-agreed means-testing principles, which have not as yet been applied to this new charge. I hope that they can be applied. We have to remember, Hon. Members, that when we approved the means-testing principles in October 2019, we did say that there would be a yearly review by the Social Committee of the Council of Ministers, so I am hoping that when it gets a moment that Committee is actually going to do a review of how 2095 the means-testing principles have been applied and this would be example. Finally, the third crucial point is the issue that Ms Edge has been hinting at. We are developing this concept of ‘registered resident’. It is a perfect way that Mr Hooper has outlined to actually begin to put that into practice for real people in real law in the Isle of Man because there has to be something associated with residency on the Isle of Man and there has to be some commitment 2100 and also some benefit that is laid down. We are not changing all law, but this is a helpful development of the concept of registered residency. Thank you very much. Very pleased to second and hope that this Court will accept this amendment.

2105 The President: Hon. Member, Mr Cannan.

The Minister for the Treasury (Mr Cannan): Thank you very much, Mr President. Unsurprisingly, I am going to take a slightly different tack from the two Hon. Members that have just spoken, and I think that Mr Hooper, the hon. mover of the amendment paints a very 2110 simplistic picture, and nigh on tries to portray I think from his words that the majority of the travellers you would think are unable to meet the cost of this test. I need to point out to Hon. Members that we are not alone in charging for testing for travel. Indeed, many will have seen the UK Secretary of State for Transport Grant Shapps clearly explain to the country that if they were going to travel they were going to have to pay for coronavirus ______1167 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

2115 testing and if they arrive back in the country without arriving from other destinations, which I accept is now limited in many circumstances, again they were going to have to pay for testing if they did not carry the proper certification. So I am speaking to urge the Court to reject this particular amendment as being inappropriate at this particular time. I just want to highlight what sort of costs we are talking about, first of all. 2120 During November and December it is fair to say that the numbers of people moving through our ports was averaging at about 700 people a week. Now, the cost of the test, as confirmed by the Department of Health and Social Care, is approximately £50 per test, and if we return to that status after this circuit-breaker lockdown with a new cost-free testing regime, then Tynwald will be supporting returning travellers and new arrivals with taxpayers’ funds to the tune of £420,000 2125 a month or, taken over a six-month period, were it to carry on in that similar status, costs of around £2.5 million. Now, Mr President, it is my view that travel under the current restrictions and in the current circumstances, not just here on the Isle of Man, but in the UK and further afield as well, is predominantly a discretionary choice for the individual and choosing to do so in the current 2130 circumstances, I would suggest that it is fair on the taxpayer that those individuals pay for the privilege. We are not dealing with a set of circumstances where the population as a whole is willing just to accept and indeed can choose to leave our borders. Most families/individuals cannot do so for a number of reasons, and I would suggest that those who do so predominantly do so on a discretionary choice basis. You have to question, therefore, is it fair for the taxpayer to support 2135 their return and pay for their test? Now, there will be a case I am sure in the future for a review. As Hon. Members clearly recognised this morning, we cannot stay in this bubble forever and our strategic approach is likely to change in line with the vaccine roll-out and of course in line with the changing situation with our nearest neighbours, particularly in the United Kingdom, but also potentially further afield. 2140 Alongside that our border arrangements are likely to alter, I would suggest, to enable greater freedom of movement. Of course, alongside that, it is then going to have to be determined how testing remains relevant, the appropriate level of testing and, of course, the appropriate level of charging. So I am not suggesting for one moment that it will be in perpetuity that the level of charging we are applying should stay. But I would suggest that in the current circumstances it is 2145 an appropriate charge and I think I would emphasise the discretionary nature of travel in the current circumstances. I accept, of course, this, along with other rules and regulations, whilst appropriate for the majority do impact in some cases in one or two areas for which it is not appropriate. But one also has to accept we are in the middle of a national crisis and fiddling around with technical questions 2150 around means testing and the appropriateness in costs and an individual’s ability to pay is not necessarily appropriate. Indeed, I would suggest in fact the people who are travelling, if they have been able to afford to travel, they are probably able to afford to pay this particular charge. But my key point is this is discretionary at the moment, the current circumstances, the current restrictions, not only here but in the UK and further afield, and the need and protection that we 2155 need to deliver for our Island and the risks that an individual is bringing in terms of arriving at the Island at the moment mean that this is an appropriate charge. I would urge Hon. Members to accept that at some point this, along with many others items, is likely to change. But it is not appropriate to put the burden completely on the taxpayer at this particular point. 2160 Thank you, Mr President.

The President: Hon. Member, Mr Ashford.

Mr Ashford: Thank you, Mr President. 2165 I am not going to repeat all the points that have been very eloquently just made there by the Hon. Minister for the Treasury. We had this debate at the last sitting of Tynwald, Mr President, ______1168 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

and nothing has changed since then. Certainly my views have not changed. I still do not believe that it is appropriate at this current time for the taxpayer to be picking up the bill for testing for people who have travelled. 2170 One thing I want – I echo all the Treasury Minister’s comments, but – to add on top of that, Mr President, is listening to the Hon. Member for Ramsey about low-income families and him mentioning that there is an alternative, they could isolate for 21 days, but of course it is difficult for low-income families to do that. What I would say, Mr President, is of low-income families that have been in touch with me, it is actually impractical for them to self-isolate for 14 days, so they 2175 have not been travelling in the first place. So I would be very surprised, Mr President, if a large proportion of the travellers that we are seeing are actually from low-income families because they are the people who are least likely to also be able to isolate for the isolation period even with test. I think –

2180 The President: Hon. Member, Mr Ashford, sorry to interrupt. Will you take an interjection from Mr Hooper?

Mr Ashford: I certainly will, Mr President.

2185 Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr President, and thank you very much, Minister, for giving way. I think the point I am making has been lost in comments that yourself and the Treasury Minister have been talking about. I am not talking about people who are travelling, I am talking about people who find themselves absolutely unable to travel. So I have cases where people are having 2190 to make the impossible decision of not being able to go to the UK to attend a funeral, to attend the bedside of a critically ill family member, because they cannot afford to travel and pay for the isolation and pay for the test. So the very fact that the people that are travelling are not raising this as an issue is not too much of a surprise because the people I am talking about are the ones who simply are not able to travel because they cannot afford all of the associated costs. 2195 So presenting this as a discretionary choice, as the Treasury Minister has done and as you seem to be agreeing with, is absolutely completely inappropriate because that is absolutely not the issue that I am trying to address here. There are people who are not really in the position of being able to make a choice and they are being forced into an absolutely impossible situation that I am trying to alleviate. It is somewhat concerning, actually, that this perspective is being completely missed 2200 in this debate.

Mr Ashford: Thank you, Mr President, if I may. The Hon. Member for Ramsey, though, I think has missed the point I was making, that a lot of these people in the low-income bracket cannot afford the 14-day self-isolation either. So the 2205 people who have spoken to me are not travelling at all, not because of the cost of the test, but because they cannot when they come back afford to isolate for 14 days, and that will not change regardless of what the outcome of this is. As the Treasury Minister has correctly said, Mr President, situations change and it is something that, as our policies evolve, I think would need to be looked at, particularly if, once we start 2210 opening up the borders eventually, because we cannot stay in the bubble forever, it becomes a condition of travel. But I still do not believe that at this current time it is appropriate for the taxpayer to be picking up the cost of the test when the advice at the current moment and under the current strategy is for people to limit travel wherever possible. It is not just those who would be going on compassionate that would be covered by this. With this amendment, it covers 2215 everyone who travels for whatever reason, Mr President. Thank you very much.

The President: Mr Speaker. ______1169 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

The Speaker: Thank you, Mr President. 2220 I have been listening to this debate thus far with a great degree of interest, and it almost feels like an amendment would be better if it was for compassionate cases leaving the Island. I take the Treasury Minister’s point that £420,000 a month, depending on what assumptions you are basing that on, does seem like an awful lot of money. But at the moment it does seem to represent the cost of doing business, and certainly if you compare that to the cost of the three-week circuit- 2225 breaker lockdown, not just in revenue but in terms of the total cost to the economy, it does seem to put it into context, that cost of doing business. I also appreciate the point about discouraging travel at the moment, but I would suggest that the appropriate vehicle for discouraging travel is through the law and through the guidance, not pricing out people who may need to travel out of … Not everyone is on income support, and there 2230 is that squeezed element at the lower incomes, and when we are talking about £150 per person, whilst that can be a week’s rent for a single person, we then have to think that if that is a couple, if that is a family, then that ramps up very quickly. So given that we already have restrictions about the 14 days away from family, about having to isolate, then there are real issues around this and there is no real win in this at all. 2235 I would also point out that the Government does seem to be sending mixed messages on this point. It started off early in the original lockdown by charging people £850 to spend two weeks at the Comis. It then completely flipped back in November and offered people £500 towards their accommodation in order to get home, and now it is charging £150 per person in extra charges for the testing regime. So I think the public might be forgiven for being a little confused as to where 2240 the Government’s standpoint is. Is it money? Is it health? Is it about trying to discourage people going through the Island? So, if this is about discouragement, that should be done through the law. At the moment, on balance, I will be supporting the amendment, but having heard this, it might have been a better amendment had it reflected compassionate cases only. But on balance, I would 2245 suggest that the amendment of Mr Hooper is probably more preferable than not.

The President: Hon. Member, Ms Edge.

Ms Edge: Thank you, Mr President. 2250 I think that Mr Hooper actually contradicted his amendment, because he said, when he interjected, that people cannot afford to travel and this cost is then, in my understanding, it was making it more prohibitive. So I am not really sure why the amendment has come forward in the first place, if that was the reasoning for the interjection. But I just really want to speak, obviously, to thank the Member for Douglas Central with regard 2255 to reiterating my concerns with regard to residency. I do feel that people coming on exemption certificates and how they are proving they can come into the Island are not necessarily all residents. So therefore the cost of testing people that are not residents could be … well, I am not saying significant, however, we know there is possibly 700 a week. But also I do really have concerns, if Members support a Member bringing a motion forward, 2260 although, Mr President, at the start you did say with regard to not having Treasury concurrence, I think Members need to consider that if a Member brings an amendment forward that has not had Treasury concurrence, although we have had an explanation, that we are breaking our own rules. I do have concerns that the Hon. Member for Ramsey, who is usually so strict himself of getting things right, did not consider that before bringing the amendment forward. 2265 So that is all I really want to say, Mr President, but I do still have concerns around the definition of a resident and also that extensions and people coming to the Island who will need to be tested, as the Treasury Minister and as the Health Minister have said, are not necessarily residents who would be coming in and using the health service because they are obviously not resident over the three-month period to register with a GP. 2270 Thank you, Mr President. ______1170 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

The President: Hon. Member, Mr Robertshaw.

Mr Robertshaw: Thank you, Mr President. This is a very interesting debate indeed, because on the one hand Mr Hooper makes some 2275 extremely valid and clear points, and I found myself when I was listening to him agreeing with him. Equally and conversely, listening carefully to the Treasury Minister, without doubt he is absolutely right to make the points that he has made. It is therefore a situation where you actually want to vote both ways at the same time. But I think what we are trying to do here, really, in Mr Hooper’s amendment, is we are trying 2280 to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. The fact of the matter is that we all agree we need the circuit breaker, we all agree that for the moment we need to keep our borders closed, but they are both ugly and clumsy mechanisms to get us through in the short term and I do not think … however many times we brought motions and amendments to the floor of Tynwald, we cannot rectify the fact that the mechanism we are using to try to eradicate the virus is an extremely 2285 clumsy mechanism which we are accepting. So I intend to go with the Treasury Minister on this, on the understanding that we do review it as quickly and as early as we possibly can when we get towards the Manx normal again. So sympathy for both sides, but we are in a difficult situation and I think in these circumstances we stick with the Treasury Minister’s position. 2290 Thank you, Mr President.

The President: Thank you. Hon. Member, Mrs Barber.

2295 Mrs Barber: Thank you, Mr President. I just wanted to make a few points. I think that Mr Robertshaw makes a very valid assessment that there are arguments on both sides, and I think in the longer term these are exactly the sort of points that we need to look at and we need to finesse in that well-rounded way. However, my concern, as has already been stated very clearly by Mr Speaker, is that there is a group of people 2300 who this adversely affects considerably more than others. I found it very interesting to read the recent interview/article by one of the local media outlets where they interviewed a gentleman who was travelling to the UK for a funeral, so he was able to go over, he talked about how this is not something that people take as a decision lightly and the numbers of people were small. However, I look at that and I think this is a gentleman who talks 2305 about being in an established job, and I wonder whether there are people on our Island who could not go over to spend time with their loved one, whether they could not go over and spend time at the end of someone’s life, whether they could not go over for a funeral, because simply their finances could not extend to that length. I spoke with someone just a few days ago who was looking to take out personal loans in this 2310 regard, looking at how they would be able to afford the testing to come home to go and spend the last few hours with their dying father. And I think that we have to look upon this situation with the compassion it needs. I am not suggesting, as I have said previously, that we have free testing throughout, I think that would be inappropriate. I think this needs to be a nuanced system. We have not managed to put 2315 that nuancing in place. With the restricted borders that we find ourselves in at the moment, which are heavily restricted, I think the right thing to do would be for those few people who have decided that they do still need to travel – we do not have a compassionate system in place that allows us to pick and decide over who that should or should not be – but I believe that the right thing to do in the short and interim term would be to say that the testing is free of charge, to allow us the 2320 time to sit back, to take the appropriate steps to review this more fully and to look at how we might implement a properly nuanced charging system for testing once we start to unlock the borders a little bit more. ______1171 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

Thank you, Mr President.

2325 The President: Hon. Member, Miss August-Hanson.

Miss August-Hanson: Thank you, Mr President. Actually, the Member for Douglas East, Mrs Barber, has stolen the words right out of my mouth. A nuanced charging system for testing, I think that is absolutely what is needed. 2330 I was ready to second Mr Hooper, my hon. friend and colleague, MHK for Ramsey, not because I think that there should be no cost application but because I do not think that we have this quite right. If we are not applying a sensible structure to it, applying cost to testing, I do not feel that really we should be applying cost at all while promoting an elimination strategy. Frankly, I find it a little difficult to comprehend that we are employing an elimination strategy and then 2335 contradicting its nature in test, test, test, that backbone of elimination, by also employing policies like cost application across the board, without further refinement, especially after the conversations that we have had or the debate that we have had earlier on today regarding compassionate reasons or work, this changes things. So I would like to see some level of refinement down the line if this is not supported. I would 2340 like to see the Council of Ministers come forward with something that is a little bit more comprehensive, that takes account of people’s circumstances here, particularly when they are travelling for compassionate reasons. I think it is important that, perhaps the AG down the line, does have a look at that compassionate system. I am sure the Member for Ramsey, if that system had already been in place, he would have been drafting the amendment very much against that 2345 and I will be supporting the amendment. Thank you, Mr President.

The President: Dr Allinson.

2350 Dr Allinson: Thank you, Mr President. I think we are having a very interesting debate, but if we can come back to the words of the Chief Minister at the start of this, nobody wants to bring in these sorts of restrictions and they had to be brought in really quite quickly. I would agree with the Hon. Member Mr Robertshaw that closing borders to this level and 2355 restricting movement back for residents is a very blunt instrument. However, it is an instrument that is necessary, I think, at the moment and is needed. All these restrictions are time limited, and charging for testing seems a pragmatic response to a very changing situation. The Hon. Member, Mrs Barber, talked about compassion and really what we are dealing with here is looking at exceptions to the rule. And there is compassion, there is help and support 2360 available for those people who were finding it incredibly hard and are struggling with the cost, whether it is what they find to be essential travel for funeral in terms of the Manx Solidarity Fund, and the third sector on this Island have really risen to the challenge of supporting people, the very people that Mr Hooper is talking about. But I do not think we should concentrate on these exceptions to what is a very good policy for this moment that we are in at the moment, but a 2365 policy that will be reviewed very seriously by Government, as hopefully we move out of this circuit break lockdown. Thank you very much, Mr President.

The President: I call on the Chief Minister to reply. 2370 The Chief Minister: Thank you very much, Mr President, and if I can thank all Hon. Members for taking part in what is a very emotive topic and something that the Council of Ministers has not found easy to do, but we feel it is the right decision.

______1172 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

I respect Mr Hooper making the amendment, he has been consistent on this. I would like to 2375 respectfully point out that the charge to the taxpayer actually is £300, it is £100 roughly for each test, so the taxpayer is already subsidising the cost of these tests by 50%. Obviously, yes, the NHS, we pay for anyone who is doing travel for trips to the hospitals, there and back. Mr Thomas supported Mr Hooper’s views, and I thoroughly respect that. The Treasury Minister pointed out that the charges are similar elsewhere. If you are in the UK 2380 and you go off to see a poorly member of your family in France or Spain, etc. you will have to pay for a test before you can come back, so it is not something that we are alone in charging. It is a substantial cost to the taxpayer, and we are just trying to reclaim a percentage of the cost because people are travelling, they are costing the rest of the population £300 whenever they go. I know Minister Ashford, Member for Douglas North added to the Treasury Minister’s comments along a 2385 similar vein. Moving on to Mr Speaker, he mentioned that maybe –

The Speaker: Mr President, would the Chief Minister give way?

2390 The President: Chief Minister, I am sorry to interrupt, would you take an intervention from Mr Speaker?

The Chief Minister: Yes, certainly, I am just coming on to him.

2395 The Speaker: Chief Minister, you mentioned there the cost of the test being £100. I remember in a presentation early on that it was £5, then a Tynwald Question revealed it cost £17, then we were told that £50 was cost neutral, and this is the first time, I think, I have heard £100 mentioned. Could perhaps we get some clarification as to where the £100 has come from, please?

2400 The Chief Minister: My sincere apologies if I have given the wrong figures, it might have been a Freudian slip. I will withdraw the £100 for the time being in case have I made a clerical error. I was working on the fact that each test that the UK do for a private test is between circa £120 and £150. I have got the £100 figure from somewhere, but as I cannot substantiate it, I will withdraw that comment, but I will write to all Members later on that. So I will withdraw the £100 cost 2405 because I have not got the figures with me at this moment in time, my apologies for that. Moving on to Mr Speaker, he felt that the amendment maybe would have been better for compassionate travel but found it was a lot of money for a family, and then he mentioned the £800 cost and the £500 cost. The £500 cost was really for returning students, we could not split it, purely for students and gave it to all of them. They were students that had to come home, they 2410 had gone away for their studies, it was not a choice that they had, if they were students. But I get his point, this is finely balanced. I thank the Hon. Member Ms Edge for her concerns on residency. Again, she has been consistent on that and people coming over who are non-resident costing the taxpayer money. And obviously she was concerned about the lack of Treasury concurrence, although it has been 2415 allowed to go through by the Treasury Minister. I move on next to my hon. friend, colleague and neighbour, Mr Robertshaw, and it is a tough decision on this, you could vote each way. We have said we will be reviewing this when we move forward. Hopefully we will get back to a new Manx normal and the Treasury Minister has said he is more than happy to have a review where we will discuss this cost. 2420 Moving on to Mrs Barber, Member for Douglas East, and the same concern really, felt a group of people were adversely affected, and I think my colleague, Member for Ramsey, Dr Allinson, also touched on the fact that local charities do offer support for genuine cases. But again, I appreciate it is a decision. Miss August-Hanson concurred with Mrs Barber, we do not have it quite right. I think when 2425 you are going through a pandemic, Mr President, you are never going to have everything 100% ______1173 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

right. We are doing our best, trying to be as fair as possible on this and, as I say, we will be reviewing this in the future, as the Treasury Minister said. Finally, finishing up with Dr Allinson, it is time limited, it is a pragmatic response to a time- limited situation and, as I say, he pointed out that the third sector and charities have been 2430 supporting people who have found this tough, and an awful lot of people I know are finding this tough, Mr President. I respect Hon. Members’ views, it is a difficult decision. We feel this is the best way forward. I understand some Members disagree and we will leave it at that. So with that, Mr President, I beg to move. 2435 The President: Thank you, sir. Hon. Members, the motion is at Item 4. I put first the amendment moved by Mr Hooper to the Court. I take the Court to be in agreement unless I hear … There is dissent. We shall therefore take a vote on Mr Hooper’s amendment.

Voting resulted as follows:

In the Keys – Ayes 9, Noes 15

FOR AGAINST Mrs Barber Dr Allinson Mrs Caine Mr Ashford Mr Callister Mr Baker Mrs Christian Mr Boot Mr Hooper Mr Cannan Mr Perkins Mrs Corlett Mr Quine Mr Cregeen Mr Speaker Ms Edge Mr Thomas Mr Harmer Mr Moorhouse Mr Peake Mr Quayle Mr Robertshaw Mr Shimmins Mr Skelly

2440 The Speaker: Mr President, in the House of Keys, 9 votes for, 15 against.

In the Council – Ayes 5, Noes 4

FOR AGAINST Miss August-Hanson Mr Greenhill The Lord Bishop Mr Henderson Mrs Maska Mrs Lord-Brennan Mr Mercer Mrs Sharpe Mrs Poole-Wilson

The President: In the Council, 5 votes for, 4 votes against. The Branches are in disagreement, the amendment fails to carry. I therefore put the motion as stated to the Court, I take the Court to be in agreement. If there is dissent, please indicate now. 2445 There being no dissent, I declare the motion carries. Item 4 carries.

______1174 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

5. Financial Provisions and Currency Act 2011 – Coronavirus Business Support (Amendment) Scheme 2021 approved

The Minister for Enterprise to move:

That the Coronavirus Business Support (Amendment) Scheme 2021 [SD No 2021/0022] [MEMO] be approved.

The President: Item 5, Financial Provisions and Currency Act, Minister for Enterprise to move, please.

2450 The Minister for Enterprise (Mr Skelly): Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. Last week we announced that the Coronavirus Business Support Scheme would be reopened to provide support towards overheads for businesses and the self-employed over the circuit break lockdown. However, the 2020 Scheme, as it currently stands, only applies to businesses and the self-employed who were established and trading before 28th February 2020. 2455 The amendments before us therefore enable support to be provided to new companies and the self-employed who have started up their businesses since then. Therefore a company or self-employed person who established their business by 4th January 2021 will be eligible to apply for a one-off payment under the Scheme. In summary, I hope this important amendment to the Coronavirus Business Support Scheme, 2460 along with other support schemes, will assist our businesses and self-employed through the circuit break lockdown. Eaghtyrane, I beg to move the motion standing in my name.

The President: Hon. Member, Mr Hooper. 2465 Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr President. I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

The President: I put the motion to the Court. I take the Court to be in agreement. If there is 2470 dissent, please indicate. There being no dissent, the motion therefore carries. Hon. Members, that brings us to the end of the Order Paper and the Supplementary Order Paper over the course of a sitting under quite challenging circumstances. I thank Hon. Members for their patience. I would like to thank the Clerks and the staff in the Tynwald Office who have made this virtual sitting possible. 2475 Council will now withdraw and leave the Keys to transact such business as remains before it.

The Council withdrew.

______1175 T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2021

House of Keys

Procedural – Happy birthday to Mr Cannan; upcoming business

The Speaker: Thank you, Mr President. I am sure Hon. Members will want to join me firstly in wishing Mr Cannan a happy birthday, if my sources are to be believed. The House will be meeting virtually next Tuesday and at that sitting will be considering short 2480 Bills, the Companies Bill and the Beneficial Ownership Bill. The current assumption is that Climate Change, Competition, Landlord Registration and Sky Lanterns could potentially follow on 2nd February. With that, Hon. Members, we stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on 26th January for a virtual sitting.

The House adjourned at 3.54 p.m.

______1176 T138