REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF TYNWALD COURT (DEBATES AND OTHER MATTERS) Douglas, Wednesday, 10th July 2002 at 10.30 a.m. Present: The President of Tynwald (the Hon N Q Cringle). In the Council: The Lord Bishop (the Rt Rev Noël Debroy Jones), the Attorney-General (Mr W J H Corlett QC), Hon Mrs C M Christian, Messrs E A Crowe, D F K Delaney, J R Kniveton, E G Lowey, Dr E J Mann, Messrs J N Radcliffe and G H Waft, with Mrs M Cullen, Clerk of the Council. In the Keys: The Speaker (the Hon J A Brown) (Castletown); Mr D M Anderson (Glenfaba); Hon A R Bell and Mr L I Singer (Ramsey); Mr R E Quine OBE (Ayre); Mr J D Q Cannan (Michael); Mrs H Hannan (Peel); Hon S C Rodan (Garff); Mr P Karran, Hon R K Corkill and Mr A J Earnshaw (Onchan); Mr G M Quayle (Middle); Messrs J R Houghton and R W Henderson (Douglas North); Hon D C Cretney and Mr A C Duggan (Douglas South); Hon R P Braidwood and Mrs B J Cannell (Douglas East); Hon A F Downie and Hon J P Shimmin (Douglas West); Mr D J Gelling (Malew and Santon); Hon J Rimington Mr Q B Gill and Hon Mrs P M Crowe (Rushen); with Mr M Cornwell-Kelly, Clerk of Tynwald. The Lord Bishop took the prayers. Douglas Inner Link Road – Construction of Road Island – Expenditure Approved The President: Now, hon. members, when we adjourned yesterday we had reached and completed item 13 on the order paper, so we start this morning’s deliberations at item 14. Item 14. The Minister for Transport to move: That Tynwald approves of the Department of Transport incurring expenditure not exceeding the sum of £2,200,000 in respect of the construction of phase 4 (Road Island) of the Douglas inner link road. The President: I call on the Minister for Transport to move. Mr Shimmin: Thank you, Mr President. The proposed scheme follows on from the phase 3 scheme approved by Tynwald in October 2001 to create the new 250-metre section of road and railway bridge at Kewaigue, which is presently under construction. The phase 4 Road Island scheme before members today comprises widening the A24 Road Island road between Kewaigue Hill on the A6 Kewaigue Road and Spring Valley roundabout and increasing the capacity of Spring Valley roundabout. A new footway will link the Anagh Coar estate with Kewaigue School and so complete the footway link to the White Hoe and Douglas. Planning approval has been obtained for the project as the final phase of the Douglas inner link. The completion of the Douglas inner link road will enable traffic from the Spring Valley trading estate and Ballacottier Business Park to travel directly to the centre of Douglas, avoiding Quarterbridge, as well as assisting traffic flows between lower Douglas and Anagh Coar, Farmhill and Foxdale. When completed, the scheme will encourage vehicles travelling directly between the south of the Island and Douglas via Kewaigue to travel by way of the modified Spring Valley roundabout and the widened Road Island road. The modifications to the Spring Valley roundabout will increase its capacity to provide for its use by this diverted traffic travelling to and from the south of the Island. The circulatory lanes approaching and within the Spring Valley roundabout will be augmented so the traffic arriving from the south and heading towards the harbour via Kewaigue will not be held up by traffic waiting to proceed down the new Castletown Road towards Quarterbridge. Also, the additional circulatory capacity will provide slip lanes for traffic moving between adjacent roads at the junction. This is so that local traffic movement around Douglas will not normally conflict with traffic travelling between the south and lower Douglas. At the junction of Road Island road with Kewaigue Hill priority will be given to the through traffic which is travelling along the widened Road Island road to or from the modified Spring Valley roundabout. Here there will be a proper waiting and turning facility for vehicles waiting to turn onto the road to the energy-from-waste plant. This will comprise a central waiting lane so that lorries turning right to the plant will not create a tailback of traffic which is proceeding towards Kewaigue from the Spring Valley roundabout. For pedestrians the widened road between Spring Valley roundabout and Kewaigue will be provided with a footway. This will be of considerable benefit to parents and pedestrians walking children or, as pedestrians, to and from the school area in Kewaigue. The construction works of the scheme will cost in total £2.2 million. The works will be carried out by the Department of Transport’s engineering works division, with the construction programme to commence in August 2002 if Tynwald approves the motion and be completed in September 2003. Mr President, this scheme has been programmed for a number of years and seems to have considerable support. However, two issues have arisen which I would like to draw reference to. The memorandum of explanation to members and, as has been identified in Question Time previously, it has always been the intention in the last two years that in the interest of road safety at the bottom of Richmond Hill, particularly arising from the road safety implications of the proposed siting of the energy-from-waste plant off the A6 near the bottom of Richmond Hill, it is intended that the A6 will ultimately be closed to through traffic - that is, from its junction at the bottom of Richmond Hill with the A5 Castletown Road to its junction with the widened Road Island road at Kewaigue Hill. It will, however, always provide access from Kewaigue to the energy-from-waste plant site and remain available as a through route for non- vehicle traffic. I am aware that this has caused considerable concern and, in the time since the last time this was debated in the House, I have attempted to confirm the department’s policy; I have been to the Council of Ministers with the proposals; we have had a meeting with Braddan Commissioners, Douglas Corporation and the Richmond Hill steering group; and we have communicated the contentions about this proposed closure to all the southern authorities. Furthermore, in a presentation to members on the Road Island scheme we did identify the reasons for this proposal. However, I am conscious that there is still considerable resistance in some quarters to this closure. It is our intention, as it always has been, to concentrate on safety and we believe, although not a direct route, this will make a speedier direct access into the lower Douglas area. However, in an effort to be clear with our intentions, in the explanatory memorandum item 3 it does refer to this as a proposed closure of that junction. I state here publicly, Mr President, that before any closure of that junction I will ensure that I will come back to this Court in order to discuss the reasons on safety grounds, which my department believe will be compelling. There have been briefings where members have listened, and they are looking at the situation at the moment rather than the enhancement which this scheme will actually create at the Spring Valley roundabout junction. Obviously, through the intentions of the department to be working on a scheme which will last 61 weeks, throughout that time traffic will have to be diverted down this route as it will be the only means to the south of the Island. We will then have an enhanced scheme which we believe will satisfy the public’s desire to move speedily into Douglas and avoid much of the congestion at Quarterbridge. However, I give a commitment that anybody supporting the motion today reserves the opportunity of expressing their votes on the closure, proposed by my department in a scheme which we believe merits it. The second item is the issue regarding Kewaigue School. The recent press coverage has been unfortunate and at times inaccurate. However, I do express my apologies that there has been a lack of consultation with the school involved, and that is now being remedied. The concerns of the parents having to park on the road outside the school has been for some years a difficulty with the head teacher, the department and, with limited traffic travelling down that route, it was not a major concern of the Highways because we knew an enhancement was coming. However, it has always been our intention to increase the volume of traffic moving in this direction after the scheme was introduced. We have already introduced 20-mile an hour flashing lights which come on around the school opening and closing times and we encourage all drivers to make full use of this for the safety of children. The scheme has pedestrian access, which has been a long-requested expectation of people living throughout that area, and this scheme will achieve it. The main issue under contention at the moment is the expansion of the car park proposed by the head teacher and the Department of Education, and this is an area where the department is already on record as having supported this principle. However, it is one which now needs further dialogue between myself and the Minister for Education. It also involves the Douglas Corporation and I believe that the absence of consultation to this stage with the school can be best remedied by taking it at a ministerial level between myself, the Minister for Education and, hopefully, working with Douglas Corporation, we will be able to find some accommodation to the expectations and needs. The timescale of this scheme has been put forward in order to make maximum use of school holidays and also of the better weather for most of the earth works. It is imperative that my department gets onto the scheme as quickly as possible and indeed, with members’ support today, we would intend to do some drainage works in the school area beginning 22nd July. The works are a major benefit, and I am saddened that a scheme which has such universal support in many ways has at the twelfth hour been muddied by two issues which I hope to try and remedy in the future. Therefore, Mr President, with the assurances I have tried to give the Court this morning, I beg to move the motion standing in my name. The President: Hon. member for Council, Mr Kniveton. Mr Kniveton: I beg to second, sir, and reserve my remarks. The President: Hon. member for Middle, Mr Quayle. Mr Quayle: Thank you, Mr President. I acknowledge the points made by the hon. Minister of Transport. I fully support the widening of the A24 Road Island road between Kewaigue Hill on the A6 Kewaigue Road and Spring Valley roundabout and increasing the capacity of Spring Valley roundabout, sometimes better known as ‘Fort North’ - perhaps a tribute to my predecessor, the former member for Middle, Mr David North. These particular measures should, as the minister has explained, be receiving the widespread approval of members of this Court, but until this morning I thought there was a sting in the tail. Certainly in the presentation that we received, the statement of case certainly inextricably linked the enhancement of the road and the enhancement of the roundabout to the closure of the road that the minister has referred to. I am concerned that the measures referred to earlier, which I am able to support, did seem to be linked to the proposed closure to through traffic on the A6 from its junction at the bottom of Richmond Hill to its junction with the widened Road Island road at Kewaigue Hill. This is something that I cannot support at present and am pleased to have received the assurance that that particular matter will come back before the Court before that will be dealt with in the future. So, as I understand it, in the information that we have had - and I refer to the motion at item 3 - that now will not be inextricably linked as it seems to have been so far until this morning; that is now something that I can be reassured about. I am also concerned that it does not seem to have had the fullest consultation with members of the public - for example, perhaps a public meeting or an exhibition. I acknowledge that the minister mentions that there were meetings with various authorities, but I do not believe that there has been sufficient time to allow full consultation with all interested parties (Mr Henderson: Hear, hear.) and feel that this scheme, until this morning - and it seems to have altered a little - was being rushed through with undue haste. For example, members of Tynwald were only briefed recently; not many were actually able to be present on that occasion. The separate briefing for the commissioners - only some were able to be there. It was last week, the particular briefing, and again, in relation to Braddan Commissioners that the minister mentioned, some of the commissioners were off the Island and were unable to attend. I believe that the widening of road Island Road, the increasing of the capacity of the Spring Valley roundabout is desirable, should receive support, but I had originally thought that further time should elapse to consider the implications of the effective closure of the road that I have hitherto mentioned and the impact that this will have upon the Spring Valley roundabout and the volume of traffic going to Douglas via Quarterbridge and past Kewaigue School to South Quay. This brings me to a comment upon my acute concerns relating to Kewaigue School and in particular the safety of its children. The present car park is too small, it accommodates only a small number of cars, such that a large percentage of cars are obliged to be parked on the roadside, particularly from 3.30 to 4.00, and needs to be enlarged, as the minister has acknowledged, as an absolute priority. The enlargement of the car park should, I feel, have been integrated into this scheme supported by the relevant departments of government, thus overcoming a major obstacle to the proposed works. There appears to have been little consideration made in respect of the school, although I accept that we have heard this morning that consultations have been ongoing over the last few days - for example, the recent unhelpful suggestion to the headmaster from the Department of Transport, effectively to suggest advising to parents not to park outside the car park on the road and that this would be enforced by the police. This was tantamount to closing the eyes to the problems. Parents have no option other than to park on the roadside outside that school and other cars will be attempting to access and egress the limited car park - a recipe for disaster. The number of pupils is increasing at Kewaigue with the resultant increase in vehicles from a large school catchment area. Whilst the area outside Kewaigue School is not within the proposed capital scheme, it will have an overwhelming impact upon it, and I am most surprised that no efforts appear to have been undertaken to date to find a satisfactory solution prior to us having to consider the motion before us today, but I do acknowledge and appreciate the minister’s helpful comments this morning that he intends, with his ministerial colleague of Education, to try and remedy the situation. I believe, as the minister seems to have acknowledged, that Kewaigue School has not had the deserved attention in the Department of Transport’s consideration and I am sure that they will now give this the priority that it deserves. It does appear that the Department of Transport and the Department of Education have not exactly jelled together to satisfactorily deal with the concerns expressed to me by Kewaigue School, by its staff, parents and particularly referring to the health and safety of the children. There is no doubt in my mind that there will be far greater numbers of traffic passing Kewaigue School and the speed of traffic will be difficult to control. Whilst I acknowledge the special 20 mile-an-hour limit by the school is in force morning and afternoon, this is already being widely ignored and will be impossible to police effectively on a daily basis. With the widening of the Road Island road the preferred route for all heavy goods vehicles from the harbour to Spring Valley will be past Kewaigue School to Spring Valley rather than via Quarterbridge to Spring Valley. I understand that, following my visit to Kewaigue School this last Monday and the relaying of my concerns to the Department of Transport and the hon. Minister for Education, the hon. Minister for Transport has been in contact with the head teacher of Kewaigue and will actually be visiting the school this Friday to see for himself the problems that the school endures. We hear a lot, Mr President, about cohesive government, the public quite rightly expects it and I am more than disappointed that a satisfactory solution to the problems that beset Kewaigue School which they experience and which will be exacerbated for the future by this proposed capital scheme have not been addressed before today. Having said that, I had originally intended to move a motion to adjourn this particular scheme to the October 2002 sitting for a report to be prepared and laid before the Court on the effects of the proposed road alterations on Kewaigue Primary School, in particular the safety of its children, and on the desirability of discontinuing access to and egress from the junction at the foot of Richmond Hill, leading to Kewaigue, following consultation with all interested parties. I express my appreciation to the Minister for Transport for dealing with the two principal areas of concern to me, such that I am now able to offer my support to the scheme, and I thank him indeed for his efforts over the last few days to resolve the concerns that have been addressed today. Thank you, sir. The President: For clarity, hon. member, I take it that you are not moving the amendment? Very good. Hon. member for Douglas North, Mr Henderson. Mr Henderson: Thank you, Mr President. I rise with some concerns about this scheme; least of all, I do not want to find myself backed into the corner we found ourselves in the other week where I felt conned into supporting a £0.5 million helipad for a Chinook helicopter, and I certainly do not intend to go down that road this morning with this particular motion before us. At the minister’s briefing which I attended, we were assured that this scheme would not include the road closure of the road from Kewaigue to Richmond Hill. Now, I know the minister has alluded to this this morning and said he will be bringing something back to Tynwald later on for us to discuss. What I would like the minister to do though, just for the record, when he is summing up, is to give a positive assurance that if people are supportive of this scheme this morning the only thing that they are supporting is the road widening scheme from Fort North over to the junction just above Kewaigue School, and that is it. Unfortunately, I do not feel as confident as my hon. friend opposite from Middle, because the explanatory memorandum that was circulated to all members in our Tynwald packs is inextricably linked to the motion and the motion, asks for the concurrence of £2.2 million et cetera for the construction of phase 4, but in the explanatory memorandum the itemised points 1 to 5 fall out of this motion and we can see quite clearly what the effects are and the fact that at point 3 it says ‘In the interest of road safety at the bottom of Richmond Hill and particularly arising from the road safety implications et cetera, the A6 will have to be closed.’ It is quite clear: if we do not get it now we are going to get it in 12 months’ time, and all hon. members need to be careful of that point and need to be aware that the two are inextricably entwined and, once you give your approval this morning or your vote for this scheme, you are more or less two thirds on the way to getting the road closure that you are concerned about because there is no other way round it then. The scheme goes on about the roundabout at Fort North to be widened and all that carry on, which is part of the plan and one of the reasons for the road to be shut down to Richmond Hill, and if it is shut the roundabout has to be widened to take account of the closed road, so we are locked into a loop. Now, I would ask hon. members to bear that in mind, because that is what is going to happen. I am also concerned that, although I am all in favour of road safety, I think what we have got here is possibly an over-the-top response to a situation that could be dealt with more delicately and when we see the nice schemes that the department can do at Blackberry Lane with regard to safe footways and a concern in my own constituency at Governor’s Hill where we see the footpath going in behind Government House, what a excellent idea and a nice way to solve a problem without having to go to what I would call a ‘double Rolls Royce solution’ for something that only requires a Ford Escort or a Mondeo solution here. The footway could go behind the hedge in a different format and we could have a different plan presented to us here this morning. We have seen it work before and there is no reason why it cannot work here. As I say, Mr President, I firmly believe in safety for the school kids going to Kewaigue School and I have no problem with that, but there is more ways to solve a problem than just this. It would also be interesting to know - and we have not had that information - how other areas in the UK or the Republic of Ireland have solved similar situations. What we are being presented with is almost a fait accompli where there has been a small option appraisal done and we can have a roundabout at the bottom of Richmond Hill and we cannot have the road one-way up, so this is the only thing that we can do. (Interjection) I bet other jurisdictions in other places have solved these problems with different flare and ingenuity, not just by closing off public roads at the end of the day. I would also ask members to take on board what the minister said in his opening remarks this morning with regard to consultation. The minister has admitted on public record that there has not been as much consultation as he would like. He said he is going to take it up with the Minister of Education and that should suffice. Well, I do not think we should be passing anything here this morning that has not received the benefit of full and proper consultation to determine a properly worked-out plan that meets the needs of the area which it is going to be superimposed on, and I think we need to be careful with that and how we go about it. Further to that, Mr President, I have driven round the area now; although it is not a stranger to me, I have purposely gone round and looked for myself. The road we are going to close off is a fine piece of highway, brand new tarmac on it (A Member: Hear, hear.), albeit a couple of years old, but nonetheless a nice big wide road that has had the benefit of quite a lot of money expended on it and we are going to say, ‘Let us just shut it off. The only thing we can do is a massive great roundabout, double the size of Fort North and let us shut this off.’ I think there are better ways to do this and I really do think we need to go back to the drawing board in some regard to this and I do not think we should be held to ransom with the fact of the urgent need case either and the fact that we are being told ‘Oh, we are freeing a clogging up at Quarterbridge and so on.’ Traffic that go up the road we are proposing to close will not all go down to Quarterbridge anyway; they will be forced to use the new widening scheme over to Kewaigue anyhow, so that falls flat. The other thing I am disappointed with is the criteria that were advanced in the members’ briefing as to the need for this case are similar criteria to those which I and, I am sure, other hon. colleagues in this Court have used from time to time to flag up problems to the Department of Transport in our own areas when things need doing on road safety counts, and there were expounded at the briefing five or six major criteria for road safety, and it struck me that many of those criteria, certainly for myself, are ones that I have used in my own area from time to time, not just to point-score but to actually address serious road safety issues, and some of the concerns I have taken to the department, using the very same criteria that have been put forward today, have taken me and my colleague for North Douglas, Mr Houghton, maybe 18 months, 24 months and yet we are being hit over the head today with arguments to say ‘Well, yes, we can do it now because of these.’ I think it is very unfair in the way this has been done and, as I say, Mr President, I would advise members’ caution on this and in fact, if it is within standing orders, I would propose to move that we do adjourn this debate until the October sitting until we have time for the proper consultation and so on to take place and the proper meshing of people’s concerns and that this plan can be tailored better than it is currently, and I hope somebody will second it, Mr President. I beg to move: That under Standing Order 2.9 the matter be adjourned. The President: Hon. member Mr Gelling for Malew and Santon. Mr Gelling: Yes, thank you, Mr President. Basically what brings me to my feet is first of all I would like to congratulate the minister on having listened. He said the waters have been muddied, but I think possibly it was the muddy waters that caused the problem, because although this outer ring scheme has been on the boards for a very long time, of course it is the planning condition on the incinerator that is causing the problem of the road (A Member: Hear, hear.); It was not part of that particular scheme. So, as far as I am concerned, yes, I think the Island - as people are calling it, North’s Island - has always been a little bit of a silly situation where you had traffic coming up from Spring Valley, supposed to be going into two lanes, but there was not sufficient room to get two cars, never mind two vehicles and that does need attention and the safety going down the other road to Kewaigue School as well - there is no pavement, it does need attention. But I think basically the wider issue, Mr President, from where I come from is the traffic movements, I have to say, from the south. Now, we have seen very clearly that when we have had all this road works coming in from the South, people very quickly . . . We all know what drivers do: they want to get there as soon as possible and they do not really want to stop at any works or traffic lights, it is natural. So they shoot up through St Mark’s, so we have had terrible problems in St Mark’s with people going that way rather than joining the queue at the top of Richmond Hill to wait to get round the Island at the top of Spring Valley. Now, what I would say to the hon. minister is this: when you are considering that particular road in its wider issue, also consider that the old Castletown Road has been shut for over 12 months, (Mrs Crowe: Absolutely.) So there is no traffic going in on the old Castletown Road at all; they are all going in on Richmond Hill and St Mark’s. Now, what I would suggest is, we have now got - well, it is not a road, it is a track out on the old Castletown Road; it is going to be finished, I am told, in a beautiful, new tarmacadam overlay. Now, I would suggest again that I know where the traffic is going to go and it is going to be at the Blackboards. You will find a row of traffic waiting to turn right to speed along the old Castletown Road because that is how they are going to go into Douglas; they are not going to go down Richmond Hill, go up to the Island, turn round and go back. Mr Houghton: They have never thought about that. Mr Gelling: It is natural that that is what they are going to do. So what I would say to the hon. minister: please, in the consideration of all this, fine, the consultation wants to be with those in the immediate area; I accept that 100 per cent, but I think also they want to just go back a little and see where that traffic is going to go. One or two other points: I would say that if you close that at the bottom of Richmond, drivers from the island coming from Douglas are going to put such a speed on and they are going to forget that the Isle of Man Farmers Club entrance is just on that junction as well with heavy wagons with grain and fertilizer, and I would suggest we will have more accidents there than we have ever had at the bottom of the hill. So I think there are areas that do need consideration before the ultimate closure, because to me and, I am sure, to all hon. members, closing a right of way or a road is an extremely important thing, because once it is closed that is it; we have stopped the right of people to go, whether it be in a car or as pedestrians. Also, with regard to the school, I can well recall the difficulties that Education had getting the car park they have got there now, with the corporation, I am sorry, (Mr Houghton: Hear, hear.). It was a great difficulty. (Mr Houghton: Absolutely.) Now, I would suggest again that, perhaps if a little bit of more thought had gone in here, it would have been an ideal situation if we had had to help even the corporation, sir, to alter the layout of the golf course and take that golf hole there that is alongside the school into another direction - because I notice they have been able to do a wonderful big excavation up in the middle of the hill - that could have been a new green and I am sure we could have got more parking space. So I think there is quite a little bit to be done before actually that ultimate decision is made. So, all I am saying, Mr President, is congratulations to the minister, because I do believe there are problems and, once the decision had been made, I think those problems would have then manifested themselves and become a real, big problem. One more thing which I must get off my chest, Mr President, is that I know the way the highways are working; we have got design teams who are moving on from one job to the next and we keep them going - that is great, that is fine, but I wish they would also think about putting little lay-bys, (Mr Houghton: Hear, hear.) little easements. We have got the law about mobile phones - you are not allowed to use them; now, if you notice, all our roads are like railway tracks. Mr Houghton: That is right. Mr Gelling: There are no easements for people with a child wanting to go to the toilet, being sick, using phones, but I notice the new bridge; we have got two wonderful paths each side. That is great! But, my word, the road in the middle is definitely no wider than the road that is under the existing bridge, and I think to myself ‘Well, what are we achieving here?’ So really I have got it off my chest now, Mr President, thank you very much. (Laughter) The President: Hon. member for Douglas South, Mr Duggan. Mr Duggan: Thank you, Mr President, sir. I will second Mr Henderson’s amendment. We did not know much, hon. members, about this scheme until a month or so back when the minister, Mr Shimmin, mentioned about the closure of the road. I know when we were talking about the incinerator they always said there would not be much traffic, hon. members, but now there is going to be so much traffic down there they want to close the road. The problem is the school; as Mr Gelling has pointed out too - it is the cart before the horse - they should have made sure with the corporation that they got that car park extended, because there is a concern from parents and people in the school, the headmaster and parents, and it is a worry. I was always in favour of the improvements from Fort North down to Kewaigue School on the grounds of safety for the children, but I am very concerned about extra traffic possibly going to be down Kewaigue Hill and also through Spring Valley, and I think really there needs to be an adjournment, hon. members, because we need to have more time to think about this. I think the whole thing has been rushed through and I have told the minister I will not be supporting it this morning on road safety grounds and I think hon. members should definitely go for an adjournment until the back end at least. The President: Now, hon. members, I want to make it plain that I take it that Mr Henderson was moving the adjournment of this motion until October, seconded now by Mr Duggan, which puts us into an adjournment debate, hon. members. The five-minute rule will apply. Hon. member Mrs Hannan. Mrs Hannan: Thank you, Eaghtyrane. I do not really feel that there is a need for an adjournment of this particular issue. It is not a new issue, it has been part of the road traffic scheme around Douglas to try to take traffic away from Douglas, and I would have thought that Douglas members would have supported that, albeit that it does impinge on other areas, but it is not just Kewaigue School that has problems with heavy traffic; most schools have problems. My own schools have problems with heavy traffic going past, but nobody is out there trying to relieve the pressure there or to create car parks and the like. Now, we do know that the car park was started at Kewaigue because of the building of the breakwater and it was going to be a temporary thing and it was confirmed permanent in my time in the department, and there was an exchange of land with Douglas Corporation. I would hope that Douglas Corporation can support a change. Now, if we are going to make the road safer, then it should be that children should be able to walk to school and it should be that there will be need for less traffic. So all of these issues have to be then fed in, and I would have thought that to keep children healthy and fit, they do need to walk more instead of cars being there. I also believe that the road closure which is mentioned is only being open and above board. I would like the minister to confirm that any road closure has to come forward with an order to this Court. No road, no footway, no highway can be closed without an order. The President: Absolutely. Mrs Hannan: It is my understanding. The President: Yes, you are right. Mrs Hannan: I would like the minister to confirm that. Following on from the comments made by the member for Santon, he said people take other routes. I take other routes. The President: Hon. member, I do not wish to spoil your flow, but can I just bring you back to the point that we are in an adjournment debate, speaking to the adjournment. I am sure we do not want to rehearse all the arguments. Mrs Hannan: No, excuse me, Eaghtyrane, I am trying to rehearse the reasons why not to go into an adjournment, because I believe these issues are a red herring. I believe that the minister has made it quite clear that the work would take place at a particular time to fit in with the school year, and therefore to put it off until October is not going to be necessarily helpful, to the school or to anyone. People will make alternative arrangements for travel. If people with heavy vehicles or with other vehicles want to go through Pulrose they will go through Pulrose. If they want to go through the Quarterbridge they will go through the Quarterbridge. When the old Castletown Road is open I am sure the late Chief Minister will go through the old Castletown Road. (Laughter and interjections) The other point that I would like to make: people seem to think that they have ownership of road outside their property, but they do not. (A Member: Hear, hear.) Roads are in public ownership and I think we should remember that. I think it would be detrimental to this scheme and the people in the area if we did adjourn it until October, and therefore I would hope the Court will support it so that it proceeds in this way. In actual fact I will be sad to see the road from the school up to Spring Valley roundabout closed, because I think it is a wonderful road and it must be quite one of the oldest roads in the Isle of Man. The President: Hon. members, can I make it quite plain, please, that what I am trying to achieve is that we deal with the adjournment matter as a separate issue. So if you can speak to the adjournment, those who wish to speak to it, I will certainly allow you to come back later with your principal points on the motion, if that is the way it goes. Now, Mr Speaker. The Speaker: Thank you, Mr President. I stand to oppose the adjournment quite simply because what will it achieve? Members have to separate this scheme into two components: one is that Road Island road through to what people call Fort North and I am not a great favourite of Fort North, so I am glad it is not my name that is on it. (Interjection by Mr Delaney) Can I say that that road needs to be widened anyway. Whatever you do that has to be widened, and the reason it has to be widened is because it is dangerous. There is so much traffic now travelling on the Old Castletown Road past the Nunnery, up Kewaigue Hill and across there that that in itself is too narrow and is causing a problem, and there are problems with that. So that is the first issue. The second issue then, which is the point that has been raised by the hon. member for Middle and others, is in relation to Kewaigue School. Now, I would make the point that that is a separate issue, as is the bottom of Richmond Hill, because whatever you do, the only issue you are being asked to do today is to approve a scheme to allow what is a scheme that has been in the public arena for at least eight years, maybe 10 ten, to widen between Road Island and Fort North and make it safer. The issue at the bottom of Richmond is a separate issue. It is a matter that at this stage certainly is not before the Court except that it is being debated as part of the package, but it is not part of the package as such; it is a matter for the department to consider, and the minister has given quite clear undertakings here today, as to how he will take it forward. I would urge members not to support the adjournment, because all it will do is increase costs on the scheme and maybe the minister can tell us, if any cost is there, what that increase is likely to be, and it will delay a road safety improvement on an area that in principle this Court has approved because it actually progressed millions of pounds of investment along past the Nunnery, along Cooil Road, the roundabout itself and this is another component of that. So adjourning it will do nothing except cause problems, and therefore I hope members reject it. The President: Minister for Transport, Mr Shimmin. Mr Shimmin: Thank you, Mr President. Just trying to move things on a little bit here to try and make people aware of the implications of this potential adjournment. I attempted in my opening remarks to give assurances which I am delighted the member for Middle, Mr Quayle, has taken on board as being genuine. (Mr Cretney: Hear, hear.) I have done that in an attempt to impress upon the Court how important it is to get this work started in a timely fashion in order to cause the least disruption. All hon. members are aware that my department causes disruption throughout the Island; everybody moans about it, but they also moan that we do not get work done. This is a critical part of the scheme to try and alleviate some of the problems which the constituents complain about all the time. Quarterbridge and the movement into the south of the Island have been long overdue getting resolved, and I commend my predecessors for actually getting us to this stage. A 61-week work scheme, if begun in a timely fashion during the summer holidays, means that there will almost be no disruption to the school year for the following calendar year. We cannot avoid major disruption throughout a period of the next 12 months because there is some major work being done. If we were to defer it until October all that would happen is the consultation which I have already promised this Court that I would do. If there are ways to resolve it we will have achieved it; if there are not, then four months is not going to achieve any improvement in that situation anyway and we would then be increasing sizeably the cost, both from the delay, but also from the loss of work during the winter months, and everybody has seen this year how much time can be lost through inclement weather that the Island enjoys in the winter months. We would have scheduled this to begin the major earth works at a time when we can be almost guaranteed light evenings, drier weather and we can get the substantive work done through the summer and the autumn. If we defer it to October the only thing you achieve is a prolonged period of disruption. I would urge hon. members - I will come back to answer some of the specifics raised by members in my summing up - please do not bother discussing this adjournment any more, throw it out and let us get on to the substantive motion. The President: Mr Cretney. Mr Cretney: Yes, briefly, Mr President, I rise to oppose the adjournment on the basis that we have had in Tynwald Court this morning a minister who has stood and said that the specific major concern, I believe, of members in relation to the road which goes from the Road Island road down to the bottom of Richmond Hill - he will come back before anything happens with that. Now, either you trust the minister or you do not, and I believe we should trust the minister in that. I mean I have also visited Kewaigue School; my concerns are those in relation to the department’s objectives for years, which have been to speed traffic into Douglas and that is fine, but we need to make sure that there are adequate pedestrian facilities to go alongside that, and I believe that this scheme which we are talking about today in terms of its element from the roundabout - I do not like it getting talked about as Fort North either - down to Kewaigue School - for years there have not been adequate pedestrian facilities. Now, whilst speaking to the head teacher the other day, he made it quite clear that unfortunately the vast majority of pupils do not walk to school; they come from much further afield, they come from Mount Murray, they come from Douglas Head and unfortunately they are not going to walk to school. The problem is with vehicular traffic, and I hope and I trust, and I think it is pretty important, really, that measures are taken to extend that car park because it is a real problem and it is not going to be resolved, as the hon. member for Middle indicated, by people saying to persons who bring their children to school that you are going to get prosecuted or you are going to get moved on by the police for parking outside when the car park is clearly inadequate for the purpose for which it is designed. We need to have more provision there; we need to have pedestrian facilities to go alongside all these smashing new roads. The President: Hon. member for Garff. Mr Rodan: Yes, I will confine my remarks to the adjournment motion; I had intended to speak anyway just to say a few words. Mr President, likewise I do not believe it is necessary to have an adjournment in order to facilitate the resolution of a problem outside Kewaigue School. The Department of Education is well aware that there is a problem outside that school. There has been a problem and no doubt there will continue to be problems, regardless of whether this road is upgraded or not. Kewaigue School, as the hon. member for Peel has said, is not unique in that at many of our schools we have traffic management and car parking problems. The Department of Education is pursuing a strategy of traffic management at a number of schools currently and, as far as Kewaigue School is concerned, it is an A priority for traffic management in future, and I can state that to this hon. Court. There is a particular problem with the car park there that we are aware of. A scheme has been designed which, if there is a proper conclusion to the land issue, can be implemented and can be done so with appropriate priority within the Department of Education’s other traffic management priorities, and I am confident that that process is going on anyway. An adjournment will not make that process take place any faster, but it is very clear, I think, to us all that there will need to be more joined-up co-operation between departments, and the minister has acknowledged that, whereas on this scheme the level of consultation is not what it should have been, I would not like the impression to be given to this Court that there is not co-operation, because currently there is considerable co-operation over a number of traffic management schemes between the two departments in various parts of the Island, including in Peel, I should say, actually too. So there is ongoing work. Delaying today’s decision will not make the need for that work any more identifiable; it is already acknowledged and will proceed anyway. Thank you, Mr President. The President: I think, hon. members, we are almost reaching the stage where we could make the decision on the adjournment and I call the hon. member for Onchan, Mr Karran. Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, the issue I would like to raise is that I would support the adjournment not because of the issue of the road closure, because I thought it was wrong of the minister, who should quote the law as far as the issue is concerned - he has got to come back here for a road closing order anyway; it is not in the grace and favour of the executive as we have not given it to the executive yet, which the hon. member for Peel has said - but if there is going to be an adjournment, what I would like a review of is, in view of the fact that we have full employment at the present time, and the wider we make our roads the faster the traffic goes, and I do not think any of us in this hon. Court are not concerned about children getting safely to school; but the issue has to be asked: if there is an adjournment and it is successful, which I very much doubt, will the minister maybe review the priorities of all these grand schemes, and yet we have situations where I was down visiting some relations the other week there and some of these country roads are like something that you would expect from a state that has not the money to be able to repair them. So I have to be honest with you, I feel that it is wrong, this approach that we have got to get in there, get this scheme done or we will lose money. The question has to be asked if there was an adjournment of whether this is a priority and whether we should be looking at more basic things that need to be done, like basic repairs on our roads, because it is a fixation with government at the moment to have grand schemes without sorting out the basic maintenance of our roads at the present time. If there is an adjournment I would hope that that would be the priority. We have full employment at the moment and these sorts of things should be coming along when we have not got full employment. It is one of the biggest criticisms I have, and that is why I will support it. It just puts a shot over the bows of the Department of Transport so they can reassess the issue of doing the other issues. The President: Hon. members, can I make it plain that we are staying, if we can, to the adjournment and I would just reiterate the point that prior to the adjournment debate I have four members, Mrs Hannan, Mr Singer, Mr Cretney and Mr Earnshaw, who had indicated they wished to continue on the principal debate. Let try to hold it firmly to the agenda. Hon. member, Mrs Crowe. Mrs Crowe: Thank you, Mr President. I rise to oppose the adjournment of the motion before us today. I really cannot see that procrastination will achieve anything. We have heard from the Minister for Education that they have concerns about car parking, that it is a priority to address the way traffic is managed around the Kewaigue School, but I think one thing that we have all lost sight of in the Court at the present time - and I know it was referred to obliquely by the member for Malew and Santon - is that of the five members of this Court from the South that I personally see travelling down the old Castletown Road each time, we are now using, all of us, the Kewaigue Road. That traffic will be relieved the moment the old Castletown road is reopened and it is not necessarily for speed, Mr Gelling, that people use that road, but it is perhaps because scenically it is a delightful drive home after a day’s work, but the traffic passing Kewaigue School. . . I do not know the percentages, but certainly I know that just in this Court alone there is only one, perhaps two, southern members that do not use the Old Castletown Road on a regular basis and certainly that includes myself travelling in at least twice a day. So I would suggest that it is preferable to get ahead with this scheme, get the Old Castletown Road open and relieve the pressure that is coming from the closure of that road down past Kewaigue School twice a day as it is doing at present. The President: Hon. member for Ayre, Mr Quine. Mr Quine: Yes, just really one point that I want to address, sir. It has been suggested that there is some substance in seeking an adjournment, or a case could be made for adjournment, on the basis that the department needs to get its priorities right vis-ˆ-vis second-line work such as maintenance and minor improvements vis-ˆ-vis what is before us today. I am sure most of us here will recollect over the years the rather heated and heavy debates that we have had in this chamber, led by members from Douglas, saying that you have got to get these distributor routes, and in fact we have had three consultants’ reports I can think of, fired by propositions from members of Douglas saying that we have got to get a proper system of distributor routes put in place around Douglas to draw traffic away from what would be ordinarily seen as residential-type areas with roads built to residential standards, and that is the remit we have had and that is the remit which we are doing. That system of what I would call primary distributor routes cannot be done in one straight sweep. There is a plan in being of which members have been briefed - certainly members in the past House have been briefed - and it shows a phased build-up of those routes and we have made a major effort in expediting it over the last three years, not least the work coming right back from the Sea Terminal over the bridge and right out through - and we are talking now about the traffic getting some relief coming in from the south and avoiding the more built-up areas; even when this is finished we are still not going to have a complete link through to the South because we are still in the process at this moment of negotiating for two further sections to complete that. So the problem - it need only be short-term - that may be created, whether it be outside Kewaigue School or elsewhere, while this is going on, I am afraid, is almost inevitable, and the same applies, and the same problems will be applied, to those sections which are designed as being part of the main distributor route which we have not yet been able to complete, and people are going to have to live with these problems there (A Member: Hear, hear.). Therefore it is a key consideration that we get ahead with the completion, so far as one will ever complete distributor routes, as quickly as possible, and adjournments, whether it be on the basis that has been mooted by some members or on the basis that has been suggested, ‘Oh, it is a good thing to fire a shot over the head of the Transport Department’ - it will be a very expensive shot. (Mrs Crowe: Absolutely.) It will be very expensive for those who have to live for a longer period within these built-up areas, and it will be expensive in terms of the taxpayers’ money. This scheme is clearly defined as to what it involves. It is not suggested it is a complete scheme, it cannot be a complete scheme, but there is no advantage whatsoever in delaying it. It is not an advantage to the taxpayer and it is not going to do one iota to ease traffic. Delay is not the answer; it is getting ahead and getting it done that is the answer. The President: Now, hon. members, the motion I wish to put to the Court is that proposed by the hon. member for Douglas North, Mr Henderson, seconded by Mr Duggan, that item 14 be adjourned until October. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The noes have it. A division was called for and voting resulted as follows: In the Keys - For: Messrs Henderson, Duggan, Karran and Earnshaw - 4 Against: Messrs Anderson, Quine, Rodan, Quayle, Rimington, Gill, Mrs Crowe, Messrs Houghton, Cretney, Braidwood, Mrs Cannell, Messrs Downie, Shimmin, Mrs Hannan, Messrs Bell, Singer, Corkill, Gelling and the Speaker - 19 The Speaker: Mr President, the motion for adjournment fails in the House of Keys with 4 votes for and 19 votes against. In the Council - For: Dr Mann - 1 Against: the Lord Bishop, Messrs Lowey, Waft, Kniveton, Mrs Christian, Messrs Delaney and Crowe - 7 The President: With 7 against and 1 for in the Council, hon. members, the motion for adjournment therefore fails. We will continue now with the main debate and I call on the hon. member for Peel, Mrs Hannan. Mrs Hannan: Thank you Eaghtyrane. Most of the points I made in the adjournment, but I have been concerned about all schools and the access and the car parking for some considerable time. The Minister for Education has said that he will be progressing a change of car parking in this particular area and I hope that Douglas Corporation, who do own land round about, will support further car parking in this area. If parents have to use cars to take their children to school if there is not public transport and they are coming from various areas, then I suggest that they do have to park, but not necessarily for as long as outside some of the schools. The car parking does take place on the school side, so there should not be any necessity for children to walk out into the road. Parents should see to that, they have a responsibility the same as the community at large. Those are my main points, Eaghtyrane, but the pressure on this road will be relieved once the old Castletown Road has opened up, and this is why this particular piece of the road is not being progressed and that is why the bridge was able to be progressed because it was off the highway. So there are reasons for doing this and doing it at a particular time, and to do it at this particular time when the school is not in operation for the big amount of work that needs to be done and the changes that will take place there - I just hope the minister can confirm that while this work is going on, on the Road Island part of it, there will be proper road safety provisions made at the bottom of Richmond Hill because there will be vehicles turning there, there will be vehicles accessing and egressing from there and therefore I do think that more action should be taken by the department in this area, even if it means lights, to try to control some of the speeds in this area to make this particular area safer. So, there are a number of issues there, Eaghtyrane, but I really feel that this particular project should be supported by members in Douglas because it will relieve the pressure on some of the other roads. Thank you, Eaghtyrane. The President: Hon. member for Ramsey, Mr Singer. Mr Singer: Thank you, Mr President. I would like to express my support of all that has been said of importance of work going on as soon as possible on Road Island road. I think that has a case in itself for widening because of road safety; it is a very dangerous road as it is now. But I think in all this discussion that we are having today, the minister has included a definite link with what is going to happen at the bottom of Richmond Hill. When I was in the department and the first discussions were going on about the incinerator, the intention then and the recommendation of the officers at that time and the officer’s engineers was to put a roundabout at the bottom of Richmond Hill. I was quite surprised when that scheme seemed to be pushed to the side, because I believe that a roundabout at the bottom of Richmond Hill could well aid other developments that are going to go on and may well go on in that area, and it would also help in reducing the speed of traffic coming down out of Douglas or going into Douglas at that particular point, because I think the speed there is particularly dangerous and a roundabout would be the right answer. Can I say that to me it somewhat it seems it is change for change’s sake. I am not convinced as to why this change has been made. The minister used the word at the very beginning of his speech in saying that by enlarging the Spring Valley roundabout this was going to encourage traffic to use that roundabout. Now, he used the word ‘encourage,’ but if it is the intention of the department to shut the bottom of Richmond Hill, they have actually got Hobson’s choice. They will not have a choice, you will not have to encourage them to use that, they will be forced to use that roundabout. (A Member: Hear, hear.) So I do not think that was a particularly strong argument on the part of the minister. Rather than close the bottom of Richmond Hill, I would have thought it was better to split the traffic, give the motorists a choice. Separate the traffic, do not push them all onto one side. I am not sure that the majority, however, would choose to use the Spring Valley roundabout and therefore perhaps the department policy would be out of line with the public desire and the public need and I always remember the previous minister saying, ‘You do not introduce a speed limit if people are not going to comply with it,’ and surely this is a similar case. You do not push them into an area when they would wish to use another area if it is possible to adapt or the roads they wish to use, and I think that is the case as far as this whole scheme is concerned on Richmond Hill. If I may refer briefly to the minister’s comments on the 20 mile-an-hour speed limit outside Kewaigue School, I am delighted to see that that has been introduced; it was an idea that I promoted and pressed for within the department and it came from seeing how this sort of idea worked in the United States, where they have a 15 mile-an-hour limit outside schools. This scheme we have got is refined over that, in that in the United States it is 15 miles an hour at all times; here we have 20 miles an hour when the schools are open - I think that is important - and the rest of the time it is the 30 mile-an-hour limit. But if I could point out to the minister, I happened to go past the school on a day when the school was closed and yet the 20 mile-an- hour signs were on, and I think this, minister, will engender annoyance amongst the public and amongst drivers, and I think we should take much greater care to ensure that these lights are only on when the school is open. (A Member: Hear, hear.) Then perhaps we will get the compliance and I also think we need joined-up government here and you to speak to the hon. minister sitting in front of you to ensure that the police are there on a regular basis, certainly at the beginning of the time that these lights are used for the first time outside schools, for the police to have a presence and maybe to catch some people who are speeding in that area. That will obviously send a message to motorists throughout the whole of the Island that that 20 mile- an-hour is very important to comply with. So my views, Mr President, are that, yes, I will certainly support this scheme, but I certainly have doubts on the Richmond Hill proposal. The President: Hon. member for Douglas South, Mr Cretney. Mr Cretney: Yes, very briefly, Mr President. The Richmond Hill proposals are required to come back before Tynwald. I think that is essential, it is something which the law dictates and I think is recognised by most of us in here, if those things are going to go anywhere. My only one- liner about the bottom of Richmond Hill is, the traffic from the south, turning right and going up that road to me constitutes a danger. (A Member: Hear, hear.) I do not think anybody who looks at that situation can see otherwise and that constitutes a danger, the traffic trying to turn right into there. There may be other arguments about traffic from the Douglas area coming out and I guess those are things which will be examined in the time until the minister comes back, but it does not make any sense in my opinion for traffic to turn across the main traffic and to turn right into Richmond Hill. All I would say is, also in relation to enforcement outside Kewaigue School, which I think is one of the key issues here, you have got the 20 mile-an-hour flashing things; those are disregarded, according to the head teacher there, and unfortunately we cannot always get police officers there, so it might be, in my opinion, a prime example somewhere to put speed cameras now we have got the legislation for them. As long as people who choose, despite the fact there is a school there and children are bound to be there, still to ignore the warnings or what the requirements of the law are, then we need to take action against those people, pretty much the same as we need to against litter louts. Finally, Mr President, one of the things when new schools are built, is that there is a requirement by the Department of Transport for traffic management plans, and in reverse here I hope over the coming months that there will be a correct emphasis on that because as far as I am concerned that, together with the pedestrian facilities, is very important. I remember yesterday or perhaps earlier, the hon. members for North Douglas were saying about how long they had campaigned for things in North Douglas - up to 24 months or 36 months. I have been trying for 10 years to try and get pedestrian facilities down Vicarage Road and on Saddle Road and, in this particular instance, on the Road Island road because it is madness at the moment. Unfortunately traffic does travel too quickly and we need to just continue, please, to have an emphasis on those people who choose to walk. The President: Hon. member for Onchan, Mr Earnshaw. Mr Earnshaw: Thank you, Mr President. I think there is a little bit of confusion here because I was wanting to speak originally about supporting the adjournment, but that opportunity has now passed. The only comment I would make for the hon. Minister for Transport regarding the scheme at the moment, which I will now support in the way that he is putting it, is that on the A6 road, which is the Kewaigue Road that joins the bottom of Richmond Hill to Kewaigue School area, at the bottom of Richmond Hill I would like the department, please, to reconsider the opportunity of putting a roundabout in there. I think that would be a suitable development. Thank you, Mr President. The President: Hon. member, Douglas North, Mr Houghton. Mr Houghton: Thank you, Mr President. I have listened to the debate quite intently this morning. I was of a mind to support my hon. colleague who moved for the adjournment debate initially, simply because, I take note that the hon. member, Mr Quine, had mentioned that this scheme of course, stage by stage, had been running for some eight years, but how long, hon. members, have you been informed of the intention for closing this road, a piece of road? (A Member: Recently.) Only recently. The whole issue has been shrouded in secrecy because of sheer DoT arrogance, which I do not lay at the door of the hon. minister, Mr Shimmin, but I do lay it at the door of those previous members in the DoT who have allowed this culture of arrogance to go ahead year on year, and this arrogance has to stop. I would like to just illustrate that somewhat. This is what goes wrong, of course, when the same person is in the same department for, say two terms, but I was in the Department of Local Government and the Environment in the last term. It is very interesting now, because at the time when we were discussing the road traffic management plans for the incinerator at Richmond Hill, the DoT refused to have anything to do with the traffic management. Can you believe that - Corporate government? So much so that the Department of Local Government and the Environment had to get consultants from outside to design an island, and that is why hon. members have made allusions today about putting in an island, what we are going to do at a junction. It has always been a matter of contention, and I agree with that and I am not a qualified person to speak on that, but we had to bring in these consultants. The DoT would have nothing to do with it. I went ballistic at the time. I wanted the DoT to be brought to account, to come, because of the supposed corporate government we are meant to have and I have never seen much evidence of, and do the design works outside the gate. The Department of Local Government should have had responsibilities within the gateway for the incinerator, but outside on the traffic, the traffic management should have been undertaken by the Department of Transport and that was not the case. Now I know why. (A Member: Why?) Because they intended to close the road (Interjection) in the first place, and they were not ready for telling anybody outside that department. That is the reason why, hon. members, and that was the reason why it was shrouded in secrecy. They would not tell another government department of its overall intentions until they were ready to do it. Then, of course, the timing is, we know this next extremely important link has to happen, we all understand all that and I am supportive of that too, of course we are, but it was all left as a wonderful piece of planning to impose it at the eleventh hour so that we have got to go for it because we cannot stop the scheme, and I am not one of those who wishes to stop and that is why I did not support the adjournment. Of course it all has to go ahead, but why weren’t we all informed a very long time ago? (A Member: Hear, hear.) It is back down to points made long before myself on the fact that there was no consultation. Why don’t we just start telling people and asking the public ‘What do you think?’ Let us have a proper consultation. It may be three or four years off. This could be the year 1998, (Interjection) we are talking about doing this that and the other, ‘What do you think?’ then ‘DoLGE, do not bother about your traffic management system, we are the DoT we will deal with traffic outside the gate,’ et cetera, ‘Do not spend long thousands of pounds on it, and if we need to find out how much this waste of money is. When we are talking about wasting money, how much the Department of Local Government and the Environment had planned in their traffic management outside on the road leading to the incinerator site - well, I am sure that can be found out, so do not try and pull the wool over our eyes that this has not been a waste of money already. It has. Now then, another waste of money - Fort North roundabout. How long has that roundabout been in? I would be delighted if the hon. minister, if he cannot find out right now, of course, while he is on the spot, could let us know how much Fort North, because the reason (Interjection) why it was called Fort North was because it was looked upon at the time to be a sheer waste of money at that time. The Speaker: Eight years ago. Mr Houghton: Now then, how much eight years ago and how much, because how is it now we have got to alter that roundabout? (Interjection by Mrs Hannan) That roundabout was put in for the traffic management of the future. Now we are talking about altering a roundabout; no, we should be altering the link road down, which is what the motion is for, but what are we doing altering a roundabout that has only just been put in? I would like to know the costs of altering that roundabout, supportive as I am, but who is responsible for putting in an inefficient roundabout in the first place? Mr Cretney: He is not here any more! (Interjections) Mr Houghton: Send it to Colonel North; the roundabout is named after him. Send him the bill! Now then, that is another point. The hon. member for Malew and Santon, Mr Gelling, made an extremely valuable point (A Member: Hear, hear.) that I have made to the hon. minister, as I say, in the short time that he has been here, about, yes, they have widened the roadway and narrowed the road. The road going right through is a narrow road with wide areas that should be lay-bys or rooms for vehicles to pass if they break down and this, that and the other. Again, I am not qualified in traffic management, but it appears that we have got a better idea than those who designed the roads on how to design it, and so I would ask the hon. minister if he would give an undertaking now to take out all that ridiculous green land by the Nunnery and the White Hoe area and, if his highway department do not know where we are talking about, I will gladly go out with the minister and show him, but can he give us, in his consideration of what the other members for the constituencies have already asked, that Kewaigue School be taken into proper consideration and bring it back to this hon. Court if it is going to cost more, when it should not have happened in the first place, for lay-bys to be put in where those kerbs are now there in the area of the Nunnery and the White Hoe? There should be a lot of stopping points, people to stop to have their lunch, answering phones, just like the hon. member says. Can the hon. minister please, please, give us consideration that he will have all that altered? It should not have needed to be altered; it should have been there in the first place. Another point to pick up is the one that the hon. member for Malew and Santon has made: from the Blackboards through to on the old Castletown Road, of course, it has been shut for such a period of time and people will use that from the south as a rat-run, which points to my last suggestion - A Member: The long-tail run! Mr Houghton: The long-tail run, yes! I would ask that the wider picture be scrutinised by the Department of Transport. No doubt they will say that they have done. I am sure that they have done, but can they assure us that they have scrutinised that, because, as I say, people will find the easiest way to get away from all of this nonsense that is currently going on, of course. So I thank you, Mr President, for your indulgence, sir. The President: Hon. member for Council, Mr Lowey. Mr Lowey: Thank you, Mr President. Can I too thank the minister for his openness, but I come back to the very opening remarks of the minister when he started the debate by saying it has always been the intention of the department - well, for the last two years, anyway, to close . . . I am sorry I started with this because we are dealing with the link road. Let me be quite clear for the minister: he knows my position, I will be supporting the link road, but I do come back because of the way in which he has worded his order by actually referring to it in the memorandum. I know the memorandum is only a guide, but (A Member: Hear, hear.) it will be used to beat us with eventually. But, coming back to my opening remarks, the minister said it has always been - well, for the last two years, it has been. Now I have to say to the Court that until I put a question down here in February it was not known by members of the Court, (Members: Hear, hear.) I doubt very much whether it was known by the Council of Ministers. (Mr Houghton: Hear, hear.) I may be wrong on that, but I doubt it. So now, in six months, we have got the money to finish this particular bit and the plans et cetera. We used the safety element. Well, I am sure as I have said at the briefing meeting, there are many other areas on the Island that are worse black spots on the main road than there is here (A Member: Absolutely.) and I know we were given the figures, but I have asked for an analysis of those figures. Is it speed going south or is it where they are, as my hon. friend from South Douglas said, turning right to go up to Kewaigue Road? But again, within 50 metres of that turning right is the Isle of Man Farmers Club and nobody is suggesting - or are they? - that they will be shutting that establishment, because if it is a dangerous spot to cross right, across the traffic, it would be dangerous to cross right to get into the Isle of Man Farmers Club. (A Member: Hear, hear.) and if we do not have some way of slowing the speed down, as the hon. member for Ramsey said, with a roundabout or an alternative, then the speed going down south on the new enhanced figure will actually increase the speed. My belief, as I said to the minister, is that it is speed that is causing the accidents at that particular spot, but I will wait to be proved otherwise. But back to the problem of the link road, it is right that we should, in my view, ring the capital and try and relieve the arterial movement of traffic but, hon. members, this is only another part of it. We have an even more difficult spot further up, I think, Vicarage Road, for example, which is going to have to be resolved. Again there will be difficult decisions there, no matter which way it goes, but you cannot have a nice wide road and then come to the one part of the bottleneck which spoils the whole effect of getting the ring road round. I have no doubt at all that the roundabout up at Spring Valley will ease the flow of traffic into Douglas and ease it at Spring Valley and the Quarterbridge. I have no doubt at all about that, but as we are talking of safety and as we are talking to the Board of Education - a little bit late in the day, but at least we are going to talk now to the Board of Education - can I say that we talk to the Department of Transport as well, because right on the roundabout, within - what? - five metres of the roundabout, is a public bus stop, and how do the people get across the two lanes of traffic now? All the houses, if you are going south, are on the opposite side and the only way to get across is by shank’s pony. Now, if you are widening it, I would suggest you are going to make that difficult position become more impossible. I am not here today to throw marbles under the feet of the department, but it is a fact, and if we are going to widen it we should be conscious of that fact and I hope that will - I am sure it will - have been taken into account, and the minister, I hope, will be able to tell me it has and how they are going to resolve it. Can I say that I am very suspicious of the department. I do not wish to be cruel to officers who cannot answer back in public, but I do believe - and I hope the minister will reassure me anyway - that we are not going to be told, because you have voted for this ring road, that where the Kewaigue Road joins the ring road it will be impossible for technical reasons to join up, because they will have to go across the line of traffic. Now, if it is a danger when it is at the bottom of the Richmond Hill, it will be a danger when you cross the traffic to go at the bottom of Kewaigue, just as it will be a danger for the kids coming from Douglas Head to this school; the parents will have to go up the road, past the school to the roundabout at Spring Valley and turn round, adding to the congestion, to come back down. It is a fact - Mr Houghton: It is a fact. Mr Lowey: - it will have to happen, because you will not have them crossing the line of traffic, the main arterial road going into Douglas. Again, these are facts that have got to be borne in mind. So I would suggest there are lots of areas, and that was why I was tempted to vote for the amendment to adjourn this debate. I have decided against it because of the arguments that were put forward that it would actually slow that particular one and I do not want to do that. But these are things that I think need to be improved on and again opening up, and the record of the department gives me this scepticism because until I asked the question we were not told about it, and forgive me, that is still there in the back of my mind: what else aren’t they telling us? I think their motto must be ‘Let’s compromise, we will do it our way,’ and that is not the attitude, (A Member: Hear, hear.) because again I remember one of the questions I asked at that particular time and it has not been satisfactorily resolved: ‘Will you consult with the road users?’ Now, it is difficult because there is not an organised body as such of road users, but have they talked with the hauliers? I do not believe there is a dialogue going on, but then it does not go on with the users of the harbour either. So again I think we are in difficulty. Now, Mr President, as I have said, I was amazed when I posed the question of the Isle of Man Farmers - I am back to this - because of the turning of the traffic and I believe that they have not considered that. Well, it is only 40 yards from the junction and it is a major consideration, as the member for Malew and Santon said. They are slow-moving traffic bringing in corn at various times, springtime very busy, and that is the busiest commercial enterprise for Isle of Man Farmers on the Isle of Man - a turnover of millions of pounds. Is it going to be relocated? It does seem silly to me that, if we are turning it down because it is dangerous 50 yards down, 40 yards further we are allowing it to continue. So, while agreeing with the hon. minister for his road link span this morning, I do take note of what the order says and I take his reassurance because I know he is a man of honour (Mr Houghton: Hear, hear.) and I know full well he would not say it if it was not thus, but, as it is there, I am not going to be lectured later on that I am inhibited and I want that clearly understood. The President: Chief Minister, hon. member, Mr Corkill, for Onchan. Mr Corkill: Thank you, Mr President. I will be brief. I am quite pleased, in fact, that when the minister presented this he quite specifically separated the issues and made the vote that we are expected to take one way or the other far more palatable and easier because it is quite clear that we are progressing a number of schemes which are all linked and they are known as that ring road. If we think back two or three years to what the road was like along Leigh Terrace coming out of Douglas, all the reconstruction that has gone on there, associated with other major infrastructure works such as IRIS, the new bridge, which I think looks fine - the way the stonework is done under the railway, I think, is a credit to the tradespeople who have worked at that - we are working our way along this ring road and it is obvious to me that this pinch point at the top of the golf course there, over to the big roundabout, has to be dealt with. So the minister quite straightforwardly said, the issue to do with the other road from the bottom of Richmond Hill, across to Kewaigue would have to be addressed; the minister obligated himself straightaway and the Council of Ministers to come back to this Court with that issue, and I am pleased that he has done that, and I am sure he will explain this in his winding up, because, unlike road closures where highways are extinguished, as we did for the building of Marks & Spencers’ store where Drumgold Street is now where the ladies’ lingerie is, I think, that was a complete extinguishing of the highway and that obviously had to come before this hon. Court. My understanding of the proposals that are concerning people is that this stretch of highway is not going to be extinguished as a highway (The Speaker: Absolutely.) but the proposal is restricted use, and I point this out because I would not wish hon. members to go round the roundabout a couple of times and mislead ourselves, because there is a subtle difference there, I think. But, notwithstanding that, the minister has obligated himself to coming back with that particular issue, because obviously, as government, we wish to have the majority support for whatever is resolved on that situation and we have heard a number of angles on how this issue might be addressed. We have come across the problems of the farmers, the navy are round about, there is the other end and all these issues are now very, very open, to be decided upon, and the minister is going to come back and, I am sure, will present to members in a way that the department thinks is the best way forward. I am sure in that interim period the department will be re-examining, particularly from the road safety aspects, which is the main driver in all of this from where I stand - there may be a bit of inconvenience with the end result, but road safety is paramount in my mind and, I am sure, in most members’ minds, and it will be a road safety solution that comes along afterwards - but the purposes of today’s debate I do believe we can actually make a decision on the first part of what is a situation which obviously has a knock-on effect elsewhere. The President: Hon. member for Council, Mrs Christian. Mrs Christian: Thank you, Mr President. I do support the resolution before us today and recognise that there has been long-term planning in terms of link road requirement around Douglas, we have, as is acknowledged, considerably increased levels of traffic today and many of our roads were never built for that sort of traffic movement. However, we are carrying out considerable numbers of major works to very high standards, and I would perhaps make a plea to the department that in the future they would give some consideration - and I know they are on limited budgets - to the timing and the balance between major road works and routine maintenance (The Speaker: Good.) because I would have to endorse some of the comments of our hon. colleague, Mr Karran, in the sense that some rural roads now are in themselves presenting road safety issues in that people are driven by the potholes alongside to drive down the middle, reducing narrow roads to effectively one-way roads with traffic going in two directions, even to the stage where we have potholes with flags marking them now in rural areas, and I do think that perhaps we are focusing very much on the major road works to the detriment of road safety in rural areas. I know the hon. minister has budgetary controls and has major problems to deal with in all these areas, but I would make a plea perhaps that a review be carried out in relation to the timetabling of some maintenance on our other roads. The President: Hon. member for Glenfaba, Mr Anderson. Mr Anderson: Thank you, Mr President. I will be brief - the definition of the word ‘brief’ I must look up when I go home; it seems to be different than what I think. I just wondered, could the minister in winding up confirm that this road-widening scheme has no detrimental effect on the environment and that any future road-widening scheme by his department takes into account the impact it has on the environment? I was present at his department’s presentation, but there were two or three questioners that were quite animated and I gave them the benefit of having the floor that day. But when winding up would you just confirm that in this scheme and future schemes that his department might have to be thinking of, you will take into consideration the environmental issues? Thank you. The President: Hon. member for Douglas East, Mr Braidwood. Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr President. Yesterday the hon. member for Rushen, Mrs Crowe, mentioned that the consumption of kippers was a replacement for iodine tablets. A Member: Too big! Mr Braidwood: Today we have got the herrings. As the hon. member for Peel said, the red ones. The Speaker: Absolutely. Mr Braidwood: I thought the presentation by the Minister for Transport was quite straightforward and people have interpreted that completely differently. He said he would be coming back for a road closure order. He said he is in talks with the Minister for Education. We are talking about the road widening of Road Island from the roundabout down past to Kewaigue. The hon. member for North Douglas, Mr Houghton: ‘the roundabout is going to be altered.’ The roundabout is going to be the same. Mr Houghton: Is it? Mr Braidwood: The size of the roundabout will be the same. Mr Houghton: That will be interesting. A Member: You could put a bungalow on there. Mr Braidwood: It was made that size, as the hon. member for Ayre mentioned and other members have; it is the whole link road. All we are modifying at the roundabout is to ameliorate the traffic flows so the traffic flows will move a lot easier, so that there will not be a back-up of traffic down to the nurseries; there will be a flow of traffic down to Kewaigue and a flow of traffic off to Spring Valley and a flow of traffic down to Quarterbridge. So, as far as I can see, I cannot see any problem. I will be supporting the motion that is in front of us, Mr President, and as far as I go the presentation was quite straightforward. The President: Mr Speaker. The Speaker: Thank you, Mr President. I am really on my feet to respond to the comments of the hon. member for Douglas North, Mr Houghton, who clearly has made comment without knowing facts and those comments, of course, are pointing the finger at what he sees as arrogance, wrongdoing, nasty lads and so on. Mr Houghton: No, just arrogance. The Speaker: Well, maybe the hon. member should consider that carefully. What I think, Mr President - Mrs Hannan: It is arrogance. The Speaker: - is quite clearly that the record needs to be put straight. The hon. member said that the Department of Transport would not assist with the works in relation to the incinerator - Mr Houghton: And I stand by that. The Speaker: - but what the hon. member did not say is why they would not assist, and it is quite a straightforward issue. The Department of Transport, which was progressing, and still is, more capital schemes than any other department, did not have the design resource within the department to actually provide a dedicated officer for that work, and what the department said - and did - was that it would assist where it could, and certainly the Director of Highways was involved in providing advice to the consultants on a regular basis and I can say quite clearly as the past minister that it was always more desirable, if at all possible, for the department to actually design the scheme itself than have consultants, but the point is that it cannot do everything, and it did not have the resource within what is a relatively small Design Department and therefore it was not that it did not want to; it just did not have the capability due to staffing. Now, the hon. member also went on about the situation along the nunnery road, the new road that has been constructed there, and while I understand the points being made now, because they are relatively new points being made (Interjection by Mr Houghton) because people are witnessing problems in terms of people suddenly stopping to talk on the phone, and what is a relatively new law in the Isle of Man - and people are therefore pulling in to talk - it has been raised recently, and when I say ‘recently’, within the last 12 months, I think, is the most it was, that people said, ‘Wouldn’t it be an idea to provide some areas to the side of the road where people could pull in?’ and as far as I know - and I think it was raised with the highway side - it is an issue they are going to have to come to terms with and where there are possibilities to do that, they may well do that. But what I would warn against, which the hon. member indicated, is going back to what I call the bad old days - the bad old days of thinking that the answer to highways is concrete and tarmac. That is not the way forward, and certainly in my time at the department I made absolutely sure that we invested in stonework, in block paving where necessary, in landscaping to enhance the countryside where we were putting roads in, and that has been done in many areas. I would hate us to go back to a scheme where we build concrete walls, build brick walls and so on. So I just make that point, because you could interpret part of what the member said as being a way forward. I would say, Mr President, as far as the issue of the bottom of Richmond Hill is concerned, I was involved in that as minister so I think it is right for me to respond to that. My department had an approach from the DLGE who had potentially serious implications for the operation of the incinerator, in that a planning condition was that there had to be an improvement to the traffic flows from the incinerator, and that included strimming back the hedge to make visibility splays available coming out of the incinerator, which meant widening that road there quite a bit; it also meant the provision of major improvements at the bottom of Richmond Hill, and that was suggested to be a roundabout. Now, we can build a roundabout there, but I have to say to hon. members, my understanding. . . and I do not know if the minister has an update and I do not really want to steal too much from him, but I was there at the time, so I need to, I think respond to the point that was made as to why we got to where we got. The provision of a roundabout at the bottom of Richmond Hill is likely to cost something between £1/2 million and £1 million. There would be a requirement to buy land; there would be a requirement to pull down a substantial amount of trees on the left-hand side as you come down Richmond Hill; there would be a requirement to pull down trees on the right-hand side at the junction, and the department discussed this in detail with the DLGE because of the concerns of the implications of that roundabout and that by progressing with the roundabout at some stage, time was a problem for the operation of the incinerator. So we looked at logical ways forward on that and, as the minister has said, no final decision has been made, except that one idea that was suggested, the favoured idea because of the implications, is to restrict traffic through at the bottom of that junction. Now, the hon. member for Council, Mr Lowey, said, ‘Why isn’t there a problem with the Isle of Man Farmers? Why is there not a problem there if there is a problem at Richmond? There is another difference at the bottom of Richmond and that is the traffic coming off the junction going up Richmond Hill (Mrs Crowe: Absolutely.) and that is the major problem because of the traffic speeding down, coming out of Douglas and the amount of near misses and accidents that are caused by that. So it is not just one issue; there are a number of issues. But Mr President, let me make it clear: we can build a roundabout at the bottom of Richmond Hill, but you are likely to spend £1 million. That is fine, Tynwald can make that decision. It is one of the factors to be considered. I come from the south. I do not think it is wonderful that we may restrict access at the bottom of Richmond Hill, because I am a lazy driver, I love the short cut. Mr Henderson: Everyone does. The Speaker: But, to be honest, when you have got the responsibility you have to consider all the options available to you, and that is really something that I just wanted to clear. The decision and discussions in relation to what to do at the bottom of Richmond were held, and I have it in my diary here, it was an approach by the Minister from DLGE and there were two meetings, I think, with myself and him and officers and it was held in either September or October of last year, and we tried to find a way forward to ensure that the incinerator that Tynwald had determined should be built could open on time when the incinerator itself was being progressed. Now, that is a separate issue, because whatever you do on the Road Island road is separate, because the Road Island road needs improvement. The Road Island road is dangerous. There is no pedestrian footpath. You do have people walk on that road. At peak times you have cars passing each other, again at speed. I have to say, Mr President, we are all guilty of it, we all speed. I bet there is not one of us who does not go over 30 miles an hour in a 30 mile-an-hour speed limit, unless you are walking. Everybody tends to go over the limit. Now, it is a habit that people have and it is something we try to avoid doing, but there are other people who speed at speeds that are way over speed limits and cause dangers, and the views of the hon. member for Ramsey, Mr Singer, about these new signs and the point of bringing enforcement there earlier on, I think, is extremely valid, because that is an important issue. I think they will be a valuable asset to help and assist road safety near schools if enforcement is undertaken effectively there. So the point is, Mr President, the scheme for Road Island needs to go ahead. The scheme for all of this has been in the public arena 10 years anyway, as far as I know. Road Island was part of the red route that was going round the back of it. The residents of Douglas and the members of Douglas in this hon. Court over the years have said, ‘Reduce the impact of traffic on our town,’ and this is the way you can reduce the impact. The sad thing is you have to phase the work financially so that you can get it done. It has been through the planning process. The scheme is a good one. It will assist. There is more to come, and I believe that safety will be enhanced near the Kewaigue School because, by improving the whole infrastructure and the precautions that are being brought in, that will help, but the hon. member for Peel was quite right - there is also a responsibility on parents, and the parents do pull up at the schools and some would, all over the Island, stay there a lot longer than maybe is necessary, because what they find is that it is actually a place where they can meet people and they have a talk and they socialise. So there is another problem there. Anyway, Mr President, I hope members will support the scheme. Mr Houghton: A point of order, Mr President. The President: Yes, sir. Mr Houghton: The hon. member, Mr Braidwood, made a mention about me throwing in red herrings in particular regard to the roundabout at Fort North. May I read out this point in the circular that everybody has, ‘Item 3, discussion, second paragraph down, the road closure option and the use of the amended Spring Valley roundabout and widened road meet all the safety and capacity requirements.’ The President: I take the point you make, sir. Mr Houghton: It did not mention the roundabout, sir. Thank you. The President: The minister to reply to the debate. Mr Shimmin: Thank you, Mr President. I would like to thank all members. I realised we were going to have a number of conversations on this matter and I am grateful for not having the adjournment. I would like firstly to thank Mr Quayle, member for Middle, for his support and, I think, the very sensible approach he has taken with this (Mr Cretney: Hear, hear.) and the confidence he gives in the comments that I have made. The two are not inexplicably linked. We are voting for Road Island today. I do confirm that any vote today is not guaranteeing the closure of Kewaigue. The issue is one where the department is attempting now to make everybody aware that this is our preferred option and we will have to come back and justify it. However, the Chief Minister did allude to it. I do not need to, and I think I mentioned this once in answer to the question. It is not an extinguishment. There is no legal requirement upon me to come back here and ask whether we have the closure at the bottom of Richmond Hill. I would resign the following day, but if there is no legal requirement, it is not an extinguishment, therefore it is within the power of the minister to actually have a closure at that point provided there is still access. So we are doing that because we genuinely need and want the support, not just of this Court, but of the public. Throughout the time that this work is being done, traffic will have to go down through that junction and, as the member for Peel, Mrs Hannan, pointed out, there will be a requirement for safety issues at that point. We, as a department, are saying it is a dangerous junction; we are therefore obligated and it makes sense to actually make sure that there is preparatory work put in place for the duration of this contract. It is quite conceivable that when the public see the enhancement of the roundabout they will actually view that that is their preferred route in and, in clarifying that point for the member for North Douglas, yes, the amended roundabout area, but it is the junction, not the physical roundabout in the centre. In order to achieve the extra lanes that would be required for better movements in all four directions, there will be land taken, and that has all been approved and land has been purchased or gifted; that means that we will be able to get junction improvements so the roads will be able to filter more easily to where they wish to go. It is not the physical shape of the roundabout in the centre which is going to be amended. Mr Quayle went on to talk about public meetings and consultation. All hon. members are aware that consultation is an imprecise science. Those people who do not want the change will oppose it and those who do will not turn up and therefore consultation often becomes a fairly negative scheme. We are attempting to improve communication with commissioners. At the meeting that we had there were, I believe, over 20 people there representing the local authorities in the area; I was surprised there was so many able to attend on that occasion. There are issues about the road users that Mr Lowey mentions and there are issues raised by Mr Waft formally at another place that we would talk about, whether there would be a transport users group of somebody. It is very difficult. You tend to have very strong-minded people with a single-minded view point and the department ultimately has the responsibility for all the public of the Island and the consultation that can take place at times - we have to say, ‘I am sorry, but this is in the greater good.’ On this issue I have clearly said, and I think there is general support, that Road Island is in the general good. The issue about Mr Quayle’s involvement with this is fine. Any involvement he had has not changed anything which I have done. The arrangements to see Mr Stephens, the headmaster, are of my own volition rather than being pushed into it. That is something which I have taken on my own efforts. Regarding Mr Henderson, I must express disappointment. He has used terms such as ‘over the top,’ ‘double Rolls-Royce scheme’, ‘better ways to do this’, ‘held to ransom’, ‘hit over the head,’ ‘unfair’, ‘tailored better’ and - (Laughter) Mr Henderson: I am used to dealing with you! (Laughter) Mr Shimmin: Well, I hope he is beginning to get used to dealing with me. I will attempt to say - and be held to what I say: neither he nor I are experts in this field, and historically people have criticised schemes which have then worked or they felt the scheme was good and it did not work. We will always make mistakes. The expert view on this is one which we believe will benefit the people of the Isle of Man, otherwise I would not be standing here so strongly supporting it. Referring to the member for Malew and Santon, Mr Gelling, a number of issues he has raised with me before and many of them we do either already acknowledge or will continue to consider. The speed down to Richmond Hill, the junction, if there is no right turn, is an issue. Speeding is an issue everywhere. Bad driving is an issue everywhere on the Isle of Man. There are black spots around and we are trying to deal with them, but it is not easy when people choose to drive in a reckless manner. But the same issue then applies to the roundabout referred to by Mr Speaker, that it is bad road safety advice and practice to have a roundabout at the bottom of hills approaching from two directions or one direction, because that is where you get a number of shunt accidents as vehicles approach too quickly, but certainly the speed on old Castletown Road and going down to the bottom of the Kewaigue Hill we are aware of, alive to, and we will have to do measures which we hope will reduce risks. Mr Duggan, member for South Douglas, talked about rushing things through. I think the only issue that is rushed on this was the question from the hon. member for Council, Mr Lowey, which brought to light the issue of Kewaigue, and I think I have dealt with that. I am grateful to other contributors, especially my colleague in the Council, Mr Rodan, for Garff, regarding consultation. It is one which we acknowledge, causes concern and we will attempt to resolve it. May I make it clear before you do vote today, I cannot guarantee that we will find a resolution which will satisfy everybody. All I can guarantee is the two departments will work as closely as we can with Douglas Corporation to find a satisfactory resolution. The issue regarding the member for Onchan, Mr Karran, regarding the closure - I think I covered that we do not need to come back to Tynwald, but it would be foolish not to do so. I should point out to those getting jumpy over my previous comments, I cannot guarantee it, but we will move every effort to ensure that we do find a resolution. Main issues then, I think, were regarding the comments from Mr Singer, for Ramsey. I appreciate his comments. Certainly the roundabout has been touched on a number of times. I think the Speaker made it quite clear that the purchase of land and the planning implications of a roundabout at the junction at the bottom of Kewaigue Hill would be possibly unlikely ever to be deliverable. You would be totally devastating in environmental terms that whole area, which refers to the comments from Mr Anderson. We will take our issues environmentally seriously and, Mr Speaker - and I can confirm from his time and mine - we would consider and possibly welcome a roundabout at that junction if engineering-wise we could get it safe, but the environmental impact in that area would be considerable. I think, regarding Mr Singer’s comments on the 20-mile-an hour, he is quite right: it is inexcusable that it is not programmed so that it does not come on at inappropriate times either during holidays or weekends, and I shall investigate that to try and find out. I think it was the member for South Douglas, Mr Cretney, who referred to the possibility of speed cameras in this area. Once the site lines are possible the department will consider that as being an area, because everything the department does is attempting to try and have an impetus behind safety, and obviously schools are areas that draw the greatest level of concern regarding the safety of our children. It seems to be a pattern in North Douglas that the member, Mr Houghton, for North Douglas again has a history with the department which he is concerned about. I think that much of that was answered by the previous minister, but I would hope to engage with all hon. members in a reasonable level of dialogue (Mr Houghton: Hear, hear.) and certainly, when referring to Rolls-Royce schemes and the cost of this, I would ask hon. members, not just in North Douglas, to bear that in mind when schemes come up in your own areas. The maximum benefit to the people of the Isle of Man has to be our priority. The member for Council, Mrs Christian, and I think another member referred to prioritising. I would remind hon. members of the comment I made yesterday when moving the expenses debate, item 12: last year we had an overspend of £778,000 due to storm damage and emergency works. The division, under the chair of Mr Quine, is looking at exactly those points raised, I think by Mr Karran and by Mrs Christian, regarding how we spend our money wisely, and it was started in the previous department, to ensure that the work that we have done is done in a timely manner to get the maximum lifetime and value for money, but we will never have enough and we will have to respond to emergencies, and inevitably that cuts back on work that we can do on maintenance. I raise these issues really for clarity for those members who have raised them rather than specifically on this Road Island motion today. We do have to get a balance between reciprocal repair work, emergency repair work, maintenance and major programmed work. Much work has already gone on with Mr Quine and he will be coming back to the department in the summer with an attempt to try and rationalise to ensure that we are getting a fair balance of the budget allocated within his division. Mr President, as you know, I could go on. I apologise if I have missed anybody’s specific issues. We have taken on board the comments. I have made notes. We will be referring to Hansard. I thank you for your time. I beg to move. The President: Hon. members, the motion therefore that I put to you is printed at 14 on the order paper. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Mr Henderson: Unanimous. Legislature – Expenses – Excess Expenditure Approved Item 15. The Chairman of the Tynwald Management Committee (Mr Speaker) to move: That Tynwald authorises the Treasury, in respect of the year ended 31st March 2002, to apply from general revenue the sum of £196,350 in payment of excess expenditure by the expenses of the legislature. The President: I call on the Chairman of the Tynwald Management Committee, Mr Speaker, to move. The Speaker: Thank you, Mr President. During the financial year 2001-2002 the financial provision made in the 2001 budget was overspent by £196,350, bringing the actual expenditure up to £2,830,349.96. A memorandum has been circulated to hon. members detailing the areas where, and the reasons why, there has been an overspend. I can say as Chairman of the Tynwald Management Committee, a rôle I took up on my election as Speaker in November 2001, I have indicated my concern regarding the financial provision being made for the financing of the legislature. I have to advise that there will be a substantial overspend, or there is likely to be one, for the financial year 2002-2003, mainly in relation to extra expenses involved with this year’s Tynwald. I can assure hon. members that it is my intention to secure a realistic budget, along with my committee, for the legislature, so as to avoid as much as possible an overspend as we have seen today and to enable the office of the legislature and the services to hon. members to be properly provided for in the future. Mr President, I beg to move the motion standing in my name. The President: Hon. member for Douglas North, Mr Henderson. Mr Henderson: Thank you, Mr President. I beg to second, sir, and reserve my remarks. The President: Hon. member for Onchan, Mr Karran. Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I would like to say that I congratulate the amount of hard work that goes into the preparation of Tynwald Day, but I am concerned - and I think this is one good thing that has highlighted this vote today - that Tynwald Day is a parliamentary occasion. Some of us have worked very hard to get Tynwald Day to represent the Manx national day from when we were first in and we had about three British national anthems and the Manx national anthem was sort of an afterthought, and we have worked tremendously hard on that point and that is to be congratulated, but it is a parliamentary occasion and I shall be writing to you at a later date, Eaghtyrane; we do not want to see a situation where we gradually wean out and we have not got maybe totally yet as far as the Tynwald, the national parliamentary occasion that it is. We might not have got rid of all our colonisers, but I do not want it replaced by cronyism and the fact that the parliamentary day is the parliamentary day. I am glad to see this item down here as part of the Arrangements Committee, a parliamentary committee. I believe that members’ national day is a day when we are all recognised for our parliamentary membership of this hon. Court, not for anything else, and we are not having first and second division members of this hon. Court. We had first and second divisions years ago between the colonisers and the locals, and I do not want to see that. I am happy to support this proposal today and that is the only issue that I want to raise, to highlight that it is a parliamentary occasion, not an executive occasion, and it must not be allowed to be dragged into that situation, and I will be writing to you on the subject. The President: Hon. member for Council, Mrs Christian. Mrs Christian: Mr President, I support the resolution and, just briefly in relation to Tynwald Day, I would endorse what the hon. member has said and many steps have been taken to enhance the surroundings of Tynwald Hill for that day. (A Member: Hear, hear.) In particular it is pleasing to see flags flying from Ballacraine to the site of Tynwald Hill, but what is most disappointing is that if you go back down that road after midday they have all been taken down. I mean, this is absolutely ridiculous that they cannot be left up for the whole of the day. (Mr Henderson: Hear, hear.) Mr President, if it means a little bit extra expenditure in terms of overtime, as it has been suggested to me, then let us pay it. The President: Mr Speaker. The Speaker: Yes, thank you, Mr President. Again just two comments, really. Certainly I have never in my time, seen Tynwald Day be anything but a parliamentary day, and it is certainly under the control of the parliament because certainly the President and the Speaker are on the committee that organise it and I think that the views of the President are well known, as are mine, in terms of Tynwald being first and foremost there for the parliament, but of course the executive is part of that structure, but I do not think there is any problem in progressing further. As far as the point raised by the hon. member for Council, Mrs Christian, I think the best I can say is that myself, the Chief Minister and, I think, Mrs Crowe are certainly new members to this committee, although I was on it many years ago, and we have already been endeavouring - when I say we, the committee - to get a meeting as soon as possible to consider how the whole day went and also the week, I suppose, but also issues like why the flags are taken down straightaway. Quite clearly, as Tynwald has developed into more of an occasion round Tynwald Hill, which was not necessarily the case some years ago, it may well be that we need to just update procedures and make sure that we keep the ambiance and the atmosphere and the importance of our day reflected in that area. I am sure it is something the committee will take on board very gladly. I beg to move, Mr President. The President: The motion, hon. members, I place before the Court is printed at 15 on your order paper. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. European Communities (Money Laundering Directive) (Application) Order 2002 – Approved Item 16. The Chief Minister to move: That the European Communities (Money Laundering Directive) (Application) Order 2002 be approved. The President: I call on the Chief Minister to move. Mr Corkill: Thank you, Mr President. As hon. members will be aware, since the events of September 11th last year there has been greatly increased awareness of the need not only to do everything possible to prevent acts of terrorism but also to prevent those illegal activities which help finance the activities of the terrorists. Evidence suggests that terrorists and other criminals have used Exchange Bureau and other money service businesses to launder money, and the Financial Action Task Force, FATF as we know it, has recommended controls on such businesses as part of measures to combat terrorist financing. On the Isle of Man Bureaux de Change are already subject to anti-money laundering legislation. However, to date and unlike other businesses such as banks and insurance companies, they have not been regulated. The United Kingdom’s regulatory r≥gime for money service businesses will come into full effect on the 15th of this month. It is the wish of the Isle of Man Government that a similar scheme be put in place on the Island as soon as possible. In order to introduce a regulatory r≥gime on the Island in a timely manner, it is proposed that the European Communities (Isle of Man) Act 1973 be used to apply the first EC money- laundering directive in respect of money service businesses in Island law. The draft order before the Court today has the effect of applying the directive, modified as required, on the Island. In accordance with section 2A of the European Communities (Isle of Man) Act 1973, the draft order was laid before this hon. Court at the June sitting for information and it is now before the Court for approval. Subject, of course, to the Court’s approval the order will be made and come into operation on August 1st. It is intended that regulations requiring money service businesses to be registered, introducing regulatory powers and setting penalties will be made and come into effect shortly thereafter. Mr President, money service business is a very small part of business life on the Island and it is not as open to abuse as the industry is in the United Kingdom. However, without a regulatory r≥gime, money service businesses could seek to relocate to the Island to avoid the controls in place in other jurisdictions. Regulation enables the Island to demonstrate its commitment to preventing the use of its businesses by terrorists and other criminals, and I would therefore ask this hon. Court to support this motion. I beg to move. Mr Bell: I beg to second and reserve my remarks. The President: Hon. member for Ramsey, Mr Bell, seconds. Hon. member for Douglas South, Mr Duggan. Mr Duggan: Thank you, Mr President. Can I ask the Chief Minister, sir, is there anything can be done about people who have actually laundered money in the past and are living on the Island at present? The President: Hon. member for Onchan, Mr Karran. Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I would just like the Chief Minister to explain the actual procedure of scrutiny of European legislation and the issue of whether this parliament should be maybe doing something separately, because it is complex and it is difficult. I would just like to know, what are the procedures for the scrutiny of these European directives before they come in? I have no problem with the order, but I would just like to know what the executive does and whether we should be doing something parliamentary as far as these orders coming from the EC are concerned? The President: Hon. member for Ayre. Mr Quine: Yes, I was just going to mention, sir, that going back about four, five years now this hon. Court approved a motion to effect that the scrutiny of EU legislation, secondary and all the rest of it, should be a responsibility for the Public Accounts Committee. That went to the Council of Ministers who reported back on that and then became a debate on the matter of personnel-capping and it was set aside on the basis that it would be wrong to make available additional staff to do it. Now, that policy is still there. That freeze on implementing that policy has never been attended to, sir. The President: Chief Minister. Mr Corkill: I thank hon. members for their support. This is an important order because certainly we are very keen internationally to ensure that the Isle of Man does not lay itself open to be used as some backdoor way around other jurisdictions problems and we have to play our part, I believe. So I thank hon. members for their support. The hon. member Mr Duggan alluded to previous money-laundering offences by residents who may be on the Island. Well, certainly that is a matter for police involvement if there is a current issue that needs addressing and there is the normal procedure for informing police with regard to that situation. If it is a past offence that someone may well have been to Court over and penalties been adjudicated in law, then that would be the end of it in terms of, I suppose, any other offences if people have served their sentence, as it were, but certainly if there is a current issue, there is a procedure, we have a financial crimes unit in place which can act on intelligence and evidence provided to it. So I would raise that issue. If there are any individuals that come to members’ minds they ought to do what any good citizen should do and inform the law. With regard to hon. member Mr Karran, the scrutiny of EU law and the aspect of how this is dealt with, what happened last month was that a draft order was placed before this Court and that is what the legislation compels the government to do: to lay before the June sitting a draft order, which is just that: it is a draft order. It is only at this sitting that we actually action that aspect, and so it allows scrutiny for a two-month period by hon. members of this Court. This leads us on to the hon. member Mr Quine for Ayre’s comments about the policy issue to do with public accounts. I have not sufficient briefing with me today, Mr President, but certainly I will follow up on what he has said with regard to the resources issues. That does seem to ring a bell; having said that, I need to be better briefed before I can actually respond to his points, but I have noted what he said, Mr President. I beg to move. The President: Hon. members, the motion is that the European Communities (Money Laundering Directive) (Application) Order 2002 be approved, printed at 16, hon. members. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Announcement of Royal Assent The President: Hon. members, as I indicated yesterday, the Barclays Private Clients International Act 2002 had been signed by a quorum of both branches. I am pleased to announce, hon. members, that it has now received the Royal Assent. Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (Application) (Amendment) (No.2) Order 2002 – Approved Item 17. The Minister for Health and Social Security to move: That the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (Application) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2002 [SD No 372/02] be approved. The President: Minister for Health and social Security to move. Mrs Christian: Mr President, this order amends the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 as it has effect in the Island. It clarifies within the Act that persons must either be an Isle of Man worker, as that term is defined in the Act, or satisfy an alternative residential condition before they qualify for family income supplement in addition to fulfilling the benefit’s other qualifying conditions. This is not new, but what is new is that it introduces the power to make a judgement where the adjudication officer considers that denial of benefit because the Isle of Man worker requirement is not satisfied would cause exceptional hardship, which I would suggest to hon. members is an improvement in the regulation. I beg to move. The President: Hon. member for Onchan, Mr Earnshaw. Mr Earnshaw: Thank you, Mr President, I beg to second and reserve my remarks. The President: The motion, hon. members, is that printed at 17 on the order paper. Those in favour please say aye; against no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Social Security Administration Act 1992 (Application) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2002 – Approved Item 18. The Minister for Health and Social Security to move: That the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (Application) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2002 [SD No 373/02] be approved. The President: Mrs Christian, please. Mrs Christian: Mr President, this order amends the Social Security Administration Act 1992 as it has effect in the Island, merely so as to update a number of references appearing within the text. It has no consequential effects for any benefits. I beg to move. The President: Hon. member, Mr Earnshaw. Mr Earnshaw: Thank you, Mr President, I beg to second. The President: The motion, hon. members, is printed at 18. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Social Security Legislation (Application) (No. 8) Order 2002 – Approved Item 19. The Minister for Health and Social Security to move: That the Social Security Legislation (Application) (No. 8) Order 2002 [SD No 374/02] be approved. The President: Mrs Christian, Minister for Health and Social Security. Mrs Christian: Mr President, this applies to the Island two statutory instruments of the UK Parliament relating to national insurance contributions. They consolidate the provisions of Social Security Contributions Regulations 1979 as those regulations stood after considerable amendment since they were made over 20 years ago. I beg to move. The President: Mr Earnshaw. Mr Earnshaw: Mr President, I beg to second and reserve my remarks. The President: The motion, hon. members, is printed at 19. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Social Security Legislation (Application) (No. 9) Order 2002 – Approved Item 20. The Minister for Health and Social Security to move: That the Social Security Legislation (Application) (No. 9) Order 2002 [SD No 375/02] be approved. The President: Again I will call on the Minister for Health and Social Security to move. Mrs Christian: Mr President, this order applies to the Island three statutory instruments of the UK Parliament relating to social security benefits. They provide amongst other things for persons who were previously entitled to the higher rate of an incapacity-related benefit who leave the benefit in order to take up work to be able to requalify for that same higher rate of benefit if they reclaim it within a year. They provide for clarification of the qualifying conditions for the lower rate of the mobility component of disability living allowance and for pensions payable to war widowers not to affect the recipient’s entitlement to an income-based job seeker’s allowance. I beg to move. The President: Hon. member for Rushen, hon. member, Mr Earnshaw. Mr Earnshaw: Thank you, Mr President. I beg to second. The President: Mr Gill. Mr Gill: Thank you, Eaghtyrane. Yes, I rise, really, to seek clarification and reassurance from the minister in regard to this. Firstly, clarification about the department’s understanding of the term ‘welfare to work’ and, further to that, the reassurance that the introduction of this scheme will not lead to any further tightening of entitlement criteria or indeed previously eligible beneficiaries will find themselves without the support that they need. The term ‘welfare to work’ has many unpleasant connotations. In the United States it has been a euphemism for a right-wing policy that has polarised the division between the have’s and the have-nots. So in the terminology of social welfare provision, ‘welfare to work’ has a worrying resonance and a history of mean-spirited blame culture with the outcome of an increase in social division and an increase in genuine needs becoming unmet. Perhaps not surprisingly ‘work to welfare’ and ‘welfare to work’ - the terminology is interchangeable - has lastly been embraced as an integral part of the UK Labour government’s new deal, and this of course has a direct relevance to this jurisdiction as we share the reciprocal arrangements with the UK. So it is therefore of concern to me that there may be - and I say ‘may be’ - a risk to our social security beneficiaries having their legitimate needs put at risk by either a deliberate adoption of the US style ‘welfare to work’ principles or by the unquestioning adherence to the administrative convenience of the Manx/UK reciprocal agreement. I do not suggest for a moment that the minister has any sort of agenda to deliberately cause hardship for our social security beneficiaries. I really do not believe the minister or the social security division have any intention of unfairly disadvantaging local claimants and beneficiaries, those people who depend on support provided by the state. Of course we should continue to encourage support and enable the unemployed to find employment. Now, we already do this and I am sure we would all wish this to continue but, as I stated earlier, I do seek clarification and reassurance from the minister: clarification that these specific proposals will not disadvantage claimants, and reassurance that this proposal, with its ‘welfare to work’ element, will not commit this jurisdiction to the dubious principles of like-named schemes elsewhere. Thank you, Eaghtyrane. The President: Hon. member for Council, Mr Lowey. Mr Lowey: Yes, I can understand where my hon. friend from Rushen comes from, having been there and that was my first reaction too, but I hope the minister will be able to confirm that under the present system people who would like to go, or try to go, back to work are unable to go back to work, in my view, because they would be penalised if they break the system. I hope the minister will be able to confirm that our approach, the Isle of Man’s approach, will be to allow them to try it, but if it does not work they come back, there is not a break in the thing, and they do not go back to square one. I hope that is the reasoning that has produced this paper today by the minister. The President: Minister to reply. Mrs Christian: Yes, thank you, Mr President. I am happy to put both hon. members’ minds at rest in respect of the phraseology ‘welfare to work.’ I understand the hon. member for Rushen’s concern; it may have connotations which are not attractive to him. However, we only use this phraseology because it is a part of the title of the United Kingdom regulations, Social Security (Welfare to Work) Regulations 1998, which we are adapting to the Island. Now, we do not always take on board everything in those regulations, but I can assure you that in respect of what we are adopting in the Island the effect is as the hon. member for Council has illustrated. What it will do is allow beneficiaries of incapacity benefit, who have been long-term incapacitated and who feel they would wish to try work, to do so. If it does not work, they can revert to their incapacity benefit at the higher rate. They no longer have to start from square one again and build up over a period of months to the higher rate. So it is an improvement in the benefit rules. It does not, however, apply to people, for example, who have been long-term incapacitated but are deemed to be well. For example, if I have a severe break of my leg and it takes a long time to repair, but then I am deemed to be fit again, this rule would not apply. However, if I perhaps have a mental illness which gives me a difficulty in terms of work, but perhaps medical advice is, ‘Well, go along and try it’ and it does not work and the stresses are too great, then I can revert to the higher level of benefit. So I hope with that assurance members will support the resolution. The President: The motion, hon. members, is printed at 20 on your order paper. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Family Income Supplement (General) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2002 – Approved Item 21. The Minister for Health and Social Security to move: That the Family Income Supplement (General) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2002 [SD No 376/02] be approved. The President: Again Mrs Christian to move, please. Mrs Christian: Mr President, these regulations are concerned with amendments to the Family Income Supplement (General) Regulations and in the main amend the provisions dealing with the disregard of capital in the calculation of the benefit. In particular, they provide for the disregard of the capital value of a house which the claimant intends to occupy but does not currently occupy as he or his partner live in job-related accommodation. Provision is also included to disregard payments made in connection with variant Creutzfeld-Jakob disease, victims of violence perpetrated by terrorists and compensation in consequence of imprisonment by the Japanese during the Second World War. I beg to move. The President: Mr Earnshaw. Mr Earnshaw: Thank you, Mr President, I beg to second and reserve my remarks. The President: The motion, hon. members, is printed at 21 on the order paper. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Income Support (General) (Isle of Man) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2002 – Approved Item 22. The Minister for Health and Social Security to move: That the Income Support (General) (Isle of Man) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2002 [SD No 377/02] be approved. The President: Minister for Health and Social Security to move. Mrs Christian: Mr President, these regulations make a number of miscellaneous amendments to the Income Support (General) (Isle of Man) Regulations 2000. They provide for, amongst other things, those lone parents, persons incapacitated from work and carers who were in receipt of an income support premium at a higher rate because they had been receiving the benefit by virtue of their situation for over a year, to leave benefit in order to take up work, to be able to requalify for that higher premium if they reclaim it within a year. This is an echo, Mr President, of the earlier provisions. I beg to move. The President: Hon. member for Onchan. Mr Earnshaw: Thank you, Mr President, I beg to second and reserve my remarks. The President: The motion, hon. members, is printed at 22. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Isle of Man War Pensions Committee Regulations 2002 – Approved Item 23. The Minister for Health and Social Security to move: That the Isle of Man War Pensions Committee Regulations 2002 [SD No 378/02] b e approved. The President: Minister for Health and Social Security to move. Mrs Christian: Mr President, this particular set of regulations has been produced by my department at the request of and following consultation between the Isle of Man War Pensions Committee and the Council of Ministers. They update and consolidate the existing regulations relating to the appointment and procedures of the War Pensions Committee. I beg to move. The President: Hon. member for Onchan, Mr Earnshaw. Mr Earnshaw: Thank you, Mr President, I beg to second and reserve my remarks. The President: The motion, hon. members, is printed at 23. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Retirement Pension (Premium) Scheme 2002 – Approved Item 24. The Minister for Health and Social Security to move: That the Retirement Pension (Premium) Scheme 2002 [GC No 25/02] be approved. The President: Again I call on Mrs Christian, Minister for Health and Social Security, to move. Mrs Christian: Mr President, the Retirement Pension (Premium) Scheme 2002 replaces its predecessor by bringing into line the qualifying contribution conditions which must be satisfied for entitlement to retirement pension premium to arise with those in respect of a pension supplement, in particular so as to allow employed earners contributions and the earnings factors derived from them and the award of credits in circumstances to build up entitlement. There has been no alteration to entitlement conditions but the wording has been clarified. I beg to move, Mr President. The President: Hon. member for Onchan, Mr Earnshaw. Mr Earnshaw: Thank you, Mr President, I beg to second and reserve my remarks. The President: Hon. members, the motion I put to you is that at 24 on the order paper. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Criminal Justice Act 1990 (Designated Countries and Territories) (Amendment) Order 2002 – Approved Item 25. The Minister for Home Affairs to move: That the Criminal Justice Act 1990 (Designated Countries and Territories) (Amendment) Order 2002 [SD No 367/02] be approved. The President: Minister for Home Affairs. Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr President. This order is made under powers provided under section 19 of the Criminal Justice Act of 1990. The order amends the Criminal Justice Act 1990 (Designated Countries and Territories) Order 1996 to add the countries listed in the schedule of the order to the list of countries in schedule 1 to the 1996 order. It also designates the appropriate authority in respect of Ireland. I beg to move, Mr President. The President: Chief Minister. Mr Corkill: I beg to second and reserve my remarks, Mr President. The President: The motion I put to the Court is printed at 25. Those in favour please say aye; and against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Drug Trafficking (Designated Countries and Territories) (Amendment) Order 2002 – Approved Item 26. The Minister for Home Affairs to move: That the Drug Trafficking (Designated Countries and Territories) (Amendment) Order 2002 [SD No 368/02] be approved. The President: Again I call on the Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Braidwood, to move. Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr President. This order is made under powers provided under section 36 of the Drug Trafficking Act 1996. The order adds the countries listed in the schedule to the order to the list of countries designated for the purpose of the Drug Trafficking Act 1996 for the purposes of enforcement of confiscation orders. It also designates the appropriate authority in respect of Ireland and Portugal and defines when proceedings are to be treated as instituted in Trinidad and Tobago. I beg to move, Mr President. The President: Chief Minister. Mr Corkill: I beg to second and reserve my remarks. The President: The motion, hon. members, is that the Drug Trafficking (Designated Countries and Territories) (Amendment) Order 2002 be approved. Those in favour please say aye; and against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Water Supply Byelaws 2002 – Approved Item 27. The Minister for Trade and Industry to move: That the Water Supply Byelaws 2002 [SD No 222/02] be approved. The President: The Minister for Trade and Industry, hon. member, Mr Downie. Mr Downie: Thank you, Mr President. The Water Supply Byelaws 2002 are made under section 23 of the Water Act 1991 and they deal with the prevention of waste, misuse, undue consumption and contamination of public water supplies in domestic and commercial plumbing installations in order to protect public health and the environment. Subject to the approval of this hon. Court, they will replace the existing Water Supply Byelaws which came into operation on 1st January 1990. The new byelaws reflect changes recently introduced in the United Kingdom and other places which re-established industry standards for water fittings and recognised the fact that fittings to the standards currently in use on the Isle of Man are no longer manufactured. As stocks of these fittings diminished, it would become increasingly difficult, if not impossible, for plumbers and plumbers merchants to obtain fittings which complied with existing byelaws. The new byelaws will allow the use of fittings manufactured to the accepted international standards and which are readily available. In addition, the new byelaws will specifically facilitate improvements in the following areas: firstly, they introduced new specifications to prevent the back flow of water. This provision reflects the dangers posed to the public health by the potential toxicity of the downstream fluids contaminating drinking water. Secondly, new toilets with dual flush and flush valves will now be permitted with the resultant reduction of up to 20 per cent in the amount of water flushed being allowed. This will lead to an overall reduction in water consumption. The 2002 byelaws do not apply to certain water fittings in connection with the water supplied for non-domestic purposes or to water fittings lawfully installed before the coming into force of the new byelaws. Subject to the approval of this hon. Court it is intended that the Water Supply Byelaws 2002 will come into force with effect from 1st August 2002. Mr President, I beg to move the motion standing in my name. The President: Hon. member for Douglas East, Mrs Cannell. Mrs Cannell: Thank you, Mr President, I beg to second and reserve my remarks. The President: The motion, hon. members, I put to the Court is that the Water Supply Byelaws 2002 be approved. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. I think, hon. members, this is an appropriate time in which to adjourn. The Court will rise and re-sit at 2.30 p.m. hon. members. The Court adjourned at 1.00 p.m. and resumed its sitting at 2.30 p.m. Income Tax (Capital Relief) (Commercial Buildings Allowance) (Peel) Order 2002 – Approved Item 28. The Minister for the Treasury to move: That the Income Tax (Capital Relief) (Commercial Buildings Allowance) (Peel) Order 2002 [SD No 379/02] be approved. The President: Hon. members, we have reached item 28 on our order paper, and I call on the Minister for the Treasury to move. Mr Bell: Mr President, this order implements a further measure set out in the budget proposals which were approved by this hon. Court in March of this year. Since the budget, the designated area has been agreed with the elected representatives for Peel. The purpose is to assist the development of the area in Peel set out in the attached plan by modifying the existing capital allowance provisions for industrial buildings and extending it to include retail shops, showrooms and offices. Application for planning approval for construction of relevant buildings must be made before 6th April 2005. The construction work must take place between 6th April 2002 and 5th April 2007 and the payment made within the designated time. I believe this measure continues to show, in a tangible form, the government’s intention to facilitate sustainable economic growth in designated areas around the Island. Mr President, I beg to move. Mr Radcliffe: I beg to second, Mr President, and I hope this will give a lift - the required lift - to Peel. The President: Hon. member for Peel. Mrs Hannan: Thank you, Eaghtyrane. It is something that I have campaigned for since other areas have received this commercial development tax relief. So, I too would hope that this will lead to employment opportunities, businesses locating in Peel and commercial development within the whole of the area, and I would hope that this allowance will allow that to happen and it will also give an incentive to people to be directed to the Peel area. So, I certainly welcome this particular initiative by the Treasury, and I wish it well. The President: Do you wish to reply, Minister, or are you content? Mr Bell: No, I am happy to. . . The President: In that case, hon. members, I put the motion printed at 28. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Investment Business Order (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2002 – Approved Item 29. The Minister for the Treasury to move: That the Investment Business Order (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2002 [SD No 344/02] be approved. The President: The Minister for the Treasury to move item 29, please. Mr Bell: The Investment Business Act of 1991 empowers the Treasury to make orders for the purpose of licensing and regulating investment business activity in or from the Island. The Investment Business Order of 1991 excludes certain persons from requiring to be licensed by the Financial Supervision Commission. Excluded persons included those authorised or exempted by the Financial Services Authority in the United Kingdom. Following the introduction of the Financial Services and Markets Act of 2000 of Parliament, references in the Investment Business Order of 1991 to authorisations and exemptions under the Financial Services Act of 1986 require amendment to equivalent references under the Financial Services and Markets Act of 2000. The Investment Business Order of 1991 also requires amendment with respect to the Broadcasting Act of 1990 of Parliament and the Companies Acts of 1931 to 1986, which have been supplemented by the Companies Act of 1993. This is a minor amendment, Mr President. I beg to move. Mr Crowe: I beg to second and reserve my remarks, Mr President. The President: The motion, hon. members, is printed at 29 on the order paper. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Dual-Use Items (Export Control) (Application) (Amendment) Order 2002 – Approved Item 30. The Minister for the Treasury to move: That the Dual-Use Items (Export Control) (Application) (Amendment) Order 2002 [SD No 380/02] be approved. The President: Customs and Excise Act 1993: item number 30 on our order paper. Minister for the Treasury to move. Mr Bell: Mr President, this order amends the Dual-Use Items (Export Control) (Application) Order of 2002 and has the effect of applying Council Regulation No. 880/2002 of 27th May 2002 in Island law. The Dual-Use Items (Export Control) (Application) Order of 2002 applied several Community instruments and the UK enforcement regulations with modifications in the Island. The new Council regulation was recently adopted by the European Union and amends annex 4 of the principal Council regulation relaxing controls on certain items in that annex. Dual-use items are those which have both a civil and a military application. The Customs and Excise Agreement requires the Island to have similar export control prohibitions and restrictions to the United Kingdom. In the UK, the Community legislation has automatic effect; the order before the Court today ensures that the Island has an equivalent provision in operation. Again, Mr President, this is a minor amendment, and I beg to move. Mr Radcliffe: I beg to second, sir. The President: The motion I put to you, hon. members, is printed at 30 on the order paper. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Cereals Intervention and Area Payments (Amendment) Scheme 2002 – Approved Item 31. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to move: That the Cereals Intervention and Area Payments (Amendment) Scheme 2002 [GC No 22/02] be approved. The President: Item 31. This time I call on the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Mr Rimington, to move. Mr Rimington: Thank you, Mr President. This order proposes to increase the subsidy paid on agricultural lime from £3 to £6 per tonne. The last time - The President: No, sir. Item 31, please, sir. A Member: Cereals, John. Mr Rimington: My apologies, sir. Mr President, thank you again. Intervention provides a service to the agricultural industry by purchasing and storing grain, establishing a strategic reserve and then selling it back to end-users. No grain has been exported from the last three harvests, all being home used. The amount purchased by the department has fallen over the last three years from over 7,000 tonnes in 1999 to only 3,000 tonnes in 2001. More grain is now being traded from farm to farm, but there is a risk that, without an increase in prices, less cereals will be grown and that this will threaten Island self-sufficiency. The department wishes to increase the price at which growers can sell their grain in order to maintain a reasonable return for the arable sector and ensure continued supplies for local use. This order therefore proposes to increase the price at which the department buys barley and wheat into intervention. Intervention prices are set in euros. The strength of sterling against the euro has seen the conversion rate for intervention prices fall from 77p in 1999 to as low as 60p last year, meaning a fall in the purchase price paid by the department from £78 per tonne to £60 per tonne. A price increase will be achieved by converting from euros at a fixed rate of one euro being worth 70p. At present, prices vary with the fluctuating value of the euro, which is currently worth 64p. A purchase price increase of £6 per tonne will be occasioned by the proposal, from £65 to £71 per tonne. As the department is the biggest buyer of grain its purchase price effectively sets the market price for grain both purchased and sold. An increase in a department price will therefore affect all grain sold. The department also proposes, through this order, to increase its mark-up on sales from intervention from 5 per cent to 7.5 per cent of its purchase price. This will have two effects: it will reduce department costs in operating intervention by some £5,000 per harvest; and it will also not only increase the department’s sale price for grain but also benefit those arable farmers who sell grain privately and who will thereby maintain production levels. Whilst an increase in grain prices to the industry might be seen as strange given the state of agriculture, this increase is made following consultations with the Manx National Farmers’ Union. Representations were made to the department that, without a positive movement in cereal prices to give a sale price of around £80 per tonne, the Island might be required to import grain. This order seeks to redress this situation, which, as stated, has been caused by the value of the euro. Thank you, Mr President. Mr Gelling: I beg to second, Mr President, and reserve my remarks. The President: Hon. member for Glenfaba. Mr Anderson: I just rise, Mr President, to back the scheme, really. It is important that we have strong sectors within our agricultural economy, and the tweaking of this scheme is to be welcomed. Also, linking it to the pound rather than the euro, I am sure, is a step in the right direction. The President: Hon. member of Council, Mr Kniveton. Mr Kniveton: Yes, thank you, Mr President. Can I just ask the minister, sir: I assume this scheme also refers to wheat sold to the Laxey flour mill; if so, is the Island producing sufficiently now for the mill or are we importing for the mill? The President: Minister to reply. Mr Rimington: I think the only point I need to reply to there, Mr President, is the Laxey situation. The wheat for Laxey mill is outwith this order and that is dealt with separately by contract between the mill and the growers, and - Mr Kniveton: Thank you. The President: And we are self-sufficient. The motion, hon. members, is printed at 31 on the order paper. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Provision of Lime Scheme 2002 – Approved Item 32. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to move: That the Provision of Lime Scheme 2002 [GC No 20/02] be approved. The President: Now we can go on to the Provision of Lime Scheme. Minister for Agriculture. Mr Rimington: I will try this again. This order proposes to increase the subsidy paid on agricultural lime from £3 to £6 per tonne. The last time this subsidy was increased was in 1986, some 16 years ago. The purpose of the subsidy is to encourage the liming of the land in order to maintain and improve soil fertility by restoring deficiencies caused by crop removal and leaching and also correcting acidity. All lime is eligible for subsidy: imported as well as local, and in pelleted form as well as ground dust. Over recent years, the use of lime has declined dramatically. The department has paid subsidy on 13,500 tonnes in 1986, 10,000 tones in 1994 and only 4,080 tonnes in 2001. The principal supplier of lime is Billown Lime Quarries. The fall in usage is partly due to the inability of Billown Quarries to meet demand. Billown have maintained the charge for purchasing and spreading lime at around £16 per tonne since 1990. The company believed that the market could not withstand the price increase necessary to make the spreading of lime profitable. In one way, this benefited farmers who obtained supplies, but it was also a false economy for the company and to the detriment, in the long term, of local users of lime. Production of agricultural lime was not profitable compared to Billown’s other businesses of concrete block making and tarmacadam, leading to lime production being sidelined against these other profitable outlets. The department has to recognise that, as the major supplier of lime, an increase in subsidy would benefit Billown. The department would wish, however, to see the situation restored where Billown charge an economic price for agricultural lime, sufficient to allow the company to produce and supply sufficient lime to meet demand. This increase in subsidy would help it to achieve such a purpose. As advised, all lime is eligible for subsidy payment, including imported lime. Any imported bulk lime would cost an additional £15 per tonne carriage on top of the cost and, even with this higher £6 subsidy, works out a lot dearer than local lime. There is an imported product in granular form which can be spread like normal fertiliser by the farmer himself. It has a higher neutralising value than Billown lime. The department has considered whether, in making this order, it should make provision for the different neutralising value. On balance, it has decided not to do so as the difference in neutralising value is only 5 per cent. The difference it would make in subsidy with imported granular lime would be in the order of £2.75 to £3 per tonne. It would therefore not be significant against the price of this lime of £145 per tonne. The department is, however, prepared to review and monitor this situation, and hopefully Billown, with the benefit of this higher subsidy level, can reassume the position of supplying all local demand by farmers for lime. The President: Hon. member for Malew and Santon. Mr Gelling: Yes, I would second it and reserve my remarks, Mr President. The President: Hon. member for Onchan, Mr Earnshaw. Mr Earnshaw: Thank you, Mr President. I know little about farming, but it seems to me that this is a welcome development, but I just wonder if the minister could tell us what the likely cost implications are? The President: Hon. member for Glenfaba. Mr Anderson: Yes, thank you, Mr President. I would like just to point out one or two slight problems with the lime supply, if you like, which I am sure other members of this hon. Court will be aware have been taking place for quite some time now. Although the scheme is to be welcomed, I think it should be pointed out that despite the increase in the subsidy, it will only be a small fraction of the increased cost to lime spread by farmers. Also, the minister, in his introduction, highlighted the amount of lime spread in previous years and the dramatic decrease over the past couple of years. I would like the minister to look at the conditions in the extraction licence that was given to the company extracting lime; when it was given that licence, I understand one of those conditions was that it should actually produce enough lime for the agriculture industry when it is required on the Island, and I believe that they have failed in that regard in the past couple of years. No doubt it is something to do with what the minister has highlighted - that there are other aspects of their business that are more lucrative - but they have that obligation, I believe, to supply agricultural lime to farmers when they need it, and I think one of the main reasons that less lime has been used over the past couple of years is because farmers have been unable to get it when they require it. So, I would like the minister to give me the assurance that his department will continue to work with the company to try and get that problem resolved. I would also like the minister to review what he said in his opening comments: that the neutralising effect of the local lime is actually considerably lower than the imported lime, which obviously costs a lot more. In view of the fact that there is not the availability when farmers require it, I would like his department to look at the possibility of increasing the percentage of the subsidy on the imported lime to the equivalent effect, so that when we have to be forced down to the situation which one or two people have been in the last year or two, where they have to actually buy imported lime because they cannot get the local product when they need it, they will be compensated accordingly. Although I shall be supporting this, I would ask the minister to go back and look at those two points again, please. The President: Hon. member for Ayre. Mr Quine: Yes. My concerns are very much the same as those of the hon. member for Glenfaba, but what I was going to ask is: can the minister give us the current state of play in regard to Billown, vis-ˆ-vis their commitment to the farmers? When this was last raised - by way of a question, if I remember rightly - you advised us of the backlog figure at that time, and I am just wondering whether there has been improvement or has not been improvement, because the acceptability of this order hinges, really, on whether this can be made to work or not. I have a kind of gut feeling here that this adjustment in the rate is not going to be sufficient to offset the profits they can make from the construction side, in which case, I am afraid, we are going to have to look in a much more serious way at the economics and the financial implications of making imported lime available. The President: Hon. member of Council, Mr Delaney. Mr Delaney: Thank you, Mr President. I have no problem supporting this; as the minister said, it is a while since we have done anything and I am sure that has moved up the same as everything else. But I am interested, on reading what we have been supplied with, and trying to get my memory back to what . . . Are we the main buyer from across when it comes? How do we check whether the lime has been used? If this lime - and I think the member for Glenfaba touched on it, actually - is not available, how do we go about organising that? Where do they get the lime from in bulk? And do they have to produce a sales certificate? I would like that answered, please. The President: Hon. member for Middle, Mr Quayle. Mr Quayle: Thank you, Mr President. I rise to support the motion but also to give support to the points already made by the hon. members for Glenfaba and Ayre. As I understand it, the question over the licence and the amount of lime that would be put forward over the years is something that was raised in this Court two or three months ago, and as we have not had a satisfactory assurance about that particular matter, that is something that I would like to have reassurance about. However, I will, at this stage, be supporting the motion. The President: Hon. member for Malew and Santon. Mr Gelling: Yes, thank you, Mr President. I was brought to my feet when the hon. member for Ayre stood up and mentioned a question, and I must admit, Mr President, that when he put the question down earlier on in this session, I thought it was because the south were getting more of the lime than the north! So, I checked up on this and, in fact, I found that the north were being given precedence over the south, (Members: Ooh!) (Laughter) but I can say that one of their spreaders, complete with tractor, has been lying dormant for probably two years now. A lot of this has been caused by the foot-and-mouth because they were not encouraged, obviously, to go from farm to farm - in fact, farmers did not want them - but we come back to, I think, what I said at Question Time: basically there is a general shortage of aggregate on the Island, i.e. chippings from which the dust comes, and that is what is causing the problem. So, you have got Billown importing dust to put in their tarmacadam so that they can manufacture what they are in business to do, so that they can supply lime dust, and of course the ridiculous situation was that they were selling the lime dust at a price that was very, very much lower - but agreed upon that they would keep it static - and then having to import the dust to put into their tarmacadam. So, I would suggest that anything that can be done to release more stone out of our quarries should be done so that we can get back to the situation where the lime will be used for what it should be used for. It is one of the very, very few resources we have in the Island and we end up putting it into tarmadadam. Now, to me that is ridiculous. So, I think there is room for negotiation and room for some kind of order to be put on it so that we can get the lime back on the land, Mr President. The President: Hon. member for West Douglas, Mr Downie. Mr Downie: Yes, thank you. I am brought to my feet by the comments of the previous speaker, the hon. member for Malew and Santon, Mr Gelling. He is quite right, really, in what he says. The quality of limestone in the Isle of Man is not really very good, and if you looked at what Billown are asked to actually supply and to have machinery and plant available to spread the lime onto agricultural land, it is very, very difficult for them to actually stay in this type of business. If I am correct in my assumption, when the hon. minister moved the motion, he did indicate that the grant or subsidy would apply to imported lime. Now, the economics of importing lime are quite beneficial, and we have a number of very good agricultural contractors on the Island. Perhaps the way forward is to try and smooth the process, and I know that some farmers have also looked at importing items such as basic slag to put onto the ground, which also have a beneficial property as a soil conditioner. So, I think that we should support the motion that is before us today. It does require a little bit of fine-tuning, but really, if you looked at the thing properly on an economic basis, what we are asking Billown to supply realistically just does not stack up in today’s agricultural environment. And I think there should be other options available to farmers; they should be given a choice, and the support scheme should recognise the various options that may be open to them so that they can have a much more efficient operation and one which is acceptable and more beneficial to the farmer who wants the lime when he wants it and he has not got to wait months and months for a day when it is blowing a south-easterly gale to have his lime finish up on somebody else’s fields. Thank you. The President: Minister to reply to the debate. Mr Rimington: Thank you, Mr President. I am very pleased that the subject of lime has caused such interest. A number of points there. The first one, the estimated cost to the department: this will be covered by the department’s current moneys allocated in this direction. If it was the same output as last year - 4,000 tonnes - an extra £3 would be an extra £12,000, which is pretty minimal in terms of giving quite a needed help to the industry in this regard. In terms of the checking on this money which is given to Billown, it is only given to them after quite a cumbersome procedure, where the invoices to the farmer are signed and they have to actually give a signed copy of the invoice so it can be seen exactly where that lime has gone; it is not just a monthly total given by the quarry and we do not just pay the cheque on their say-so, so it is done in a proper and correct manner. I do agree that we do need to monitor the situation, and I did say that in my speech in moving this order, because we are obviously in a situation now where enough lime is still not being produced today. Now, I did inform the Court on the question earlier on in the session that Billown were expecting to have their new, more efficient plant in operation by the end of May, and that would mean that the output to the industry of 20 tonnes a day which did stand at that point would then be able to increase to 50 to 80 tonnes per day once that new plant had come into being at the end of May. I have had an update from Billown that, in fact, the plant is not yet working - well, it has teething problems - so, whereas hopefully the full use of that plant is imminent, it has not been so as yet and the bottom line therefore is that there have only been 20 tonnes a day being produced from the quarry. They accept that there is that problem and, in an attempt to counteract the problem, they are going to be importing 1,000 tonnes of dust this very week so that they can release more lime to the industry, though acknowledging that this is possibly not the key time when the actual industry want the particular product. In relation to that, a way to get round this problem by actually getting the right quantities of lime to the industry at the right time is to ask, wherever possible, if farmers can accept lime through the summer period and store it - so actually take the deliveries. And apparently it does not blow around once it has been offloaded and it does remain in a workable form, and then it can be spread later in the year, in the autumn, or in the following spring. So, all is not rosy in that regard at the moment and obviously we have got to accept that. In terms of the price, though the 1986 price to the farmer was £13.49 per tonne and that has remained since then, now the new price to the farmer will be £16 per tonne, which is, okay, a £2.51 increase. I know it is an increase, but it is not much, given the 15 or 16 years of time involved. And then the proposed price, obviously, for Billown then is £22 a tonne, which just brings them up to a slightly economic level and makes it at least worthwhile for them to do it. I did check on the point from the hon. member for Glenfaba when he raised this last time, and there is no obligation to Billown to extract lime for agriculture under the terms of their licence from the Department of Trade and Industry, although Billown have, of their own volition, accepted that responsibility very well over the years and it is obviously only in this recent period of this very high demand in the construction industry that this obligation has fallen down. Mr President, I beg to move. The President: The motion, hon. members, is printed at 32 on the order paper: that the Provision of Lime Scheme 2002 be approved. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Housing – Policy Review – July 2002 Progress Report Received Item 33. The Minister for Local Government and the Environment to move: That the Housing Policy Review Progress Report July 2002 be received. The President: Item 33. I call on the Minister for Local Government and the Environment, the hon. member Mrs Crowe, to move. Mrs Crowe: Thank you, Mr President. I am sure hon. members are fully aware of the issues concerning housing, and therefore I hope you feel that it will be not necessary for me to discuss all these issues (A Member: Hear, hear.) in detail again today. Instead, Mr President, it is my intention, in this update, to focus on the recommendations made to resolve the priority issues raised in the October 2001 report and advise hon. members on our progress. Turning first to public sector housing, an additional £39 million was allocated in the 2002- 03 budget review, increasing local authority planned expenditure to £88 million over five years. A £20 million housing reserve fund was also established to supplement my department’s existing capital budget. This substantial increase will enable the public sector new-build and replacement housing programmes to be rapidly accelerated, which will result in a significant number of additional properties. Instead of producing 400 public sector homes in five years, as was planned, we now plan to build 564 new homes and 289 replacement homes. This is twice as many as was originally planned. In addition to building more public sector homes, the department will continue its policy of encouraging home ownership. This includes assisting public sector tenants to purchase their first home, thereby freeing up public sector homes for rent, and I am grateful to the hon. members of this Court for the support for the 2002 House Purchase Assistance Scheme, which came earlier in the order paper. Uniform criteria for acceptance onto public sector waiting-lists have now been introduced to all housing authorities. When all waiting-lists have been reviewed, a full evaluation of the needs of applicants will be undertaken to ensure that our building programme reflects demand. The application of uniform criteria by housing authorities will also be kept under review during this 12-month trial period. The public sector stock condition survey report has now been completed and, in light of that report, my department will, over the next few months, continue discussions with housing authorities to agree three- to five-year refurbishment programmes. I am committed to these programmes being published so that hon. members, commissioners and, most of all, tenants will know what work will be carried out and, even more importantly, when that work will be carried out. The additional funding that I mentioned a few moments ago will enable existing planned maintenance programmes to be accelerated for the benefit of tenants. My department’s own estates need urgent refurbishment, and bids for this work will have to be made against the housing reserve fund. Officers will consult with tenants, local members and commissioners about the type of repairs and improvements that they would like to see within their communities. I now turn to private-sector housing. There are indications that the increase in house prices is stabilising, but I am sure that hon. members will agree with me that the lower end of the market is clearly out of reach of most first-time buyers, even on incomes of up to £30,000. In June 2002, the first-time buyer register totalled some 582 people, and I expect this level of demand to keep growing in the short-term until we complete more homes as part of the first- time buyer programme. The review has also provided valuable information regarding the need and the preferred location for housing developments. The department has had discussions with most developers over the past few months to discuss plans and ideas for developing land for affordable and other types of housing. Following these discussions, I now believe that the developers will work with government, not only to build a higher number of affordable homes, but also to increase the number of homes that are being built each year. Unfortunately, as I have previously indicated, it is likely that, for various reasons, land currently zoned for residential development will be insufficient to sustain these numbers in the medium to longer term. The department will therefore be submitting, in the near future, planning applications for new developments that will include high proportions of local affordable homes on parcels of land considered to be suitable for residential development but not currently zoned in local or area plans. This action is urgently required to ensure that there is not a shortfall of land in the medium term, prior to considering longer-term allocations as part of the all-Island strategic plan and area plan review process, which is taking place at this time. This will be subject, of course, and will be discussed at a sitting of Tynwald in response to questions raised. I acknowledge that there are other important housing matters contained within the housing policy report, including the need to progress the empty properties initiative (Mr Houghton: Hear, hear.) - and I do hope now that this will start this summer (Mr Houghton: Hear, hear.) - but I have concentrated on the priorities of ensuring that new housing and refurbishment programmes are properly funded and the land is made available for housing and that the delivery of much- needed homes is accelerated. I am satisfied that the work undertaken by my department and the housing task-force in the short time since my appointment is successfully addressing these priorities. Mr President, I beg to move that the Housing Policy Review Progress Report be received. The President: Hon. member for Onchan, Mr Earnshaw. Mr Earnshaw: Thank you, Mr President. I beg to second and reserve my remarks. The President: Hon. member for Middle, Mr Quayle. Mr Quayle: Yes, thank you, Mr President. I congratulate the minister on this particular motion, and I am happy to support most of it. I just seek clarification in terms of 4.1, where it mentions ‘zone’ more land to meet long-term housing need’, and it refers to the fact that ‘the department is in the process of preparing local plans for Port St Mary, Castletown, Laxey/Lonan and Braddan. These plans will allocate further land for residential purposes, but probably not more than two years’ supply. In addition, some land may be dezoned as part of this process.’ This brings me to my feet because I am aware that the department officers of the hon. Minister for Local Government and the Environment have put considerable work into the Braddan plan in conjunction with Braddan Commissioners, and what concerns me is that the Braddan plan is proposed and is, I understand, quite soon to be progressed and it indicates that there will be sufficient land zoned for a period of 10 years. A lot of hard work has gone into ensuring that the land that is proposed to be zoned in the Braddan plan is land which will be available for development, and I notice, for example, under 4.2, that there is a recognition there that zoned land is of little benefit if the owner has no intention of selling or developing the land. So, in the case of the Braddan plan, a lot of work has gone in to ensure that any land proposed for the zoning in this Braddan plan is actually land which can be released for development in the future. So, my concern is: in your department, anticipating that we have maybe 10 years of housing requirements for Braddan - 80 houses a year, so that it was suggested 800 over the next 10 years - it concerns me that, looking at this document, it suggests that, in fact, 10 years’ worth of houses would be built in two years, and that would be unacceptable. The President: Hon. member for Ayre. Mr Quine: Thank you, Mr President. I think the department has obviously been burning the midnight oil because I think this is the fourth report for this Tynwald sitting, so I appreciate that they must have been under, and indeed are under, considerable pressure. But I would just like to reiterate, I think, a point that I made yesterday in another debate, and that is that whereas this report certainly suffices to provide us with an update on the recommendations which came out of the October 2001 report, it does not provide us, of course, with the data that we need to follow trends and make judgements as to whether or not these targets are achievable. The reason that the three previous reports have been in more or less a particular form is because they were made the subject of a particular request in a Tynwald debate. Indeed, the hon. member for North Douglas, Mr Henderson, asked for a lot of the information that is in these earlier reports to be included, and quite rightly so, because that data enables us to follow the figures as they have progressed over the last three, four or five years and then make a judgement as to whether we are going to achieve these targets or whether we are not. So, I would start by asking the minister if we can have reports in that particular format, and I will be writing to the minister asking her to provide the missing data, which is quite considerable. Just to illustrate this, if the minister will bear with me: the data that we had in respect of dwellings completed and under construction year by year, private and public - of course, we got the schedule over the five years, but even that - is not all site-specific. Planning applications, from which we can judge whether we are heading in the right direction to produce more houses or whether, in fact, we are heading in the wrong direction. Then, of course, perhaps more critical - and this is relevant to two further papers which are going to come before us during this sitting - is the specific two-year programme for first-time buyers, elderly persons’ housing, general housing units and service plots, because it is being held out in relation to other papers that we have yet to discuss that certain actions are not necessary because, over the next two years, certain things will be achieved. So, I think it is critical, if that is going to be held out to us, that we have the data in front of us to judge that. House repair and modernisation; data on the empty persons’ property: well, you have referred to that, although we have not got the data. The matter of housing association legislation - where that stands - and the development of a housing database. These are just some of the matters which are in the earlier reports but that are not in these reports and which, I would respectfully suggest, are critical to us if we are going to look at figures, establish trends and make a value judgement as to whether we are going to get there or not. And of course, house sales, house prices, rent levels. Now, if I could just leave that aspect and, moving on from there, say that I do appreciate, of course, that this is a report to be received, and ordinarily we do not go into too much detail or express too much concern about reports to be received other than to make certain points, but there are two or three things I would ask the minister to try to come back and help me with. The total construction programme: as I read the paper, a new target has been established, which is to increase the figure from 400 to 500 a year - that is what it states in one part of the paper here - which would give us, of course, 2,500 over five years, and that would, I think, largely be attributable to the increase in public housing units from 80 to 120 and the increase in first-time buyers’ from 80 to 120. I think that is more or less where those increases come to play, but if we read the paper there is a heavy qualification, and one which I fully understand, and that is: dependent upon increased production from the private sector, looking for the private sector contribution of 500 per annum over the next two to three years. Now, that is a very heavy qualification indeed. The minister seems to have a great deal of faith in the private sector doing as she would wish, but my association with the private sector over x years has not given me the same confidence, but then obviously the minister has greater appeal to the private sector than I had. (Mrs Crowe: Absolutely.) (Laughter and interjections) I almost said perhaps she is more diplomatic than me, but I would not even go that far. (Laughter and interjections) But I think that is a heavy qualification; that is a serious qualification. The fact is that the private sector have their own business plans. As far as they are concerned, the longer the waiting-lists, the more the price of land is going to go up and the move the prices of houses are going to go up. I may be doing them an injustice, but I think there may be a certain lack of sincerity as to the extent to which you will find that co-operation forthcoming, certainly to the extent of the private sector providing a contribution of 500 per annum over the next two to three years. That would represent a doubling of their present contribution. That I do not see. That I am sure they will not achieve. So, it is problematic in that respect. The second respect in which I would say it is problematic, of course, is one that we all understand, and that is the question of available land, and this is referred to, albeit not in great detail, in the report. There is land, at this point in time, zoned for some 2,300, but that is not a precise figure - it could be up a couple of hundred or down a couple of hundred - because that capacity is contingent upon site-specific planning and it is contingent upon drainage. It is contingent upon roads. It is contingent upon a whole list of things. So, if you are going to produce 500 a year for the next five years, against that initial - I will refer to it as an ‘initial’ - constraint, again it is going to be very, very difficult to get a significant increase above the production levels which we are now achieving. It is going to be very, very difficult indeed, leaving aside the willingness of the private sector to really make an inroad into the housing backlog, because that is, quite frankly, not in their interests. That is going to have a material effect on the value of houses, and let us not forget, Mr President, that several of these developers have already bought this land. They have paid for this land, and the last thing they want to see is a depreciation in that. They are not going to be in that business. So, good luck, minister; I hope you will be able to appeal to their better nature, and if that does not work, I could make a couple of suggestions. (Laughter) The other point I was going to mention is, of course, whether this figure - in fact, I think we know the answer to this - of 500 a year, which you have quite rightly increased - and, indeed, that marker was put down in the October 2001 report that it should be marked upwards - is realistic, because you are talking about cutting back the waiting times and the backlogs, in relation to current demands? If we go back over the last four years - and I am advised that we are heading over the 600 again now; we are probably heading for 800 again this year - we are talking of 320 units just to keep abreast of what is coming in. Then there is local demand, there is demand influenced by affluence, and there is demand influenced by social change. All of these considerations come into it, and I would just ask the minister to see whether that spare capacity of 120 is realistic to cater for all the Island’s needs over and above keeping and meeting the needs of those that are flooding in. I do not believe it is. And we are not talking about replacement units, because when we got on to replacement units, we are then talking about market capacity as well. So, fair enough, minister, you have increased it to from 400 to 500; I am very happy to support that, but I am just putting a marker down that, at even 500, I think your target figure is too low, although achieving that will be very, very difficult indeed. Now, Mr President, if we look at the annex to the report, there were two things I was going to ask the minister to clarify for me on the report. One is, of course, that if we look at appendix A, where we have a figure of Department of Local Government and Department of Health and Social Security housing, this first column is 200, and half of those - 97 - are DHSS sites. Now, are they sites that are being made available to you for general housing, or they sites that are going to be developed for medical staff? Because, in all probability, they are going to be coming in and they are part of the influx; they are not going to help people here on the Island. So, that is point 1, and secondly, could you just clarify for me: does this appendix A include elderly persons’ housing or does it not? Previously, we have always had a distinct split between elderly persons’ housing units and public general housing units, because they are essentially two different markets, although, of course, if you move from one into the other, then obviously you make a unit available, but we do not seem to have specific figures now for the elderly persons’ housing, and I am certainly not aware of 20 public housing units being built in Leodest Road, Andreas, unless they are elderly persons’ housing? (Mrs Crowe: No.) They are not elderly persons’ housing? Well, then it is news to me. Perhaps the minister could tell me exactly where these 20 additional public housing units are which are shown at appendix A as Leodest Road, Andreas, if they are not elderly persons’ housing units? There are 20 first-time buyers’, (Mrs Crowe: Absolutely.) but this is public housing, public sector - Mrs Crowe: Oh, well, those - Mr Quine: - so you have either counted them twice or they have been misclassified. Thank you very much indeed. The President: Hon. member for Glenfaba. Mr Anderson: Thank you, Mr President. I welcome this encouraging information coming from the department, but I note a change in the department’s attitude from the previous department’s position that there was enough land zoned in and around existing settlements to satisfy housing needs for the next five years. I think maybe it is time now for your department to take the bull by the horns and plan for the future even further and go back to the suggestion made from within the Department of Local Government and the Environment, before the last minister’s tenure, that more thought should be given to creating a new settlement, taking pressure off existing towns and villages and not spoiling their character. I think it is better to plan now rather than find we have to make decisions, put pressure on many communities and create problems for ourselves in the future. So, just in conclusion, can I ask the minister to go back to her department and reconsider her department’s position with regard to a new settlement? The President: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Rimington. Mr Rimington: Thank you, Mr President. I am very pleased the hon. member for Glenfaba shares the exact reasons why I got to my feet as well. The issue that was raised by the minister in her speech was that they were going to be looking for more land which is not currently zoned for housing in and around existing settlements, and I think if we carry on going down that route, we will find ourselves in a very socially unacceptable position. It certainly would be unacceptable in certain areas where there has already been quite great expansion over the recent years. I think of my own constituency in this regard, and others will think of their own, but there are not that many communities, except poor old Castletown, which have not had that quite rapid expansion in recent times, and people are not generally happy with that. Now, the question of a new town was raised in the issues and options version of the strategic plan, and it was raised with a slightly positive note there. Then when the draft strategic plan came out, it was given the kiss of death, and the reasons why it was given the kiss of death I do not know. The reasons given were spurious and subjective and have no standing whatsoever - absolutely useless arguments - and really, if we are going to grow - it appears that is the way the Isle of Man is going to sustain our prosperity and it is the consensus of opinion that growth will continue in the Isle of Man to a greater or lesser degree, depending on all the circumstances - then we do have to look strategically in the medium to long term at where that growth is going to occur. We cannot continue just plopping it on the end of existing communities and saying, ‘Oh, by the way I have got another field; let us put a road into there and nip in there and plop on 40 or 50 houses.’ That is just not the way development really should take place. Yes, you can have little bits of incremental development in such a manner, but then you arrive at situations like I have in my own constituency, where you have the area of Colby, which has grown and grown and grown at the same time as its facilities have declined and so all you have is a residential area stuck in the middle of the countryside. And in the village of Port Erin, they have no desire to see that expansion - no desire whatsoever - because they feel, quite rightly, that in recent times they have grown and that that growth has not necessarily been very pleasant, and the ‘Manx vernacular’, as it is sometimes referred to, which is a wonderful term that comes out of the Planning Department from time to time, seems to have no bearing on what has taken place down in Port Erin and other parts of the Island. Indeed, I wonder what the ‘Manx vernacular’ is. Perhaps it is the traditional old stone cottage up in the countryside, but we are not building those; we are building all sorts of throw-it-up-quick stuff to meet that demand. So, we do need to not just concentrate on these little plots of land which we might get our hands on, on the edges of existing communities, but look carefully at the medium to long term and look at that idea of a new settlement - or it might be two new settlements - which could be well designed, well constructed and actually thought out for a change, rather than just inappropriate estates. The President: Mr Speaker. The Speaker: Yes, thank you, Mr President. I want to just recognise, if you like, the commitment I know the minister and her team, including officers, put into trying to deal with the housing issue, and I think it is obvious, as we go along, that the difficulty the minister is hitting is the bureaucracy of the system, and I think that is a real problem for us. We in here, who have not got the responsibility directly - although we have, of course, indirectly - want the minister to get on and build houses, meet the problem, reduce the pressures and help our people as quickly as possible, and it is obvious, in reading the report we have in front of us today and, of course, the report which we are going to deal with at item 35, which is the task force, that we can write as much as we like, but, to be honest, nothing much is going to happen for quite some time, because the system that we have created will not allow it to happen. And I think we have to say that, because what worries me is that the message is going out that we have got millions and millions of pounds which we have allocated, that the department - and the minister, rightly, is putting a lot of time, with her officers, into this issue - are doing as much as they can and that they are providing information, but what they then do is hit a brick wall. It is not a house; it is just a brick wall. And the brick wall is bureaucracy - the system - and I do not know how we get over that, because unless you streamline it for a period or whatever - and that in itself will create problems - I think we have a great difficulty. I also have a problem, Mr President, because the item we are debating at the moment is on the housing policy review progress report from the department, and item 35 gives us a task- force report by the Council of Ministers. And I have to say that there are contradictions between the report of the department and the report of the task force: the department says, ‘Unless developers allow us to develop land or unless they develop land, we cannot meet our target’; the task-force says, ‘There is no problem.’ But we know that people are not allowing land that is zoned in some cases to be developed. We also know that because of the system, even where everybody or the majority of people are eager to see development, some objectors use their rights - and they are rights we have given them, and rightly so to some degree - and are, in fact, delaying those applications for anything up to eighteen months to two years. In Castletown, one piece of land that has been zoned since 1990 or 1991 - I cannot remember now because it is so long ago - has had so many applications on it, and for 10 years we have not seen a house built, and yet Castletown, as the hon. member for Rushen, Mr Rimington, indicated, and as I have indicated in this Court before, has, I would say, the most acute problem - and has had for some 15 years - in terms of the provision of housing for the people of Castletown. That is a real and serious problem for us and, in fact, it has depopulated many of the young people - and not so young - from Castletown, who have had to go and find elsewhere to live in the Island if they wished to purchase a home. So, I do have a problem of confusion between the two reports. I accept what the minister is endeavouring to do with her team; I have been there, I know the problems, I know the difficulties and therefore I do not make light of it. There are issues that I will come back to in relation to the task-force report in terms of what is going on, but I would like to pick up one point, minister, which is wording - if I can find it quickly - in relation to your report. On page 7, in paragraph 6.6, it refers to ‘refurbishment and rebuilding of public sector housing stock’ and so on, and in there, on the third paragraph, it says, partway down, ‘work is about to commence for similar projects at Lezayre, Seafield, St Mary’s and Janet’s Corner Estates.’ Now, as the hon. minister will know, I have been, for quite a number of years, pressing for the upgrading and improvement of the houses in Janet’s Corner, which are substandard due to the lack of improvements over many years, and, in fact, the department has had funds allocated for that scheme - £10 million - to get it progressed. But that scheme, as I understand it, is slipping back because of other pressures on everybody, and all I would really say is that work is not about to commence. There has been no scheme finalised yet. There has been no consultation yet. I know Mr Senior, who I find a very positive, refreshing officer in terms of his views on how to deal with people, is very keen, as I am, for consultation to take place before any scheme is finalised, and all I am really demonstrating, minister, is that I think we have to be careful with our wording because yes, work is maybe about to commence on developing the scheme, but work is not about to commence on the project, because we are not at that stage. I would urge the minister, though, to ensure that work does start within the next 12 months, because it really is causing problems. It is causing health problems because of the condition of the older properties that were built just after the war, and really it is also causing uncertainty for tenants, who have been told now for some period of time that these houses are going to be refurbished and are therefore now saying, ‘When can I redecorate; when can I put in this or that?’ So there is an uncertainty issue there, but I do lend my support to the minister, because I know how keen she is personally to try and progress as quickly as possible, but I do think realistically we must recognise that the biggest problem the minister has - or I see, anyway - is the system. The President: Hon. member for Douglas East, Mrs Cannell. Mrs Cannell: Thank you, Mr President. There are three are three observations I make from the progress report. The first one is on page 7 at 6.4, and it is entitled ‘Develop a Model for Establishing a Housing Association’. Now, we have had debates, and decisions have been taken - or at least I thought they had been - within the department to actually advertise for somebody to come in to establish and operate a housing association, so I wonder now why it states in 6.4 that the department is currently reviewing the proposal to establish a housing association. Is there going to be a change of policy there? I thought policy had been established to put one up and have it working. The same paragraph goes on. It says that it is, at the same time, ‘also considering a key workers policy and the general needs of single people.’ I would have liked to have seen more consideration made in this progress report in terms of what the proposals were in addressing the issue of the shortage of accommodation for single people. I am very concerned about a key workers policy, because I do recall, at one of the meetings with her officers - who, together with my colleague, Mr Braidwood, for Douglas East, we have got on very well with - there was mooted this business of possibly a key workers policy to be applied to Phase I as we understood it, in the Douglas urban regeneration programme in Westmoreland Road - and this is listed on page 9 at appendix A - in terms of 18 individual units, part of which may be utilised as key workers’ accommodation. Now, at that time, we expressed grave concern over this, because, whilst we have a large list of people within our own communities waiting for properties, waiting for decent living accommodation, whether it be first-time buyer’s, local authority or rented accommodation, and at the same time, perhaps, are concentrating on key workers coming in - and I appreciate the problems that education are having in finding teachers, health services are having in finding medical staff and so on and so forth - it will cause a huge divide within the community if this policy is developed and is applied. With particular reference to the scheme for our area of Douglas East, it would have huge consequences, I would suggest, socially, and so I am a little bit concerned that they are actually considering putting that policy together and also, at the time, reviewing the policy of establishing a housing association, which I felt had a firm footing, a fine foundation, and we were going to have up and running. I am a little bit concerned that, on page 5, under ‘Funding’ in the list of those areas that need funding, we still have ‘Empty Properties Initiative’, and yet there is nothing in this report that talks about what is being proposed to develop the Empty Properties Initiative. Now, we have had debates, and the hon. member for Douglas North moved this particular motion in this hon. place quite some considerable time ago, but I see no movement or no progress in that direction, and, of course, that is extremely important. My final observation, Mr President, is on page 9, appendix A, and I would share the same kind of concern that was uttered by the hon. member for Ayre, Mr Quine, in terms of the figures. I am looking down here, where it talks about ‘Location and Site’, at Westmoreland Road, Phase I, Douglas: 18 have been bid for, and they are either Department of Local Government and the Environment properties or DHSS properties. I wonder whereabouts in Westmoreland Road they are, bearing in mind that half of Westmoreland Road is situated on the border of both East Douglas and South Douglas. And then also, underneath there, it states ‘Douglas Urban Regeneration Flats - 22 Approved’ under the heading of ‘LA’ - Local Authority. So, I am a little confused. Has a policy been firmed up in respect of the site I spoke about, which was being considered for partial key worker accommodation, or is it pure local authority now? And then we have, ‘Douglas Urban Regeneration Sundry - 13 Approved’. Thirteen what? Is it local authority houses, new-build, regeneration or refurbishment? Westmoreland Road, Phase I I am not aware of; what I am aware of is Douglas Urban Regeneration Phase I Flats being number 18, and what I am querying here is that we have, in all three respects, 18 plus 22 plus 13, and my colleague and I for East Douglas are only aware of 18. So, if the minister could please clarify. Mrs Crowe: Yes, indeed. Mrs Cannell: I think it might be a typo; perhaps the area has been referred to in two separate categories, although they are both in exactly the same place, and one specifies 18 that have been bid for under the heading Local Government or DHSS and the other specifies 22 approved under local authority. So, I am a little confused, bearing in mind that the housing officer, Mr Senior, who does have a very fresh way of doing things and looking at things and is refreshing to deal with, has informed us on a different basis to what we are now looking at in terms of this progress report. So, I am a little bit confused and I would like the hon. minister to clarify, if she might, while summing up. Thank you. The President: Hon. member for Garff, Mr Rodan. Mr Rodan: Thank you, Mr President. Like the last speaker, I wanted to make reference to section 6.4, headed ‘Develop a Model for Establishing a Housing Association’. This paragraph, of course, goes on to say that the department ‘is also considering a key workers policy and the general needs of single people. Several developments have been identified where key workers’. . . accommodation could be developed and let at medium-priced rents. . . midway between the public and private sectors. These properties could be managed by the department rather than a housing association. The department will be producing proposals on these issues later this year.’ I first of all wanted very much to welcome this statement. I think the reference to key workers in the Housing Policy Review Progress Report is a new reference, and I very much welcome it, because there is no question at all that there is a need for formulating a key workers policy. Teachers are coming to the Island and there are teachers already working here, who, by any definition, are key workers, as are health sector employees, and I am sure it is increasingly unacceptable that many of these key workers, on whom we, as a society, will have to rely for our continued development, cannot get into the housing market and, in some instances, I regret to say, have had to make the decision to leave the Island. Now, I am aware that, in past years, there have been key worker strategies and the existence of estates at the Strang and Rheast Barrule, for example, which, at the particular time, strategically filled a real need in the development of the Island, but in recent years these have been gradually incorporated into general DLGE housing stock and therefore are not available in the short term to key workers. The house mortgage assistance scheme that we approved this morning, of course, one could cite as being a very welcome development for such key worker personnel, but there is the restriction of five years’ residence, and while I have no doubt it will prove valuable to key workers who are here, it will not be of any use at all to key personnel new to the Island. We have to accept that amongst the numbers of people who, to quote Mr Quine’s words, are ‘flooding in’, are people whom society requires to have here as a consequence of our economic policy, so there is no point bemoaning people flooding in when many of those people are key workers whom we require for the coming years. So, I am pleased and would certainly urge the department to work up this policy, and I look forward to seeing specific proposals. The President: Hon. member for Ramsey, Mr Singer. Mr Singer: Thank you, Mr President. It seems to me that whenever we have a housing debate, whatever the title of that debate is, it always merges onto one path, and that leads to the government’s general reliance on the 500 or so houses per annum which are going to appear out of the ground. I must say that every report that emanates from government or DoLGE appears to dismiss any options put forward by hon. members who introduce schemes which, perhaps, are revolutionary in relation to government proposals but which would help ease the overall housing crisis, and I think of ones that have been mentioned today and ones that will be mentioned: the private sector rent assistance, the delay in housing associations - which I thought were further on the way than appears to be - and the proposals for a new town. There was, in fact - it must be two years ago - a proposal which came forward in the strategic document for a new town, but where was this new town going to be? It said somewhere near Douglas, which was a suggestion which certainly went against any kind of regional development and which would have encouraged the minister for Transport to buy a lot more roundabouts, perhaps, at a cheaper price. The idea at that time was put forward - and I certainly supported it - of a village or a town in Jurby. That is where it is wanted and that is where it is needed, but again that has disappeared and we are back to the original proposals, and, as has been said, it is becoming more and more difficult to find places to put houses. But then we have the housing task-force, which is reporting later on and which actually rejects the need for short-term action. The housing task-force have said they do not see an urgent problem. Well, I believe - and I certainly believe other members and the public, particularly those desperate for housing, would say the same - that there is a crisis and there is a crisis now. For every person or couple who cannot see any light at the end of the tunnel, they are part of that crisis. The main need is for public authority housing, family and senior citizen accommodation, and even providing the 500 new units annually, for those people it would still take considerable time to clear the backlog for Island residents on the lists. But then when we take into account, as has been mentioned by the hon. member for Ayre, the number of people who are annually needing houses, who are coming into the Island and who actually get priority for new housing because it is their companies that finance the package and the developers know they can get higher prices, the problem is not being solved, because the people on the Island who are waiting for houses are actually being pushed somewhat to the back of the queue. Now, the minister, I think, does have more confidence than I have in the present housing developers. We need to encourage house-building and we need to have housing replacement schemes by developers other than those who choose to drip-feed the market to ensure that the prices remain high. Now, the hon. minister is aware that there is interest now in other people building and preparing houses which would probably be cheaper than what we are getting now. There is need for immediate action in Ramsey; the Lezayre housing estate, I would suggest, is worse than Janet’s Corner. That needs replacing immediately, and if we can encourage the people to produce the housing, then we should be moving quickly in that direction. It is important that bureaucracy is kept to a minimum, and I think it has been said that bureaucracy raises its head much too often and for much too long. It has not really been mentioned today that there is desperation in obtaining rental property at reasonable rates. This is just as important as providing houses for people to purchase. As well as new houses coming out of the ground, there should be more priority on bringing empty properties back on-stream, and I would refer to the important property information that came with the census report. The Isle of Man census was taken over a six-month period and it identified empty properties. Many of these were revisited and telephoned or written to several times over that six months to try and make the exercise as accurate as possible. The census identified 2,500 empty properties throughout the Isle of Man. It was established that 500 of those properties were owned by people living off the Island, thus leaving 2,000 properties, not derelict ones, but unused and lying empty. Within the census, the 2,000 properties were recorded as being habitable or habitable with some work to be carried out. Now, there must be some way to encourage the reintroduction of these properties into the market for sale or rent to ease the housing problem while DoLGE schemes come on-stream. I believe we should not have excuses why it cannot be done; that does not help anybody, certainly those who are desperate for housing. We need to be advised how it can be done to encourage these properties to come back on-line. Now, the hon. Treasury minister has invested £20 million into housing, and here is an opportunity for some of that money to be used on an initiative that could reduce the waiting- list for first-time buyers and public sector waiting-lists in large chunks. In the short term, I believe this suggestion, as an initiative, could have a considerable impact on the present housing crisis, and I would ask the minister to comment on this and tell us what actually can be done to bring these 2,000 properties back on-line. The President: Hon. member for Onchan, Mr Karran. Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I think I have to disagree with the points from the previous speaker. Whilst it is better to have money in housing than in the bank, you are never going to get lots of these houses onto the market or sold. They are just sitting there as investments, and that is the problem we have got and that is where this House, this hon. Court, has failed, because we should have brought in measures in order to affect that, maybe putting double rates on empty property or whatever in order to do so. I would just like to say that there are a few points that I was interested in. I heard that the hon. member for Middle had concerns. Well, of course, this report will only be received and the minister will tell us that we are not approving anything but just receiving this report today. So, the issue that he raises about the new land for development, the green light for mass building of houses: you are not committed to that if you support this proposal today. I think, when Mr Quine says that they are trying to blend the figures together between sheltered accommodation and local authority houses, that your simple answer is that what they are trying to do is put them both together so that will justify putting exorbitant rents onto local authority housing to subsidise what is sheltered accommodation and should be there for social need. Whilst I have battled with my beloved commissioners over the years - and admittedly things have improved in that now they have a mayoral dance and a mayoral do and they do not reply and tell me it is full up (Interjections and laughter) the situation is that they were progressive in their thoughts of allowing people who needed sheltered housing from the private sector to use it. I think that is what is important and that is the difference; it should be on a social welfare basis, not on an economic basis. So, that is more than likely the reason why we see the blending of the figures as far as that is concerned. I have to say that I was disappointed that our Speaker’s reasons for the housing situation seem to be the objectors, but it is not the objectors that have been the problem as far as our housing situation is concerned; it is the crazy policies we have. If we have an open-door policy of ‘Come in, folks, come in, come in’ without realising the social problems that there will be, and this doormat mentality, that is the problem that we have got really, and this is why I have sympathy with the minister over this proposal, because she has just inherited a problem and she is very restricted in what she can do. But until we have the legislative package that stops the exploiting of the poor, what we have got to do is stop forgetting about the people who need homes for nests and catering for the investors that want nest eggs. That is a major problem, and I suggest to the minister who was replying the other day that she reconsiders the issue and looks at the issue as far as the private rental market is concerned. It is a major problem because of the fact that that is where people are investing and that is where the property market is being kept up as well as it has been. So, I think it is wrong for Mr Speaker to try and make out that somehow these objectors are the problem when the problem is that we have not come up with a proper legislative framework as far as this situation is concerned. At the end of the day, it is going to be the most vulnerable who are going to be hit. It is the ones who have the least money in their hip pocket who are always going to suffer when there is a contraction in the market or if the supply is not enough for the demand, and whilst I think we have got to accept the receiving of this report, I do think that there are a few points that I would like the minister to look at. I am concerned that there are only 40 new local authority houses for Onchan. I understand that this is very, very good in the future, when you allow that we had the situation for years where we had one minister who was totally opposed to local authority houses and really this is what, unfortunately, the minister has inherited. I do think that maybe we need to get the three of us on the Onchan benches together to meet with the minister and our local authority to see if there are ways of finding ways of trying to get more housing in my constituency. I am glad to see, after so long of being criticised and misrepresented, that we have seen the department doing less of the spin and we are actually seeing the breakdown between new houses in local authorities and replacement houses in local authorities, and I just hope that we will see the same with the government mortgage schemes that we bring in over the issue which I was trying to raise the other day. Either the minister was not listening or there was misrepresentation over the issue of the fact that these government mortgage schemes really are 95 per cent going to our own people going into our own projects, because in the private sector there is such a limited amount and unless you can have people who will sympathetically sell off property cheaper, it does not really work very effectively. The only other issue that I would like to just put a play in for is the shared-equity mortgage scheme. I know that we have got to support what the intentions are of the minister, and we know that we have got to get the supply and demand issue sorted out firstly, but we did hear from Mr Speaker in a previous debate about the older person who wants to be a first-time owner; they have ended up with children at an early age, they have got to their mid-forties and they would like to buy a home. I do think that we do want to be looking at some sort of part-equity mortgage scheme - one of the things I wanted in my manifesto - where we could have something up to 50 per cent and where we can get people who have been long-term in council houses who can actually buy a house up to a specific price where the state would own 50 per cent of it and where it was theirs for the perpetuity of their lifetime, but at the end of that time obviously we get our equity share of the building back. But I would like to see one step further: even though we are releasing a local authority house, in perpetuity that property can never be rented out for more than a local authority rent, as part of the covenants that would be placed on that property for its subsidy. So, I do hope that the minister will take on board some of the issues that I have raised. I am glad that some of the issues have been recognised at long last. This idea of putting that they are all new houses when a third of them are replacements: I appreciate it that we are getting a little bit more transparency as far as some of these things are concerned, Eaghtyrane. The President: Hon. member of Council, Mr Delaney. Mr Delaney: Thank you, Mr President. I am behind the minister 100 per cent. Why? I a m voting for it because I would like to see how it pans out. I brought the subject to the minister at the policy document with the Chief Minister at the Palace Hotel as I know it. I had a visit from a couple of young men who were paying £70 in a house, and the story they told me horrified me. It was not in flats; it was in a three-bedroomed house. There were 12 in it, and there had been up to 14. When they told me, I went to see the landlord, and he virtually laughed at the law in the Island. The situation is, minister, that I want a guarantee that we will bring in some stopping of exploitation of people, not only our own, but people who have joined us on the Island. These two young men have two work permits to work in food retailers, and I am sure that if we do not do it, we are going to have again the Rachman thing we faced. The situation that I found was that when I explained to him the 1952 Act and the 1973 Act, I think it was, he said it does not cover this because it is not in flats. Now, when we are dealing with people like that, Mr President, it has gone too far. I had to give them the best advice possible - that they should, of course, go to a rent court and see if they can do anything there - but the situation is that they could not afford to lose the accommodation, because they were scared of having to pay more somewhere else. Now, these fellows were on £1.10 minimum wage. They are working in two jobs and are virtually changing beds in the morning. I said to them, ‘How long have you been here?’ ‘Two and a half years.’ They said, ‘How long before I can get on the housing list?’ I said, ‘Well, according to this, 10 years.’ They said, ‘That is not long.’ Now, I hope some of you are around in eight years’ time when they are competing with our people for housing, and you will not be able to say - because I have asked the question - ‘Oh, no. You cannot have it’ because they will not be on work permits; they will be ours. They will then have to compete with our people. You explain that to the Manx people, the people who cannot afford to buy first-time buyers’ houses. That is the point, minister: give me an assurance it will come at the end of this summer, because if it does not, I will move a resolution in here and a private member’s Bill. The President: Hon. member for Peel, Mrs Hannan. Mrs Hannan: Thank you, Eaghtyrane. I know some of the members have mentioned the standard of housing that we are going to develop and the vernacular and the like. The Department of Local Government has given an undertaking, or the government has given an undertaking, that it will build a number of properties every year, and my concern is that this is the same department of government which also looks at planning. I see that there is this difficulty there that you have got the minister who is fronting the policy for housing and you have got the same minister who is saying ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to any housing application that goes in, and I think that is a problem. I have no solution to that problem, but I do think it is a problem, because then it means that we have developers who are leading the policy and not politicians who are leading the policy, (Interjection) because then . . . I know it happens in a number of areas: you get a reasonable density of housing and it is because it is in parkland or because there should be so many, this is the planning approval, and that is fine. That can go through and that can be quite acceptable. This is another issue - not just the first issue - but then these particular developers still own maybe the fill-in areas, and they will come along and they will put more houses on that area. Now, that is going to satisfy the government’s policy of building so many houses a year. So, even if you have started off with the development being fine and acceptable, you then find, at the end of the development, that every square inch, you could say, has been developed to satisfy government’s need or for government to satisfy themselves that they have built what they have told us they are going to build within a year. I think, really, with the sort of money that we are spending and that we are expecting people to spend on buying properties, that we should have properties which we can be proud of and we can say, in another 10 or 20 years, that that development was a good development. We have got many developments in the Isle of Man that do not have proper facilities and that are not particularly nice developments. The quality of life is not particularly good in these areas. Children have nowhere to play, so they play in the road, their neighbours complain about them, and so it goes on. I would hope that government as a whole can look at this, because it is a difficulty which I recognise. On one hand, we are going to supply all these houses, but on the other, what about the development standards and the quality of the houses? It is all very well that the minister has said she is not going to support any application which does not have a reasonable standard of living within accommodation, but that does not get over the other houses that are being produced by these other developers which are not providing a good quality of life for people. So, I will support this; it is only being received, Eaghtyrane. I am quite happy to support it, and I support many of the other comments that have been made by members. The President: Minister to reply. Mrs Crowe: Well, I must say that it can be dispiriting at times. To hear the remarks of most of the members of this hon. Court whose electoral pledges were to provide more housing coming forward in such a negative manner, when I have just said that we are going to double the amount of homes that we build on this Island - hopefully - this year, I think is rather sad. However, Mr Quayle, the first to speak, the hon. member for Middle, did mention the local plans and the Braddan plan in particular, and I know very well that he indeed, like myself and the members of the department, is pushing very hard to get the Braddan plan progressed. Indeed, I think you know that we have actually now asked for an inspector to be appointed, but what I will say, and what every minister I have listened to in this Court has said - and I feel certain that Mr President would agree with me - is that we are always told that the plans that are brought before us are flexible. The President: I hope so. Mrs Crowe: We are always told that. (A Member: Hear, hear.) So, I would say that there is a degree of flexibility in local and area plans, and the whole of this planning process is being looked at at the present time. The hon. member for Ayre, Mr Quine - I have actually put ‘Mr Negative’ down; I am sorry (Members: Ooh!): I recognise that the housing policy report may well have been criticised for a lack of data, and indeed I could have supplied all that. I could have supplied reams of paper, but I am afraid I would much prefer to produce houses rather than reports. (Several Members: Hear, hear.) However, I have a weekly update, and I can run one off on my computer at any time. I know exactly where every housing project is and I know whether it has gone through planning, so I can do that for you at any time, if that would satisfy you. The DHSS housing, I think, in Appendix A, was particularly mentioned, and DHSS land. Well, in fact, I actually signed off for that land during the course of this week, and that is going to be the second phase of first-time buyer housing at Cronk Grianagh. Now, there will be some provision within that housing for DHSS special needs of one type or another, and I am delighted that that will be part of the community project there. (Mrs Hannan: Hear, hear.) There was also a mention of the houses at Leodest Road, and, as you quite rightly say, the 20 houses are the bungalows for the elderly housing and there is housing for 20 first-time buyers. The hon. member for Glenfaba mentioned once again the strategic plan and, indeed, mentioned all other plans. I have just said now that we are reviewing the way in which these plans are brought forward. We may be looking to bring forward larger area plans instead of some of the small plans that we have at the present time. He also mentioned, as did my hon. colleague, the member for Rushen, Mr Rimington, whose views I know very well, the provision of a new town in the Isle of Man, and indeed the strategic plan is being looked at at the present time and it will be part of our discussions in the very near future. I thank Mr Speaker for his comments about the difficulties occasionally in my job; however, we will get there. As I think he knows already, there is a complete review of the bureaucracy attached to the planning process. I am hoping that the planning process that we are proposing will be going out for public consultation very shortly. However, I am sure he will be pleased to know. . . I am not actually sure whether he himself has seen the plans, but I do know that his local commissioners have seen the plans now for the 66 houses that are going to be starting very shortly in the Castletown area for first-time buyers, and I am delighted to see the plan and how very attractive the area looks. (A Member: Hear, hear.) The Speaker: Janet’s Corner. Mrs Crowe: Right. The work about to start on Janet’s Corner, as you quite rightly say, is the tenant consultation process. We are very, very committed to making sure that the tenants in public sector housing have a say in the way their homes are provided for the future. (A Member: Hear, hear.) We do have a problem in decamping tenants. Now, we have had a shortage in Douglas, as you know, with the wonderful £29 million Pulrose development (A Member: Hear, hear.), but that caused us problems of empty properties lying there whilst we wanted to develop them. So, we are actually planning to do Janet’s Corner in a rather different way to just decamping people, knocking houses down and building new, but those proposals will all be discussed with yourself, the local commissioners and, more importantly, the tenants very shortly. (The Speaker: Good.) The hon. member for East Douglas, Mrs Cannell, mentioned housing associations and the need for expertise to be brought in from across. Well, actually, we have within our department now one of the officers who ran the largest housing association in the North-West, so we do not need to bring in expertise, but what I would say is that we are evaluating whether indeed it is beneficial, at this present time, for a housing association, or indeed our own house purchase assistance scheme, so we are evaluating which would be the better option. There was mention made of the urban regeneration scheme. It is unfortunate that the hon. member was not able to attend the exhibition that we put on, because one would have been able to see from there that there were 18 flats as part of the urban regeneration scheme - which we may or may not now be considering for key workers - for which there is an urgent need, and there are also plans for 22 other flats and 13 other houses, refurbished or rebuilt. So, the totals in the report are quite correct, and once again I would invite any member who has any queries about these numbers to call in to my office and I can print out an update for you on a daily basis. Mrs Cannell: Point of order, Mr President. The President: Yes. Mrs Cannell: The minister is misleading this hon. Court. The presentation she referred to only presented 18 units, not the 20 and the addition that she has referred to now. She is misleading this Court, sir. The President: At this stage, I am not going to get into an argument as to how many units there are at all. Minister, continue. (Laughter and interjection) Mrs Crowe: I thank the hon. Minister for Education for his mention of the need for key worker accommodation. We fully realise that it is not only in teaching; there are many members in the public sector where provision is not made. After the initial easing-in period of maybe two years, there is no provision then made for accommodation for these key workers, so we will be coming back to this Court with some proposals for key worker housing. Now, the hon. member for Ramsey, Mr Singer, once again mentioned housing associations, which, indeed, we are looking at, and we have the expertise in-house, as I have just said. We do recognise that the Lezayre estate, another public sector housing estate that is in a shocking state, needs to be replaced, but once again and particularly in that area - we have got different plans for Castletown - we are having difficulty finding properties to which to decamp people whilst we plan the estate as it is going. We have identified two sites now and we are working on those to be able to start as quickly as we can on what we know are homes that are very desperately in need of replacement. Also, mention was made by the hon. member for Ramsey of the empty properties. I did mention in my speech that we are fully aware of empty properties, and, as you say, quite rightly, the census has highlighted the number of empty properties that there are on the Island. Starting within a week or so, there will be a 13-week intensive study done regarding all empty properties, and I hope to have that report on my desk in or around the autumn time. So, we will have a better understanding of the empty properties that were identified in the census, because I think the numbers that were revealed were quite surprising. The hon. member for Onchan, Mr Karran, made mention of the exorbitant public sector rents on the Isle of Man. Mr Karran: No, I did not. Mr Downie: Yes, you did. Mrs Crowe: Yes, you did. I have it written, Mr Karran, that what you said was ‘the exorbitant public sector rents on the Isle of Man’. The public sector rents, on average, in the Isle of Man are around £40 per week. I do not think one could suggest that was exorbitant. However - Mr Karran: I did not. Mr Downie: Yes, you did. Mrs Crowe: Yes, the blending of the figures was another thing - Mr Karran: I said that that is what you want to do, by blending the figures together so that you can bring in - Mrs Crowe: Blending the figures together was another thing that you mentioned. There is no intention in any report of mine to do anything but give you accurate information. I am not saying that a mistake can never be made, but to the best will in the world, every part of the information that is given is correct. Mr Karran: I shall read Hansard with interest, my dear. Mrs Crowe: Do indeed, Mr Karran; (Interjections) I think you need to have done on many occasions. We are not catering for investors, which was another comment you made. The houses that we are producing in our schemes can only be sold to first-time buyers. The approved houses are only for first-time buyers. You also mentioned a part-equity scheme; well, earlier in the order paper, we actually approved what, in fact, was a part-equity scheme where 30 per cent of the equity would be a top-up loan held by government. That is a part-equity scheme. The hon. member of Council, Mr Delaney: I am sorry, I must apologise; I did not catch what you said at the end of your speech. I am sorry. Mr Delaney: If it is not brought in, in this next year, in the new session, I will be considering bringing a private member’s Bill in and seeing how it goes from there. Mrs Crowe: If what isn’t? I am awfully - Mr Delaney: It is necessary now. Mrs Crowe: What for? I am sorry, Mr Delaney, I - Mr Delaney: You obviously were not listening. The President: Minster, just finish your brief. Mrs Crowe: I am sorry. Mr Delaney: Overcrowding of houses, which I spoke to you about - The President: Mr Delaney. Mrs Crowe: Perhaps I can speak to you later about that; I did not actually hear the end of what you were saying. The hon. member for Peel, Mrs Hannan, mentioned housing and the fact that I was concerned in the planning process. Now, I know that you know that any housing applications made by the department go straight to the Chief Secretary’s Office and to an independent off- Island inspector, so I have no part in the planning process. And I have a very able chairman of the Planning Committee, Mr Henderson. A Member: Ooh! Members: Hear, hear. Mr Delaney: Romance! (Laughter) Mrs Hannan: That wasn’t what she used to say about him. A Member: Praise indeed! (Interjections) Mrs Crowe: Well, I can comment on the work that is done in the department. Mr Henderson deals with all the planning issues in the department. If they have to go to appeal, once again they go to an independent inspector. They only land on my desk after the independent inspector has made a recommendation, and that is all. (Interjections) Once again, there was a mention of development standards and, as I said to you in the house purchase assistance scheme, the affordable homes that will qualify for our scheme will be built to our spatial and technical standards. Mr President, I hope that I have dealt with all the many queries regarding housing. If any members have any queries, I am in my office every day and I would be pleased to address them. Thank you, Mr President. The President: The motion, hon. members, is printed at 33 on the order paper. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Housing – Private Sector Rent Assistance Scheme – July 2002 Report Received Item 34. The Minister for Local Government and the Environment to move: That the Private Sector Rent Assistance Scheme Report July 2002 be received. The President: We turn, then, to 34, and again I call on the Minister for Local Government and the Environment to move. Mrs Crowe: Mr President, at the March 2002 sitting, in response to a motion by the member for Ayre, Tynwald agreed that the Department of Local Government and the Environment should once again assess and report on the need to provide a private sector rent assistance scheme that would be available to people who have been on a public sector waiting- list for 12 months or more. In September 2001, the hon. member for Ayre, who was at that time in the department, submitted a similar scheme to the Council of Ministers, proposing rent assistance for single people who would not at that time be eligible to apply for public sector housing. The scheme proposed a range of financial assistance up to £300 per month to enable single people in employment to acquire a private sector rental of £600 per month. The department would have had to maintain a register of qualifying tenants who would have been able to seek tenancies through approved letting agents. The department consulted with Treasury on the financial implications of such a scheme, which was aimed at providing assistance for up to 100 applicants each year over a period of three years. The funding required would have been in the region of £300,000 for each year, ending at £900,000 in the third year. Treasury did not concur with the proposed scheme. There were concerns expressed by several parties that the scheme would be inflationary, open to fraud, difficult to administer and impossible to end after three years. At the time this proposal was submitted, uniform criteria for acceptance onto public sector waiting-lists were also being considered. Subsequently, the Council of Ministers agreed that single people should be eligible for acceptance onto public sector housing waiting-lists. Taking account of the comments of Council and the decision of Treasury not to support the proposal, my department reconsidered the proposed scheme and agreed not to pursue it any further. The motion presented by the member for Ayre now seeks to extend the original proposal to include couples and families. However, the concerns expressed about the original proposal would still be fundamentally the same and have much greater financial implications. Indeed, funding for this proposed scheme would have to compete with the essential funding that is required to support the provision of new rented housing and homes for first-time buyers. I believe, therefore, that it would be better to invest the money in the provision of new housing, rather than lining the pockets of private landlords. The uniform criteria that are now being implemented across all housing authorities include a points allocation system that allows for those in the most urgent need to be considered as a priority for the housing available. In addition, as hon. members will see in the latest housing policy progress report which I have just presented, the programme for the provision of new and replacement public sector housing has doubled to over 850 homes. The House Purchase Assistance Scheme 2002 and the increased first-time buyer programme will also provide more options for people on waiting-lists who might prefer to purchase a home and, indeed, who may not qualify for the housing list criteria. I am satisfied that the fairer allocation method, together with the increased development programme, will address demand within a reasonable timescale. Mr President, the department does not recommend that further consideration be given to the introduction of a private rent assistance scheme, and that is for the reasons I have just explained. The President: Hon. member for Onchan, Mr Earnshaw. Mr Earnshaw: Mr President, I beg to second the motion. The President: Hon. member for Ayre, Mr Quine. Mr Quine: Thank you, Mr President. When I moved the original motion, I gave a great deal of facts and figures in support of that motion. I am going to try as far as possible not to have to recall all those figures here today, but there are some figures that I must make a reference to. But if I could deal with a couple of preliminaries mentioned by the minister in her introduction: she made reference to the fact that originally this proposition was intended to deal with single people who were under 40, 45 years of age, and that is quite true. The original concept of this scheme, as the minister has intimated, was a departmental scheme: it went through the department, approved by the department. That scheme was designed, at that time, to deal with that element, for the simple reason that they were by and large excluded from the housing waiting-lists and consequently they had little or no prospect of getting a house within any reasonable period of time. Since then, and, of course, prior to me moving my motion for this particular study, the ‘uniform criteria’, as she has referred to it, were brought in, so that changed the whole basis of it, hence the proposition which I moved within the motion was for single people and couples, because they are the ones who miss out in terms of what is now a points system for the allocation of housing. I do not feel I need to go into that point system to demonstrate why single people and young couples - or couples - are disadvantaged under that points system; I think is transparently obvious, because it is the way that the points are constructed based upon the family and their marital status et cetera. So that is the first point, just to clarify that. Then the second, I think, is perhaps something of a throwaway remark: one of her objections to supporting this is that she is opposed to lining the pockets of private landlords. Nothing is going to line the pockets of the private sector as much as what we approved yesterday, where we have, at the stroke of a pen, said, ‘Now, all properties up to £130,000: bringing the private sector in.’ That is really where the private sector . . . I am sure they were having the odd glass of champagne last night on the strength of that. The amounts of money that are involved here, which she knows very well, range from what could be £300,000 to £900,000 to £1 million, so we are not talking anything like the sums of money, and certainly lining the pockets of the private sector is not the object of the exercise. We have, very broadly speaking, 6,000 public housing units and, again broadly speaking, we have a waiting-list of 1,000 for those housing units. We have very little movement in terms of people moving off the housing lists and making numbers available; in fact, I gave the actual figures when I moved the original motion. Now, of that waiting-list of 1,000, 40 per cent of those people are under 45 years of age, and I do not and cannot give you a figure for the young couples, but it would not be unreasonable to split the remainder and say 20 per cent, so we could be talking of 65 per cent who are disadvantaged in relation to that list. Now, the minister says that she is satisfied that there is no need for this scheme because she has in place a programme that is going to meet the needs of these people. Well, let us just examine that, because I think that is a key point. The current proposition, in terms of target, is that she is going to seek to build 120 public housing units a year, and so even if we have got . . . Well, put it this way: there are several years of waiting against the numbers to come up in that stake. So, we have those people who are not going to get, and have no prospect of getting, a public housing unit for several years. That is a fact. Mr Karran: If they can get on a list. Mr Quine: If they get on one, quite right. (Interjection by Mr Karran) We are going to have 120 first-time buyer units - and some of those may move from public housing units, and that is fine - but we have already got 600 waiting to take up that production anyway; they are already on the register. So, we have a situation where there are certain sections of people who qualify for public housing, but, by virtue of their status, either because they are single or because they are married and do not have a family, they are not going to be able to get into a position to compete successfully for one of the public housing units that become available. I do not think that can be disputed, and if one was to take an empirical glance at the allocations - and I have sat doing allocations over there for five years - the number of allocations that come up are, as I said, very few indeed. So, there we have these people; they qualify for public housing, but they cannot get public housing, and they have no prospect of getting it for several years. They are seeking to stay afloat against a market scenario where there are escalating house prices and escalating rent levels, and I might just mention in that regard that I did a survey only two months ago, which I did report to this hon. Court in connection with another motion, where I went out to 13 or 15 estate agents and asked them to let me have details of the properties they had for rent at £90 or less. There were none available, and I have provided that documentation, actually. So, there we are: we have people who have a very limited income; they are subsisting somewhere, either with family or friends. Obviously they are finding somewhere to put their head down, but the question is whether or not it is reasonable that they should continue to subsist - I think that is the term I should use - in those conditions in terms where we know they qualify for assistance, but, for political reasons - matters of political expediency - we have decided we are not going to give them assistance. I do not find that a tenable proposition. So, a scheme has been devised by professionals - and, again, I am not going to go into it, because the minister has given the bones of it quite fairly - and that scheme would have provided them with only above a certain level of rent and, in relation to their own contribution, a degree of support. It would have been a degree of support that was renewable on a six-monthly basis, because we are talking about six-monthly tenancies, and the review would therefore be built into that system. But no, the department that devised this scheme had it kicked out by Treasury; it went back to Treasury once or twice; and it went to the Council of Ministers, who did not agree with it - or the majority of them did not agree with it. Hence my motion and hence this reference that was made as a consequence of my motion and the report we have before us today. Now, the objections. Why is it unreasonable? Why is it unreasonable to help these people? Well, the first proposition is that we have produced a public sector uniform waiting-list and allocation criteria and that is going to solve their problem in part. It was needed, because I do not think there was a very fair allocation being done of public housing units in certain circumstances. It was needed, but it does not address this problem, because if we are talking of determining priority on a needs basis, ordinarily the people that are going to get the limited number of public housing units available are going to be either families or single-parent families or people in special circumstances where there are medical conditions; it is not going to cover the bulk of these people to whom I have referred, so that cannot possibly be a reason why this scheme should not be implemented. And then the next suggestion is, ‘Well, demand.’ They are not certain about demand and, in any case, they have got this 120 that I have spoken of, so they believe that that is going to meet it. Well, in the earlier motion, I spoke at a little length explaining why that is not the case. Those figures are not going to go anywhere near meeting this demand. I do not think I need to cover that again. Financial implications: well, that really is one that I half choke on. This is a situation which is the product of our own policies; it is the product of economic development, irrespective of our view on whether there should be residency control or not. If we have created it, then it is not unreasonable that we should take some tangible steps to remove the suffering and the hardship that these people, as a consequence of this scenario, are faced with. So, I have no time whatsoever for that decision. I think the fourth one is that it would be inflationary. We went through a scheme yesterday, and I ask you now: was that inflationary? In one great big step, we went from £85,000 to £90,000, and essentially we have not only taken that step, we have gone now into the private sector, where the private sector are producing houses at their price tag. They are going to be calling the tune. If we were really worried about it being inflationary, we would not, I think, have given any serious consideration to what was before us yesterday, although I think we would, because, quite frankly, we did not have any alternative. But, reverting to the issue of inflation as it could relate to this scheme, would it be inflationary? I say ‘no’, and I say ‘no’ for four reasons, essentially. First of all, it would be limited to an identifiable group, so that in itself offers a degree of control. It is not open house; it is an identifiable group of people who have to fit into income brackets and circumstances where they have a pre-qualification for public housing. So, there is that control. It would be limited to qualifying properties; not all properties would qualify. If it was flats, they would have to meet the flats regulations et cetera. Not open house there, either. And the ceiling of rent for qualifying properties would be a matter to be determined by government, so the ceiling of assistance was a matter for government to control. The reasonableness of those rent levels could be measured against the norm for rents throughout the estate agents, who would, of course, be acting as the agents for government in this matter, so we would be able to draw a line of comparison between the normal market rent and the rent that was being asked for these properties, which would be subject to rent assistance. And, of course, the scheme would be time limited. Mr President, I find that there is no case whatsoever to reject this scheme. If we reject this scheme, what we are saying in effect is, ‘Yes, you qualify for public housing, but we cannot house you. You will have to sit and suffer and live in hope that you will come up in this draw, hopefully anything between now and six or seven years’ time, and meanwhile do the best you can to keep afloat.’ I find that incomprehensible in the situation which we are faced with, and the annoying thing is that we have the means to do it and we have the means to do it in a controlled fashion. Mr President, I do not intend to go on any longer than this, because my position is in Hansard when I moved this motion. It is there; it is clear. I am just putting this little top-up of a response to what I do not consider to be a very meaningful report at all, and I will be simply voting against this motion, and anybody with any conscience or common sense will do the same thing. Mrs Hannan: Hear, hear. The President: Hon. member for Onchan, Mr Karran. Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I would just like to say that I feel that we already do this, if the truth is known, with Social Services. Anybody with children is done on this basis anyway, and I actually think that we should not go down this road, to be honest with you; in fact, I think that the Council of Ministers has not thought it out long-term as far as this proposal is concerned, because this is what they did in the adjacent isle, and that is why you see in the adjacent isle now that you have no decent local authority housing, because they were all sold off. It is all done by private landlords, it is all Rachmanism and it must not be supported. So, I have no problem with this report. I have to say that it is right that it will be inflationary, because there is already the hidden agenda. As I repeat, it seems unfortunate that the minister did not understand the first time that the reason why they want to put local authority housing and an elderly people’s complex altogether is because of the debt factor, and then we can have them go for a policy of extortionate rent to justify it on the back of that. I believe that if we support this proposal in front of us today, what we will be doing is hyping the inflation up in the public sector and we would see more of the right-wingers. We hear the leaks from the Council of Ministers about how the battles are to try and keep public sector rents down, and that is what I was saying before as far as that is concerned. And I think that whilst I totally concur with the sympathy of the hon. member for Ayre, it would be the wrong route to go down. The fact that we have had years of neglect of local authority housing and the way we have gerrymandered the criteria upwards instead of downwards as far as getting on a housing list now is concerned is a separate issue, Eaghtyrane, but I believe that it would be wrong for us to go down this road, because it would only give more credence to those who want to just do what has been done willy-nilly outside in the private sector to exploit those who cannot afford the basic amenity of life of putting a roof over their heads. It would only add power and argument to those in the Council of Ministers who want to bring council house rents up to a rate on the same lines as the private sector, which would be wrong, so that is the reason why I would not support this today. I understand completely where the hon. member for Ayre is coming from, but what we have got to sort out is the demand, and the demand is: we have to get a residency mechanism in on this Island. That is what we have got to do, and we have got to sort out the issue of building houses for homes, not for the investment market. I believe that all that this would do, if we did not go along with this, is instead of having two people owning 10 per cent of Governor’s Hill - which I am sure, because my good friend the minister has more resources behind her than I, she can deny when she has been up to the deeds register. . . The situation would be, if we support bringing this in, that we are slipping down the road of what has happened in the UK, and we will not get the issue addressed like it should be. And we do not want to have a situation where we have people trying to say that because people are making a fortune at the moment exploiting this section of our community, then we will have people wanting to do the same and bring the council rents up to the same level as the private sector. That is what I said and I regret having to repeat that again, as the minister should have heard it in the first place, but we cannot support this scheme; it would be inflationary. The President: I was going to invite the minister to reply. Mr Singer will be the first to speak at ten minutes past five, when we return from our break, hon. members. A Member: Hear, hear. The Court adjourned at 4.50 p.m. and resumed its sitting at 5.10 p.m. Housing – Private Sector Rent Assistance Scheme – Debate Concluded – Report Received The President: We continue with item 34. As I indicated before we broke, the hon. member for Ramsey, Mr Singer. Mr Singer: Thank you, Mr President. I was brought to my feet in response to the hon. member for Onchan and the comments that he made just before the break. I think his speech was political dogma reminiscent of the worst of the old Labour Party: suffer now brothers, but wait until the revolution. (Mr Henderson: Hear, hear.) Mrs Crowe: I thought it was quite good. Mr Singer: The statement that he made was at the expense of those who need a decent roof over their head now. (Interjection by Mr Karran) We all have people telephoning us in desperation for help. They are qualifying for housing but there is no housing available for them. The hon. member for Ayre’s proposal, as it was put before Tynwald, would help, but I do not think even he would suggest that the proposal it the panacea that is the answer, because there is probably not enough rental property available (Mrs Crowe: Absolutely.) for the demand that would be put onto it. But I think the main point we have to remember though, is that the proposal would not benefit the Rachman type landlord with the rabbit-warren flats, because these would not qualify under the scheme. The qualifying flats would have to be approved by DoLGE. These are going to be the flats that are covered by all the regulations, and these flats would probably be at least £500 to £600 a month anyway under present prices. What in fact it may do is to keep the prices of those flats down, because if someone is sure of getting £600, but is not sure of getting £650, well, maybe it would keep it down because if they see the £650 they are not going to get anybody in who qualifies under this scheme. So I would agree with the hon. member for Ayre that this is a way, even a temporary way, of getting a decent roof over people’s heads until the Department of Local Government and the local authorities can provide for them. So I would hope that hon. members would see it that way, Mr President, that we are helping people to get a roof over their heads, and I hope that members will reject the recommendation made by the minister. The President: Minister to reply. Mrs Crowe: Thank you, Mr President. I think I would like to address some of the comments in reverse order, as it were. The hon. member for Ramsey, Mr Singer, said we all have people telephoning us desperate for help, and that is quite true, indeed we do, but there are degrees of desperation and it is quite true what the hon. member for Onchan, Mr Karran, said. He said that the Social Services on the Isle of Man deal with those desperate people, and he is quite right. I know from his time in the department when he was looking after that area, there are many times when the DHSS step in with other agencies to help those who are desperate. Mr Singer also mentioned we would be helping them in a temporary way, so we provide £300 a month to someone on a six-monthly tenancy. So then, what do you suggest we do in this temporary measure after six months? Do we say, ‘I am sorry, we are no longer paying that money to you. You have to vacate this house’? You did suggest it was a temporary way. I would suggest that you cannot put someone out of their home, no matter whether you are providing a £300 subsidy for them to be in that home, it would be very difficult - in fact, I would think it impossible - to evict someone, especially a good tenant. I move on to the hon. mover of the original motion, Mr Quine, and once again I would reiterate there is no way that this scheme could be time-limited. After three years one could not withdraw this kind of subsidy and say ‘Okay, you are on your own, move out of the house or the home you are in and find somewhere for yourself.’ It just could not be time-limited. It is wide open to fraudulent abuse, and there is certainly no way - we would not have the resources - we could check any or all of these properties that would be utilised for these people to make sure that this scheme was not being abused, and I feel certain that the hon. mover knows full well that that is the case. I feel this is just opposing views in recommending one scheme. I would suggest that it is open to fraudulent abuse; I would suggest there is no way that it could be time- limited; there is no way that one could withdraw a subsidy and say after six months, ‘I am sorry, you have to leave this property.’ But I just want to comment also on the inflationary aspect of it. There was mention made about the inflationary movement that had been made in the house purchase assistance scheme, and I want to stress that the houses being built for the house purchase assistance scheme will be houses built to our specification and at a price determined by the department, not the developer. So I just wanted to make that quite clear. I would suggest, Mr President, that we are never going to come to agree about this scheme. I think that it is inflationary, open to fraudulent abuse and could never be time-limited. We could never evict tenants after six months, no matter what subsidy we were paying, and I do understand the hon. member’s concerns for helping people that are waiting on housing lists, but I do hope that the availability of public sector housing, the extra houses that we are building, will ease the problem for the housing waiting list, as indeed has the housing criteria. I think there was mention made in your speech that there had been no movement and indeed very little, and indeed at that time you were correct. Even to date not all the local housing authorities have reviewed their waiting lists. So we will have a better indication of the waiting lists for public sector housing when the common criteria have been reviewed by all housing authorities on the Island. Mr President, I beg to move. The President: Hon. members, the motion I put to you is printed at 34 on your order paper, that the Private Sector Rent Assistance Scheme Report July 2002 be received. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. A division was called for and voting resulted as follows: In the Keys - For: Messrs Anderson, Rodan, Gill, Mrs Crowe, Messrs Houghton, Henderson, Duggan, Braidwood, Downie, Shimmin, Mrs Hannan, Messrs Bell, Karran, Corkill, Earnshaw, Gelling and the Speaker - 17 Against: Mr Quine, Mrs Cannell and Mr Singer - 3 Mr Braidwood: On a point of order, Mr President, I was outside. Would I be able to vote, because I came in -? Mr Duggan: I was too, sir. The President: I understood that you had crossed the bar before the vote was actually called. The Speaker: Mr President, the motion carries in the House of Keys with 17 votes for and 3 votes against. In the Council - For: The Lord Bishop, Messrs Lowey, Waft, Kniveton, Radcliffe, Mrs Christian and Mr Crowe - 7 Against: Dr Mann - 1 The President: Seven votes for 1 against in the Council, the motion, hon. members, therefore carries. Housing Task Force – Report – Conclusions Endorsed Item 35. The Chief Minister to move: That the conclusions reached by the Housing Task Force in their Report on the Evaluation of Fiscal and other Measures to Influence the Early Development of Land Zoned for Housing be endorsed. The President: I call on the Chief Minister to move. Mr Corkill: Thank you, Mr President, and I am sure hon. members are well limbered up now for another housing debate, so obviously I will try to take into account the issues that have all been raised in previous motions, but obviously this whole issue of housing is such a serious issue for the Island and for us to deal with. At the May sitting of Tynwald the Housing Task Force was asked to report back through the Council of Ministers on the use of fiscal and other measures as an influence on the early development of land zoned for housing. The Housing Task Force is before us today, hon. members. The report does not attempt a full analysis of the housing situation on the Island. That is unnecessary as we have seen with previous debates and reports. The Housing Task Force does, however, report the basic key data. It records the 6.4 per cent increase in population since 1996; it also records the effect of diminishing household size, which means that a greater number of housing units is necessary for a population of any given size. These are factors which have increased demand for housing. In addition, in paragraph 2.2 the report refers to another important factor which we all know is having an effect, and this is low interest rates. Low interest rates simply mean that house- buyers are better able to borrow and increase effective demand. Also, low interest rates have the effect of making financial investments relatively unattractive and encourages those with funds to invest, to switch resources to the purchase of property. This, as we know, adds to demand, pushes up prices and tends to squeeze out owner-occupiers who are seeking to buy. This is a phenomenon not confined to the Isle of Man but is observable also in the United Kingdom and other places. It is a temporary rather than a permanent phenomenon. As interest rates rise, investors will switch back to financial securities and away from real estate. In the meantime, though, interest rates add considerably to our difficulties. But the key data in chapter 2 deal with the supply side. We have heard earlier in the session about what the Department of Local Government and the Environment is doing, and so we know what is being done to stimulate house building. What the data in chapter 2 shows is that our estimates of new construction over the next two to three years will be at or around target. It is, of course, possible that events may conspire so that those targets may not be achieved, and I acknowledge some of the comments that have been made previously, but at this stage we are looking to see something like 380 units built this year, 620 next year and 520 in 2004-05. This rate of construction will, without doubt, make inroads into the backlog of demand and is as much as we might normally expect the construction industry to be able to deliver. Our evidence shows that sufficient land is zoned for now and that the indications from the construction industry are that they can deliver. This is not complacency though, Mr President; it is a rational analysis of the facts that are available to us. We will not have solved everyone’s housing problem within three years, absolutely no way, but there is no necessity in our view to produce radical and novel measures as a matter of urgency. The actions which have been taken so far, we believe, should be left to work through. Whilst we can see improvements in the short term we are less confident about the medium term. Inevitably the further ahead we try to predict, the more uncertain and the more speculative the data becomes and the less we can rely upon that data. The Housing Task Force in its report has identified a number of issues which require to be addressed as part of our medium-term strategy. These are identified in paragraph 3.2. Whilst these issues have a potential for making a beneficial contribution to the situation, they do not get to the heart of the problem. Paragraph 3.3 has identified the key issues as, firstly, ensuring that there is a sufficient quantity of land available for housing; and secondly, ensuring that there is a sufficiently competitive market to enable the industry to respond effectively to demand. Now, looking first at securing sufficient land, this is a matter of zoning and there is sufficient land zoned at present for our immediate requirements. When we look towards the medium term there is a need to maintain momentum. We see this being done progressively through the strategic plan and through the revision of the area plans. We also would wish to see brown land used as extensively as possible, but we also need to be prepared to zone additional greenfield land if we are to meet the Island’s housing needs. If zoning alone does not produce sufficient land in the medium term and we have continuing shortage, we may need to be radical and be prepared to give development approval to land which is not zoned for development but which is in all other respects suitable, but that is an issue to be confronted if and when it becomes necessary. The availability of sufficient land is paramount, but we also need to ensure that a competitive market exists so that there is a sufficient number of developers who have sufficient materials and workers and have access to sufficient land for development to be able to respond to market demands. Insufficiencies or bottlenecks will result in a shortage of supply and even higher property prices. With sufficient land zoned and available and a sufficient and competitive construction industry in place in the medium term, we should be able to expect housing supply and demand to achieve equilibrium. Government intervention will only be necessary if the market does not operate properly. In that context the Housing Task Force has looked at four forms of government intervention, and these four are: firstly, fiscal measures; secondly, compulsory purchase; thirdly, negotiation with developers; and fourthly, financial incentives. May I first turn to fiscal measures - it is fiscal measures that we were asked to look at specifically. There is a superficial attractiveness in the thought that there may be a housing shortage and that that must mean excessive profits which we can then tax, but there is fundamental weakness in that argument. Imposing a tax in that situation will result in one of two things: either the person who is paying the tax will pass the cost of that tax on to the householder or he will be deterred by the tax and will opt out of the supply of housing. Either way the result is more expensive housing. Taxation, if it is pitched at such a level that it influences behaviour is essentially a means of discouraging activity. In a situation of shortage I would suggest we need to encourage not discourage. I can recall that the Irish Government, intervening with taxation measures in their housing market quite recently, did this but have found it to be counter-productive and they have withdrawn the relevant taxation measures. Taxation did not provide the solution for them. We also need to recognise the practical difficulties of enforcing novel tax ideas in this area. As paragraph 4.10 of the report suggests, there are always going to be difficulties with definitions. Words and phrases which we like to use in discussing housing matters, such as ‘developer’ or ‘option to purchase’, the term ‘zoning’, terms such as ‘mark-up’. We refer to brownfield sites. We also talk about profits, speculative transactions. It would be easy to avoid the tax if we did not get those definitions right. Also, there are corporate and trust vehicles and other means which can be used by the sophisticated to avoid or minimise tax liability in these scenarios, so taxation I would say is also a blunt instrument. It cannot be applied selectively. We may want to target the exploitive landlord, but in doing that we would also catch the responsible landlord. We may also seek to target the property developer, but we will also catch the landowner. Now, having said all that and recognising the limitations and problems of taxation as a means of effecting housing policy, we would not go so far as to rule out any use of fiscal measures regardless of circumstances. We identify in paragraph 4.8 a number of taxation options, and if in the medium term the circumstances were right to activate those options we would do just that. The second issue which the Housing Task Force looked at was compulsory purchase, and that appears to offer the prospect of some beneficial use in certain circumstances. The Department of Local Government and the Environment is able to acquire land compulsorily which is zoned for housing development and either develop it or sell it on for development. This is a useful power if ever we were in a situation where there was sufficient land zoned for development but which was not coming forward at a sufficient rate to meet demand, either because of landowners’ reluctance or because of the manipulations of a developer who was able to corner the market in developable land. Again, looking ahead to the medium term, if there was a blockage of land not coming forward for development, these existing powers could be invoked and these powers are more likely to have a beneficial effect than fiscal measures. Mr President, the third option the Housing Task Force looked at was negotiation with the developers. This is a flexible and non-confrontational option; DoLGE is using it presently and, I believe, effectively to encourage developers to build in sufficient quantities. It will have an ongoing value as a means of influencing market behaviour and also as a means of keeping government informed about the market conditions. Fourthly and finally, the Housing Task Force looked at financial incentives. This in a sense is the opposite of taxation and in a situation of market shortage is a more appropriate strategy than fiscal penalties. What the Housing Task Force report says is that ordinarily the market will provide its own incentive through the price mechanism which will reflect supply and demand. It is only when incentives are insufficient that government involvement is required. We have said earlier that we anticipate that the industry should be able to meet government targets over the next couple of years and it follows from this that we believe that the market mechanism is currently providing sufficient incentive for us to build. No government financial incentive for additional construction is proposed at this time. However, like fiscal measures and compulsory purchase, financial incentives remain an option if supply site difficulties develop. We will consider if necessary the use of financial incentives as part of government’s ongoing management of its housing policy. That brings me to the Housing Task Force report conclusions as set out in paragraph 3.2 and as repeated in the Council of Ministers’ covering paper. There are three conclusions which I can paraphrase by saying, firstly, there is no necessity for government as a matter of urgency to seek to intervene further in the housing market using fiscal or other measures. Our best estimates suggest we will meet our supply targets over the next two to three years. Second, in the medium term, inevitably there can be no real assurance, and at this stage we will be able to continue to meet demand. It is the ongoing business of government to address the medium- term issues. In the lead up to this medium term we will be looking at the measures identified in paragraph 3.2. More particularly, we will ensure the availability of sufficient land and we will be seeking to ensure sufficient competition within the building industry. And thirdly, we will be keeping the fiscal and other options under review and will be prepared to use them if there are difficulties or barriers which will otherwise prevent our medium-term aim being met. Mr President, that is the Housing Task Force report. I believe it responds to the remit that Tynwald gave us and I recommend that Tynwald endorse the conclusions reached in the paper. Thank you. I beg to move, Mr President. The President: Hon. member for Rushen, Mrs Crowe. Mrs Crowe: I beg to second and reserve my remarks, Mr President. The President: Hon. Mr Speaker. The Speaker: Yes, thank you, Mr President. I read through this report and I kept reading through it and I kept glancing through it as the Chief Minister was laying out where they were coming from on it, and I have to say that the thing that I keep picking up is we are being told everything will be okay in two years’ time. The problem is today. What are we doing now up to the two years when the Minister for Local Government and the Environment’s schemes start coming to fruition? In the report I find no reference to government buying land for housing and I would like the Chief Minister to advise us, has the government got an active policy of buying land for housing? What came over to me from the report - and I have to say it is a problem I have because I do not a hundred per cent agree with it - is it will all be all right if we leave it to the private sector. I am sorry, it will not be all right if we leave it to the private sector, and I know what the Minister of Local Government and the Environment is endeavouring to do in certain areas, but they are very small schemes and I just think that somewhere, certainly from this report, the government certainly does not give me enough comfort to say that things are actually going to happen in specific areas. I have to say also that what came across was too much reliance on land being zoned. Land has been zoned for years. It has not been developed, though. Acres and acres and acres of land in the Isle of Man are zoned and are not developed for many different reasons: objectors, services, or whatever. Now, we all know that that can be a problem and we have to deal with that, so I am not trying to say it is thing but there seems to be a big emphasis on it being all right because land is zoned. I have to say it is not all right because land is zoned because in some areas there is a need to zone more land quickly, and again within the report there is great reliance on the strategic plan, on the local plans, but, with respect, the difficulty we have is the timescales involved in getting those plans through to Tynwald Court for approval, and what I cannot understand - and I really have difficulty here - is the view that comes through to me from the report that the urgency is not there in certain areas. I am sorry, Chief Minister, the urgency is there, and we are looking at this issue and I think possibly where it may be going wrong - and I only say this in reading the report because I have not been involved in the discussions, so therefore maybe things have been said - is that we have looked at the whole Island and we have said, ‘Here is the Isle of Man, there is land over here, therefore to get so many houses here we have got plenty of land, but again - and I will repeat what I have said before - and it may be because we do have an acute problem in Castletown and I represent that town, and therefore I am going to portray the problems we have. You cannot look at the whole Island and say, ‘Yes, there is adequate land for housing’ when you have a problem which could be resolved relatively quickly, which I raised on the floor of this Court some time ago when we had a housing debate, yet another one, and made the point that there is land which is ideal in Castletown for development which used to be neutralised because of the airport public safety zone, and that land is now being taken out but is not zoned. Now, the point is, my understanding is we are awaiting the Castletown local plan. Now, if that is the case, I do not understand why, because that is unlikely to be before this Court until February or March of next year if we are lucky, and I come down to the point that my view on that is that if the land is suitable and if it can provide housing where it is needed, we have the ability through the planning law - the government has through the minister - to bring a specific development order to Tynwald Court to actually have that land zoned outwith the local plan but still going through the procedures, and you can actually get such a planning order to Tynwald Court in a relatively short time, because you are not dealing with all the land of the town, you are dealing with a specific site, and those who do not want it can have their objections and those who do can put their case and at the end of the day the minister can make a recommendation. So I have a difficulty because we have a problem, and I have to say - and whilst I know because I have talked to the minister on a number of occasions and I know about the Ballalough land and I have mentioned the land in Castletown, the other land - the point is we are still seeing nothing done, and that is why I made the point before that the minister herself has been tied down by the bureaucratic system that we have developed, and when I say ‘we’, Tynwald Court over 20 or 30 years, which is causing a problem at a time when we need to deal with it, but there is a provision in the planning legislation that enables government to actually move faster if you need to, but there is no mention of it in the report, and that is the bit that I find difficult to deal with. I am not going to vote against the report, but I do find it difficult when we are saying ‘It will be okay in two years’ time.’ Two years time, if you are paying £400 or £600 a month renting a house - Mr Downie: A thousand pounds. The Speaker: Well, I am being reasonable, £400, or £600 a month (Interjections) and there is more, but if you are paying that, there are many young people and not so young would prefer to put that money into buying a house, and our difficulty is that government is not intervening enough to provide housing when there is pressure on, and if you look back at the history of the Isle of Man the only way we have ever taken pressure off the housing market is by direct government intervention by building houses into the market. Now, we cannot do that if we do not own land and the biggest problem the minister has had is land owned by government suitable for building on, and that comes back to the old hobby-horse I have had for many years of buying land well in advance of when you need it, so that when you need it you can use it as and when you want, and if you go back to the housing report that I brought before Tynwald in 1991 it is exactly what it says: ‘Buy land, hold on to it and when you need it, feed it into the market to help keep the house prices at a realistic level and under control. So I am making these points because they are so important to how we are able to meet the needs of those who wish to be housed in the Island, and there are pressures, there are problems for many people on this and people are finding it difficult, and we have gone through all this before, this is our third housing debate in this session, but these are issues that I have not raised before and I just felt I should. Now, the other point I would like to really just bring to the attention of the Chief Minister is within the report, and this relates to Castletown: on page 13 it actually has there in the appendices the land available in Castletown that is zoned, and it states there - and I just really want to flag this up -‘Castletown includes land outside the town boundary at Knock Rushen.’ Now, I just want to make it clear, Chief Minister, that the only land I know of outside the town boundary of Castletown, outside Knock Rushen, is land that actually goes into Scarlett; it is in the Malew area, and I have to say I would not rely on that land for development because I will tell you now, you will have one almighty fight on your hands, because nobody I know wants that land zoned for development, and I have to say, while it is zoned, it was made absolutely clear some years ago that that land should be taken out of the Malew plan because it was not suitable for development because it was on the coastland out to Scarlett and I have to say, I am one, no matter how desperate you are, that would oppose that, because it is not housing at any cost. I have no problem with the land on Knock Rushen because that is within the town boundary and I have always been supportive of that being developed, and that is subject to a planning application at the moment and hopefully this time it will be successful, but I just make that, because I think looking at the report, Chief Minister, it indicates that that is potentially available and I have to say that would be a grave mistake because of where it is located. The other thing is, there is a small Roman five there, and there is a gap and I wondered, was that in fact the Knock Rushen land itself which has the potential for 50 properties which is, as I say, subject to a planning approval? You may not be able to answer that now and I am not really looking for a specific answer; I just flag it up so that at least you are aware that there is a gap there and I think it may well be that that is where the Knock Rushen land was. So they are the contributions I have. Whilst being critical the Chief Minister knows, as does the minister, I am trying to be realistic and I am concerned about the gap between now and the two years when other things come on stream and how we are going to deal with that, because I have to say that does not come out in the report. We still seem to have the problem of a lack of land and government actively buying land to deal with this, although the DLG has bought some land, but it is very small amounts it has been able to get hold of, and of course, as seems to come out anyway from your presentation, Chief Minister, a lot of the reason we are or might be okay is because sufficient land is zoned. I have to say we have always had sufficient land zoned; that is not the problem. The problem is getting it built. The President: Now, hon. members, I am happy that members should make such points as they wish, but I would agree with Mr Speaker that this is our third housing debate and I would plead with members to try not to be too repetitive. Hon. member for Douglas North, Mr Henderson. Mr Henderson: Thank you, Mr President. I have been listening with interest to all the various points that have been raised, and the one thing that sings out loudly all the way through is that we have got to have land now, we have got to have the houses, there is the pressure on the green open spaces, we need to do more zoning, we to do more of this, we need to do more of that to get the land on line et cetera. We have also heard about the problem of the net immigration and the impact that is having and so on, and I think Mr Speaker hit the nail right on the head when he said, ‘The problem is today.’ What are we going to do now, this minute, to try and help the situation so an order for departmental plans and other things to come on stream? That is the fundamental issue and I am astonished, really, that no-one else has picked up on one element that may be able to assist the Chief Minister’s Housing Task Force here. It is not mentioned, really, in the report - again surprising - but under the title of ‘rental property’ I think I can legitimately introduce my ideas here, Mr President, and that is the fact that the hon. member for Ramsey, Mr Singer, alluded to earlier in a previous debate: that it has been uncovered now that there is a possibility of somewhere in the region of 2,000 empty properties in the Isle of Man currently. Mr Corkill: We know that from the census. Mr Henderson: So, given the fact that we seem to be painting ourselves into a corner with regards to ‘Woe is the pressure,’ there is a golden opportunity here to maximise and use to the best effect a resource that is lying to one side - not quite forgotten about; people say, ‘Oh, yes, we know about that,’ but what I would like to get from the Chief Minister is a little more steer on the fact that this task force is going to take on board these points. I know the Department of Local Government and the Environment are looking at it, but I am coming from the point of the Chief Minister’s Housing Task Force element here and would ask that he give the empty properties issue a little more priority. I did, after all, Mr President, as you know, introduce this as a resolution to this hon. place nearly two years ago and it was a substantial resource I had identified at that time that may help. I still say it will help. I never put the idea forward as the panacea to solve all the problems - far from it - but there is a resource there that we could tap into now that would help take the heat out of the immediate situation. That was the whole idea of the resolution and the detail of it. We can still do that and I would urge the Chief Minister, perhaps, to build that in as he is going along because I think it is well worthy. There are 2,000 properties, approximately, identified in the census, all of which really were examined to be either in a reasonable state or, with some work, could be brought on stream for habitable status. Now, if he discounts say half of those for whatever reason, that still leaves the thousand properties. Chuck a few more out for other reasons, we could have between 500 to 1,000 properties of some description available to rent at varying degrees. This could be managed by a property management company or the engagement of the private sector to assist us with that to solve the incumbent problems of when leases come to an end, and we have the usual groans and moans from the backbenchers that I got last time when I am advancing an idea that is worthy to be looked at. So if we could have a look there I think it might help. It would take the sting out of things a little bit - well, more than a little bit - and when DoLGE’s main housing plans come to fruition, which the minister has gone to some pains to point out here today, although you would not realise it sometimes, there are going to be some smashing projects on line. This would help. We do have families at the minute doubled up, split up all over the place, living in horrendous conditions and other folks who are on the low earning bracket who are stuck in flats which are little more than places for chickens and rooks to live in and the hygiene standards are little better than a rookery, to be honest, Mr President. I think it is unfair and really I would make a plea to hon. members too that they could generate some further motivation here, because I do not know about anyone else, but I find it very hard to try and explain away empty properties and things like that to somebody who is desperate when they point to something and say, ‘Well, look, that has been empty for so long,’ and I am not just talking about council properties, which was the other thing I was lambasted with last time - far from it - and I think the figures that have come out now prove the point that I was talking about. It is an all-Island issue that could help our problem and I am just flagging it up and I just hope the Chief Minister takes that small element on board into the task force for the time before we get the next report so that we may give that a little lift and it may actually help, Mr President. Thank you. The President: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Gill. Mr Gill: Thank you, Eaghtyrane, I will try to be brief. I am conscious that we have been over a great number of issues in this consideration and I would not claim to be able to add very much new, but I would like to ask the Chief Minister that, having read this report, I have to say it hints more than it states and I would be obliged if you would offer some specific advice about two points only. The first is in relation to page 6, under ‘House Ownership’ and the bullet point at the foot of the page states that to influence the demand for houses and discourage multiple or non- resident ownership - and it is an issue that, I think, Mr Speaker raised earlier about multiple ownership and rents at a higher rate because of that pressure. The option he recognised exists is to impose a fiscal disincentive to discourage non-resident beneficial owners, and I would be obliged if the Chief Minister could advise what that would actually look like in reality and what criteria he would deem appropriate in deciding such an intervention would be necessary. In putting this question to him, I would be obliged if he could confirm that the context of today is that the present housing crisis, as experienced by so many of our people across the Island, does not, in his view, warrant such an intervention. The second point, really, is one of detail. In the conclusion at 5.3 there is a reassurance that the overall housing situation is kept under constant review and will continue to be the subject of regular reports by DoLGE to Tynwald, and I think there have been a number of complaints in the short time I have been in the House that representations have been made to DoLGE about their schemes that they have to support people at the lower end of the housing market and there has been no meaningful response from that department. So I would be obliged if you could advise what ‘regular’ means and also what movement we could reasonably expect at those regular reports from DoLGE. Thank you for that, Eaghtyrane. I would just conclude by saying that it is certainly a live issue. A few weeks ago, Mrs Crowe and I swapped political surgeries on a Saturday morning and there was a delegation of 12 young people who were quite crestfallen to see me arrive when they were expecting Mrs Crowe - Mrs Crowe: Who wouldn’t be? Mr Gill: Who wouldn’t be, indeed - and I would say they were exactly the kind of young people that we want to support on the Isle of Man; they were all local people, they were exactly the sort of people that the Isle of Man needs and they all had legitimate and heartfelt difficulties that we would all in this House want to support them to resolve. I would say, again as a constructive criticism rather than a destructive one, that the tone of the report from my reading and my understanding is one of complacency, and I would very much echo the concerns that have been raised by a number of members in saying that this is a here- and-now problem and we really do need as much speed and as much endeavour to resolve this as we possibly can. Thank you, Eaghtyrane. The President: Hon. member for Peel, Mrs Hannan. Mrs Hannan: Thank you, Eaghtyrane. There are just a few queries I have, really, on this report and it is on page 12 under ‘Peel’ and I think members would not be surprised at me raising them, but there are certainly a number of issues with regard to this. Under Glenfaba Road there is difficult topography and I am not sure what that means; it is a field. It might be that it is on the south side of Peel, but I am not sure how it is a difficult topography. One of the reasons why the plan was pulled was because the Department of Local Government and the Environment and myself supported community facilities within the development. The developers do not want to put community facilities in - even a playground. And so this is really what the developers do not like, so whether it is proceeding to review I would not know, but they certainly did not like it and if that is why they are not going to develop before or during the next five years, not now, I do not see why they cannot develop now. It does not seem to me to be a difficult topography - across the road I could see, and that is not mentioned here. With regard to the links and adjoining, the only thing I can think that that is is development. The links have been developed but the only thing I can think of is that development in parkland; it is proposed that there would be seven - I am not sure whether that is right or not. The Groves, where it says ‘Under Construction’, also says seven. My understanding is that that development is complete, so I do not know how it can be under completion and approximate units and within the next five years, seven units. It is strange, because from what I know they are complete. It might be suitable to have another development on the promenade but I just wonder, if we are going to have developments like this on the promenade, where are people going to park? I am not sure where the multistorey car park is up to. Somebody suggested to me the other day, when there was something on in Peel, that all traffic should be removed from the streets of Peel because of the dangerous nature of vehicles being parked, but if that is the case then we really should be looking for somewhere for them to park, and I am not sure that building next to the Creg Malin would be suitable and to remove the parking from there. It is difficult when housing is needed, and we are looking at getting another 200 houses, it should be within a very short time - it will be within the next five years - on the Poortown/Ramsey Road site. I am not sure about the development Poortown to the Douglas Road site. One of the areas that concerns me there is that some of that land should be made available for community facilities, and this is the problem: if we are going to have developments - I think it was talked about this afternoon - should there be a new town, a new conglomeration, maybe centered on a village or whatever and built round some of the existing so that there are halls, there are churches, possibly a public house in the vicinity so that that can be developed as opposed to just adding on and adding on and not having any of these community facilities? It is an area that concerns me; when we are looking at good planning, you can think about areas where you go and where it is laid out. We have only got to look at Douglas where you have got squares; you have got Derby Square, you have got Hutchinson Square, where you actually get a quality of life, and we do not actually get that in these new developments. All we are getting are houses right next to each other, bungalows right next to each other and nothing else, and I think we should be learning by what happened in the 1960s and the 1970s, we should be learning that, yes, we have been through this before and there is nothing new in what we are having to deal with but we should be looking to make improvements on that, not just saying, ‘Well, that happened then and we are so desperate now we have got to have this.’ Again I go back to this: I feel we have got to lead, not developers. That is what we are elected to do (Several Members: Hear, hear.) and I feel that that is what we should be doing. It is all very well - the Chief Minister will get up and say: ‘Another negative debate.’ No, it is not negative. Mr Corkill: No, I won’t. Mrs Hannan: I am being positive about what I want for our community - Mrs Crowe: So do I. Mrs Hannan: - and I would hope that, instead of rubbishing what we say because there are various concerns, we are listened to. We are the representatives of the people, (A Member: Hear, hear.) this is the debating chamber, and I would hope that some of the contents of our debates can be taken seriously, that we can leave a legacy and in the future we can say we were in the House during the time, a Member of the House of Keys and in Tynwald, where we were able to make a difference, so I hope that we are listened to. I would have hoped that the Housing Task Force could have continued and that this was not the report to say the be-all and end-all. I believe that the executive have a responsibility to keep this in mind and to make sure that the comments that have been made today, during the discussion of this and the receiving of this, are listened to. Thank you, Eaghtyrane. The President: Hon. member of Council, Mr Lowey. Mr Lowey: Thank you, Mr President. I might as well say to the Chief Minister straightaway, I am disappointed in the report. It was heralded a task force with great panache and style and I think people were expecting it to do something to give a direction and a lead, and I think it has gone off as a damp squib; I really do, I am sorry. Taking the point that the hon. member for Peel finished on, I have got here in my notes, ‘the country’s needs.’ I have heard about the developers needs, but I believe it is our needs for the people. Where is the need at the moment? There is a need generally for housing but there is an acute need for low-cost housing. Now, let me just remind the Chief Minister, I listened to an advert on the radio, going to Tynwald at St John’s last Friday: ‘Come to Ballaugh and see our show bungalow, three- bedroomed bungalow, starting from £249,995.’ I got home and I read the paper and if I went to Rushen I could see a nice four-bedroomed bungalow, a choice - there were only going to be 12 on the site - starting at £430,000 for a four-bedroomed bungalow in Rushen. And then, I could go to Crosby and see the last of three little bungalows at Eyreton - I think they start at £285,000; by the way, that is £35,000 more than a helicopter pad just further up the road. (Mr Henderson: Hear, hear.) (Laughter) And then I came to cheap old Ballasalla; I could go to Abbotswood and get myself a four-bedroomed house - mind you, they are pretty close together - starting from £238,000. Now, with the greatest respect in the world the building industry of the Isle of Man i s concentrating on that sort of market at the expense of the real needs that we are supposed to be representing. We can talk as much as we like about land; we can talk as much as we like about ‘in two years’ time we will get it.’ It is now we have that acute problem, and I have to say to the Chief Minister, I detected a reticence by him to interfere in the market, and there should not be a reticence to interfere in the market because we are already interfering in the market in a whole host of ways which I am not going to bore the Court with. Yesterday we increased our grants and loans and we subsidised rents and all the rest of it. So we already interfering in the market, and I am not afraid to stand up here and say that I do believe that there is one answer to the problem and one cap fits all; there is not, but I do realise that if you are tackling the problem in a meaningful way you have to use all the means at your disposal, and I believe at this instant in time we need to be radical. I do think that we would have to say - and I do not think even the industry would mind us saying - that we should introduce a capital gains tax on the profits that are being made. (Two Members: Hear, hear.) Now, it might frighten some; it might spoil our image with maybe the Chamber of Commerce or some others, but I think the problem we have with housing is real, immediate and now. There is another radical thing, of course: we could say we are going to have a free-for-all for two years and have no planning at all and let them rip. That is another way forward - it is not one I suggest - but if you have got to deal with it you have got to be realistic. Now the task force, I believe most people thought, as going to come up with some radical solutions. Mr Corkill: We have not got there yet. Mr Lowey: I think most of the facts and figures here have been gleaned from the department, and rightly so, because that is where we store the knowledge, so it is not new, it is a duplication of the same old routine, and I am very disappointed in the report because I do not think it gives the steer to deal with an immediate problem that is with us. The Chief Minister has more faith in the medium to long-term - two years’ time we will see the shoe being pinched, but it is now that we needed to have acted. I think this is a wasted opportunity, I really do, and therefore - I will be supporting the resolution because I have no option but to do it - I have to say it is very disappointing and, I am sorry, you have got to be more radical, you have got to put the country’s needs first and that sometimes means saying to the people, who are enjoying a very good harvest at the moment, that in the country’s interest this is what we are expecting of you for the next two years, and if you do not do it one way, you will do it another. The President: Hon. member for Middle, Mr Quayle. Mr Quayle: Thank you, Mr President. I will support the motion put forward by the Chief Minister, hon. member for Onchan (A Member: Hear, hear.) but I would ask for clarification of a couple of points, and certainly I have a few reservations. Firstly, I believe that a significant number of houses could be accommodated within a new town, and I know that has been written off by the present administration but there are a few new members in this hon. Court and I think the balance certainly has changed. I think there is a new feeling that a new town could be accommodated around the Island somewhere and I would hope particularly a site which would have good transport links and that the land would not be of high scenic significance. This would easily ease pressure on some of the existing towns, villages and hamlets and would allow for more sensitive additions to those that I have mentioned. Secondly - and this does refer in general to all local plans but in particular in Middle - the Braddan plan which I earlier mentioned today - sadly the hon. Minister for Local Government and the Environment did not answer the particular point and I am hoping that the Chief Minister might give his administration’s view on this - it is a general term and it relates to the Braddan plan in particular. The Braddan plan, as the Minister for Local Government and the Environment has quite rightly said, is bang up to date, it is being pushed along now with all speed and it is set to last for 10 years. The Minister for Local Government and the Environment sidestepped the question when I asked her earlier on that it is set to last for 10 years. In one of her reports she seems to think that they will develop the land in Middle, Braddan in particular, within two years, and I would hope the Chief Minister will agree that any area that has a plan which has not yet been finalised and which would be expected to last for 10 years and would then be expected to have all its housing pushed through in a fast and furious fashion to actually utilise all the lifespan of the plan within two years would be entirely unacceptable, and to expect any area of the Island to put up with that would be something that I would find absolutely horrifying. I think everybody in this hon. Court referred to the problems of housing at the last general election and we give the hon. Minister for Local Government and the Environment our full support with her officers in tackling the issues that are so serious. Middle is expected to provide more than its fair share of the Island’s housing and I hope that in Middle, accepting that particular burden, that we can have sensitive development and certainly not accelerated development within two years. If we are going to have a 10-year plan, a 10-year plan is what it should be. Thank you. The President: Hon. member for Ayre. Mr Quine: Thank you, Mr President. I think there is a belief that this report we have before us is a report which has been created on the initiative of the task force. Of course, it is no such thing; it is just a report to write off a backbencher’s proposal so you cannot expect too much from it. So I think it has to be seen in that context. But I agree with some of the earlier comments: it really does smack of complacency and I think the problem which my motion sought to provide some focus on has been lost. The position is quite simply that this administration has already decided that we are not going to have residency control. We just have to refer to an article that was in the newspapers from the Chief Minister trying to persuade the business community as to what position they should take on it, and that was quite clear, that certainly as far as the Chief Minister is concerned residency control is not on the books. As far as Tynwald is concerned we wait for this matter to be reported back to us, but I will take better than even money what the recommendation will be to this hon. Court. So, as they are tied to that position, they are effectively tied to trying to find a solution through what I would term ‘the supply route,’ and if you are pursuing the supply route approach, you need land zoned for housing, but that is not the end of the story as has been pointed out, I think, by Mr Speaker; it has got to be available - and I stress ‘available’, because it is one thing to have it zoned, it is another thing to see whether the owner is going to sell; it is another matter as to whether it has got the services, and with that I mean drainage primarily but also road access; and it is another matter whether it will get through the various planning hurdles, so this issue of its availability for development is quite distinct and quite another matter. So, taking the figures, which the department gave me only a short while ago, and trying to express it in acres, we have got, as at January, about 650 acres that are zoned, sufficient for 2,500 houses, and that is at best sufficient to meet the new five-year target. So that is where we are but, of course, we do not have that because of all these constraints that I have mentioned. Now, some of those matters we can do little about, but we can certainly do something about making land available in the sense that people are sitting on it. That is something that we can address, and the nub of the motion which I put forward was that we should seek to do something to make that land available in the sense of imposing a fiscal penalty upon those who are reluctant to release it, because the reason they are reluctant to release it is quite simple; it is better than money in the bank, it is a better investment for them, and they are going to sit on that, come what may, unless, I am afraid, a big stick is taken to them to make them release the land; it is as simple as that. The alternative is you can stand and wring your hands until the cows come home. What this report tells us is that the Council of Ministers are not prepared to do that. They say, or would have us believe, that the answer is quite simple: the answer is, looking in the short term, that there is no problem in the short term and they give some indicative figures - 380, 620, 520 - that averages out at 500 a year, and that figure actually includes replacements. So even if you take those figures as they stand, they do not provide the answer anyway, not on the new target, and certainly not when you take the constraints into account. So they have not got an answer to the short-term in truth, but they would rather take a position that they have not got an answer and try to produce an excuse for not having an answer than face those of whom they are frightened to death, and that is these developers. (Mr Karran: Hear, hear.) They are frightened to death of them, and that is what this boils down to. However, just putting that short-term non-solution to one side, then we say, what are they offering then as an alternative for the medium/long term? Well, that is set out, as the Chief Minister said: unoccupied properties; 2,000 residential properties on the Island are unoccupied. We had a report before us about 12 months ago on unoccupied properties. It was an initial report and it listed - and indeed hon. member for North Douglas presided over. . . it listed all the problems that had to be overcome to get unoccupied properties back into service, including legislation. All sorts of problems were listed. They would involve, I am afraid, taking as strong a position to deal with that as they would have to deal with some of these people that they are afraid to deal with in order to release land. So, in truth, that is not something that offers a solution in never mind the medium term - I would suspect it does not offer a solution to any extent whatsoever. We may get a small percentage out of that if we are prepared to produce legislation that is in substance very draconian, and I just cannot see us getting there. Then we come to the other solution in the medium/long term, which is one that we have had more screams about in this hon. Court, including from ministers, than I have had hot breakfasts. It says here, ‘housing densities’; the other solution is that we put more houses on these sites that are zoned, and have we not had some shouts about that! So that is a non-starter and again I do not think it is a starter as a general approach either, because the sustainability of that proposition in terms of what we would wish to see here on the Island does not stack up. Then we come on to commercial buildings: ‘the scope for the upper floors of commercial buildings in the centres of towns to be brought into use for residential purposes.’ Now, where is the scope for that? You could count them on your hands and your toes. Affordable housing - well, as and when a strategic plan is there, which we are all looking forward to, when it is in place and then when we have the knock-on effect so we can deal with some of the local plans that are going to spin from that, then it is possible that we will have some provision in that - we do not know yet because it has not run its course - for affordable housing, but that is going to be two or three years away, because not only have we got to get the run of the statutory process for the strategic plan; once you have got that in and it is effective, you have then got to start from point 1 with the next development plan. You cannot say, ‘Right, we have now got the strategic plan in place and we are going to attach our hook halfway through the process’. I do not think that that would be acceptable. Mr Corkill: We did that five years ago. Mr Quine: Absolutely, we did, and the Chief Minister is quite right. It has, in fact, been progressed for five years, and very good reason too. If the Council of Ministers want to control the amount of manpower to do the job, they cannot have it both ways - very simple. Mrs Hannan: Oh, good! Mr Quine: And planning, the review of the planning procedures - I thought we had just reviewed them. We put a 1999 Act through this House and, as far as I am aware, there are provisions in that which would be of some help to us. But in terms of finding an answer to the problem which the motion relates to, this offers nothing at all. The position remains that, having gone through this process, having got this report, that we have nominally enough land to build 500 houses a year for the next five years - nominally. In fact, we have not got that land because it is not going to materialise for any one of a number of reasons, and one of those reasons is going to be the one that my motion was seeking to address, and that is because people will not release the land. As the hon. member for Onchan says, it is better than money in the bank. Mr Cretney: It is what you just said. Mr Quine: And so it really is, as far as I am concerned, one of these days of reckoning. If in truth we want to do something about releasing land we can do it; it can be done through a fiscal option. There is no question about devising a fiscal option being too complicated for us. If the UK decided, as it does frequently at the drop of a hat, that it is going to do something by way of a fiscal measure, we do a complete somersault in 24 hours and we can manage that all right, but when we have got to do it on our own account and it does not happen to fit the philosophy of the majority of those who currently sit in the Council of Ministers, it is an insuperable problem. I would be quite content, Mr President, if this report had said, no, fiscal measures are out for these good reasons, but we have another way by which we are going to release this land. If that had been what I am being told here today, I would be perfectly happy with that, but that is not what we are being told; we are being given a whole line of diatribe that boils down to absolutely nothing and simply because the current administration as reflected in this report has not got the backbone to stand up to these big boys. They are frightened to death of them and I for one will not be supporting this report. The President: Hon. member for Ramsey, Mr Bell. Mr Bell: Thank you, Mr President. As a member of the task force, I was not going to make any comment today and really leave it to the Chief Minister in his summing up to answer the points that were raised, but listening to some of the contributions there were just two or three points, I think, I would like to comment on, to put my sixpenn’orth in. The major criticism which seems to be coming from the floor this afternoon and this evening is that what has been proposed, I suppose not only in the Housing Task Force report but also in the other reports that have come forward in the last day or two, are all for the medium and long term and their shout - and I wholeheartedly endorse their shout because we have just as bad problems in Ramsey as anywhere else - is for immediate action, for short-term action. The Council of Ministers and the Housing Task Force are being castigated six months into a new government for not having produced houses to resolve this problem in the short term. Now, I may be innocent and naïve when it comes to the development of property - it is not my field of expertise - but I would have understood that if houses are going to be developed if we are going to resolve this problem, we need buildings coming out of the ground; that is the only answer. We can jiggle around with all these other niceties; the only fundamental answer is housing coming out of the ground. Now, my understanding of that, starting from the initial concept of planning, planning application, planning approval, designs and actual construction is that you are not going to get a house out of the ground within two years. The problem of a housing shortage on the Isle of Man is not just something that has happened overnight; it has been going for quite a few years now and that the plans which ought to have been in place to resolve the short-term issue that we are considering tonight should have been set in train three, four, five years ago. It is deficiencies in the last five years we are grappling with now, not the last six months since the Council of Ministers or indeed the new House of Keys has come into being. This is where the root of the problem is: it is lack of action on the previous five years that has left us with this shortage now, a lack of anticipation of where the economy was going and where the demand was going over that period. So it is very glib to stand up now and castigate the current fledging, almost new, government and the Council of Ministers for not having produced several hundreds of new houses in the short time they have been place. These plans should have been part of a strategic approach on the part of those responsible for housing over the previous five years to ensure that this situation did not happen today, and I think we should not lose sight of that fact. A couple of other points I would like to just comment on. One or two members have argued the case for a new town as opposed to struggling with various small developments on the Island and in fact have suggested that there is no support for a new town, certainly not in the Council of Ministers. Well, I can certainly assure you for one that I strongly support a new town. It may not appear. I believe it is absolutely vital not only to help resolve the housing crisis on the Island that we are facing at the moment, but also to help to regenerate the economy, and I believe in the north of the Island and Jurby is the logical place to be starting to look (Mr Cannan: Hear, hear.) for starting to build up an embryonic new community which would go a long way to resolve both these problems that we are grappling with today. I believe that is long overdue. Mr Cretney: You came at the right time, David. Mr Cannan: Absolutely. Mr Bell: Another point - in fact, it was really the point that made me come to my feet in the first place, was the hon. member of Council, Mr Lowey, and his contributions. I take his point entirely when he refers to the wonderful choice of housing we have in various parts of the Island - nothing under a quarter of a million hardly - and how desirable these various locations are for us to actually bid for. The implication, I think, though, in the hon. member’s comments was that the developers are concentrating on these areas because the profit is higher, the amount of development required obviously is that much lower and therefore it is easier all round, and indeed, of course, there are many willing customers obviously around to buy those properties, the market, is there and therefore they are feeding the market it would appear in the hon. member’s suggestions, to the exclusion of lower-cost housing. To a certain extent the hon. member is right and I wholeheartedly back what he is saying, but we must not lose sight of the fact that one of the most fundamental problems that we are having to face here is housing zoning and the fact that time and time again, when local plans have come forward, the land that has been zoned for housing is low-density housing. I remember sitting in Council on numerous occasions over the last few years arguing or asking the question, along with other ministers, where is the provision for high-density housing? I do not think a single plan ever came to the Council of Ministers without that question being asked and the response was that the local pressures do not want it; we have got to keep the housing in keeping with the existing buildings in the area; it is already low density, therefore it has got to be more low density. The only way you are going to get low-cost housing is by zoning for a higher density, and it is no good saying that we have got 500 acres, or whatever it is, zoned for housing at the moment if it is all zoned for low density, you are still not going to get one more low-cost house developed. Politicians and the wider public have got a rôle to play in this. It is no good NIMBY-ism dominating the Island’s planning r≥gime as it has done over the last few years, because the very people who are complaining bitterly that the cost of housing is getting extortionate, that our young people cannot get homes, cannot get apartments, whatever it might be, are the very same people who do not want high-density housing in their area. They want it developed but they want it developed somewhere else. Now, that it totally unacceptable. There has to be a willingness on the part of government - and by ‘government’ I mean every single person in this hon. chamber - to confront the public with the realities that we are going to provide adequate housing for our own young people, and some of them, I know, are in a desperate state, and I have to deal with them the same way as everybody else. There has to be some give and take on the part of the public; they have to recognise that there has to be a certain amount of high-density development, no matter how inconvenient it might be in their own locations. Young people on the Isle of Man born in, for example, the towns and villages outside of Douglas have a right to expect that they can live there and remain there and bring their families up there. They do not want to be confronted by residents, often new residents, coming into the area who want to keep it as some manicured estate where young people and children and all these unpleasant little additions are not welcome any more. Zoning and the density of zoning is absolutely critical to getting this problem solved, and it is no good firing this rhetoric around the chamber today, it is not going to get us anywhere at all. It is easy to score points off the Council of Ministers; it is easy to score points off the previous r≥gimes. We are where we are; that is what we have got to recognise, and I take my hat off to the hon. member, Mrs Crowe, the minister: her department now is really getting to grips with the problem. We are seeing plans starting to come through. These things do not happen overnight and, within a short period of time, I am hopeful that we will be starting to see houses coming out of the ground and that we will be able to get some solution to the problem. So I do think we need to keep a sense of perspective about this. It is no good saying that we have been in power for six months and therefore why have we still got a housing problem? Why has it not been resolved? You cannot turn a housing crisis around overnight. It is going to take time now, because of the lack of previous planning, to get these houses developed but, as I say, members have a duty a s well to confront the public and make them aware that we all have a part to play in this and, if we want to provide a real permanent solution to the housing problem for our young people and indeed people of all ages on the Isle of Man, there has to be a recognition that there has to be more mix in the developments that take place, not only nice manicured lawns, low-density development, but also higher density in alongside it. My final point - and I notice it has been thrown in again - the cry ‘Let us stop immigration. That will solve the problem.’ That may well solve the problem, but I can tell you it will cause another equally substantial problem alongside it, because an insensitive handling of the immigration issue, if it is just steamrollered in just on the back of trying to resolve the housing problem, could very well destabilise the economy and leave us economically in a much more crippled state than we are today. We will then not be struggling with the problem of housing; we will be struggling with providing the revenue to maintain the public services at the level they are at the moment. We have been in this situation way back in the 1980s; they could not give houses away hardly in the 1980s. We have done well to get the economy where it is now. We are admittedly suffering from our success, I guess, because for the first time in our history our young people can stay on the Island, they can have a career on the Island, they can raise their families on the Island. We want to make sure that we can maintain that and not switch off the tap willy-nilly just in response to a single, albeit it very important, problem that we are facing at the moment. It takes far more mature and reasoned thought to resolve that particular issue. So I would urge hon. members, please let us keep our eye on the problem of housing. Let us be realistic and put a balance in what we are doing here and let us not be panicked into measures which may appear very sexy and very attractive on the outside but will in their own right cause longer term problems which could be actually far more critical to the Island than even the housing problem is. The President: Hon. member for Rushen, Mrs Crowe. Mrs Crowe: As you can imagine, Mr President, I was quite content, after having spent what seems like two days on my feet in this Court, to leave the replies to the Chief Minister over this matter, but to hear the hon. member for Ayre suggesting to this hon. Court - and I do think it stretches the imagination - that I could be frightened of any developers on the Island - (Laughter and interjections) A Member: It is the other way round. Mrs Crowe: Absolutely right! Frightened to death of the developers? I think perhaps you should talk to them, Mr Quine, I really do, but I do object to the comments that you made. The developers on the Isle of Man have to be part of my solution. Obviously they were part of your problem. You were charged with the supply of housing for the last five years. It was not a comment I was going to make; I was brought to my feet by the comments that you made. As the hon. member for Ramsey, the Treasury minister, Mr Bell, said, six months into this administration we could not have moved faster to try and ease the backlog that was left. However, whilst I am on my feet I will respond to a couple of the comments that were made, the facts that may relieve the Chief Minister from replying. One of the comments made was about buying land for the Manx nation for housing, and indeed we do need that investment and indeed we are talking with Treasury at the present time and have been offered numerous parcels of land about which Treasury and the department are talking amicably to come to some arrangements. The next comment that was made was ‘We need housing now - now!’ We can only build as fast as we can build, but what I would say - and it gives me great pleasure - is that since the announcement that this hon. Court passed the House Purchase Scheme 2002, within the next two months I am going to be charged with the officers of allocating 120 properties to first-time buyers. Now, these properties will not be ready for them the next month, but it will give them an opportunity to save, organise the funding to be in place and look forward to living in their own homes. Now, I would suggest that is action now. There was mention of the empty properties initiative and I think I have already said that will be kick-started within the next two weeks and a 13-week intensive study will carry on throughout the summer time. There was a comment made about extra housing in an area being a burden. Well, I would suggest that the extra rates that are brought into an area can provide facilities, community facilities and better transport links. Extra housing is not a burden; it is looked upon that way throughout the Island, which is why we have so many problems every time anyone suggests development. As the hon. member for Ramsey said, people are up in arms, and to suggest that we should have affordable housing which may or may not be a little less well spread throughout the estate and in fact our density levels on the Isle of Man at times, really, we have to look at what we are doing - Mr Quayle: A point of order, Mr President. I think the hon. Minister for Local Government and the Environment is referring to me when I used the word ‘burden’. Mrs Crowe: I am not - The President: It was a general comment, hon. member for Middle. Mrs Crowe: I am not referring to any specific area in the Isle of Man. What I am saying is that any time development plans come forward there will be objection. However, those were just a few of the comments I wanted to make and I will leave the Chief Minister, as I had intended to do, to fully reply to the debate. Mrs Cannell: Please do! The President: Hon. member for Douglas West, Mr Downie. Mr Downie: Thank you, Mr President. I have been through the report a couple of times. My view is outlined in the report to some extent, but I firmly believe that the problem that we still have in this Island is a chronic shortage of developable land, and there are several factors that come into play. We have not got development land because we have not been quick enough off the mark, and any piece of land that is likely to be zoned in the future, some smart business person (Laughter) has got an option on it. Now, the other thing that immediately springs to your attention when you look at what is going on in the housing market - if I take a short journey from here 60 miles away, I have got a two-and-a-half-bedroomed house suitable for a first-time buyer being sold in Northern Ireland for £65,000; the identical house constructed in the Isle of Man - £135,000 (Mr Quine: Drumcree.) (Laughter) and the only reason that you have got that deferential is because the land at the moment is in such short supply and the construction industry have found a way of drip-feeding the houses on to the markets; we cannot compete with that. Now, some of the speakers have been quite right: ten years ago, instead of putting money away for a rainy day and building up our reserves, I think a greater proportion of that money should have been invested in land in the Isle of Man, but we did not do that so there is no point in crying about it, but I firmly believe that the only way we are going to overcome this problem with housing that we have is to get in there and mix it with all the rest and, by hook or by crook, we have got to find a way of acquiring more land so that we can start to get some inroad made into the availability problem. Empty properties initiatives - it sounds absolutely marvellous. If somebody would like to have a walk with me around part of West Douglas and part of South Douglas this weekend, I will show you some empty properties. The majority of them are not fit for human habitation. They would cost a fortune to bring back again and the reason why most of those properties are not fit for human habitation is that if you look at the Douglas Local Plan they are not in residential areas any more; they are in areas that are zoned for office development or for some other type of development, or maybe it is just that because they are 120-odd years old they have really passed their sell-by date and they want demolishing. Mr Henderson: They were discounted. Mr Downie: Now, really you cannot possibly include those as viable housing units in this day and age, so the amount of work that would be required to get the owners on board - people bought them when they were quite reasonable, they have let them go. Even if you spent the money on them it would have to be, most of it, grant-funded by central government anyway to bring them up to an acceptable level. The more I hear about people living over the shop - can you imagine living in Strand Street at 1 o’clock on a Friday and Saturday morning with all the row that is going on? You would have to provide separate entrances, different places to keep refuse, segregated areas to comply with the fire regulations. It sounds good, but really when you look at the nuts and bolts of it - Mr Henderson: Rubbish! Absolute rubbish! Mr Downie: Well, the hon. chairman of the Planning Committee says ‘Rubbish’; well, just let us see the incentives coming out from the Planning Office. I would like to see personally more development shared around the Island, because I do think that is the way. I would not discount the opportunity of building a new town but, if we look at the way the Isle of Man is made up, most people who are born and bred in a particular area like Castletown or Port St Mary want to be close to their families and their families want to spread their wings in that area and have a home where they have been brought up. I think what we have done in recent years is tend to move the population to certain areas, and that is maybe why we have lost a little bit of our identity in some areas. Now, I am going to be critical of some members who have spoken during the debate and they have castigated government but, as a former chairman of the Planning Committee, I know which members were the most vociferous when it came to new development in their area and, believe me, some hon. members of this Court are extremely vociferous and in no way do they want any new development in their patch at all, and the objection to local plans when they come up is absolutely incredible so let us have a level playing field here. I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member of Council, Mr Lowey. I think he supports development - Mr Lowey: I do. Mr Downie: - but he is living in an area where his local authority have already said, ‘We are prepared to fight to the death, we do not want any development whatsoever in our area,’ knowing full well that government has invested several million pounds and acquired about 27 acres of developable land in that area. Mr Lowey: I told them that I was in favour of that development. Mr Downie: Even to the stage now where every time there is an opportunity, a certain member of the Malew Commissioners gets on the radio in a bellicose manner tearing the back out of government for even suggesting that we are going to develop houses. Well, let us be realistic: it has been zoned for years. The only reason it has not been developed is because to this date it has not been serviced properly but, come what may, I hope that we can get on in that area and get one of these areas developed. But the major problem I see in progressing development is the people of the Isle of Man themselves: they do not want new development in their area. They are most vociferous about it and we have really got to find a way of getting our message over that to have a sustainable economy and people provided with proper and decent housing there has to be a little bit of give. I think as a government we must push forward and find a way to purchase more land. We must invest some of the reserves that we have and put more money into our land bank and then we can effectively make more land available; that is the key to the success. We have got to find a way of reducing the price of building land. My hon. colleague, Mr Speaker, spoke about land in Castletown. I know that there is land in a development at Castletown at the moment which will work out about £800,000 an acre; I mean, there is absolutely no way anybody can compete with money like that. It is just not going to happen. The Speaker: Zone more land. Mr Downie: So what we have to do is find a way of getting through the system. I would support compulsory purchase where there is land that can be bought in the national interest and the argument can be justified. Perhaps that is a way forward. Maybe we will be pushed along that road but, at the end of the day, all of us would agree that we are all here to try and do the best for the people that we represent and, come what may, if it needs us to take a firm grip of the situation, I think we are going to have to do that, because if we do not free up the land and we do not get into the position where we have more control over developable land, we are going to be in exactly the same situation for the next few years. I do not want to drift off into other areas but I will just leave you with a parting shot: that we are in exactly the same situation with industrial land. There is even less of that and there is as much call for new business to be set up and people to diversify into other areas as there is for housing land. So, come what may, we have got to get control of the situation. The President: We all have to get our message across. Hon. members, my message is if you wish to take your jackets off, you may so do, and if you have taken your jackets off maybe we will hurry up! (Several Members: Hear, hear.) The hon. member of Legislative Council, Mr Crowe. Mr Crowe: Thank you, Mr President. Again, as a former member of the Planning Committee I just want to add a few words to the debate and at the risk of some repetition I will go over some of the points that have been already made. In general I am supportive of the report by the Council of Ministers because I see it as an interim report; I see it as one of others that will follow. The task force does not just disappear; it will continue to try and address it, and I think there is a combination of different departments all working with some co-ordination. Some points I would like to bring up, though, are, first of all, the 1999 Town and Country Planning Act; as members will be aware, only part 1 is in force and the remaining parts of the Act cannot be brought in until the secondary legislation is ready for approval and I think, as I was involved in that secondary legislation and working with the planning officers on doing that, the current department are probably working very hard with the planning officers to bring that into some sort of shape so that it can come before Tynwald, so I think that is a very urgent point that I would like the Minister of Local Government just to keep on with. The other point again - as members have said, in fact, Mr Downie again was very clear on this and Mr Speaker, we do need the area plans being progressed and the strategic plan and again, in my time in planning I was involved in the Castletown plan, the Laxey/Lonan plan, the Port St Mary plan, the Braddan plan and we do need to increase the amount of zoned land. Without more zoned land we are not going to get off the starting blocks, and I think, in my recall and for Mr Quayle’s point, in the Braddan plan in its current state when I was last there possibly about 800 new houses could be built over the next 10 years. I think it was a 10-year plan and, when we are talking of the Draft Strategic Plan we were looking at a 10-year programme, we were looking at expanding existing settlements over the 10 years. We did not rule out a new town altogether, but what we took into consideration were our plans like the IRIS project where it is set in fairly clear guidelines as to where the sewerage infrastructure will run, and it is running from the south through to Meary Veg and from Douglas to Meary Veg and you cannot just plonk a new town down in the middle of a part of the Island. It sounds good in theory but it is much more difficult and much more practical once you realise your infrastructure, your roads, your sewerage, your water, your electricity - all have to be put into place before you even build one house. So I think, although it was not ruled out as an option, it is a longer-term rather than a medium-term. On the planning, on the area plans which again are being progressed I have no doubt about that, I would again compliment the staff of the Planning Office who work very hard and the resources there are fairly thin on the ground. Another point is this question - and Mr Bell very eloquently picked this point up - about there being a two-year time lag. From planning to houses coming out of the ground is a two-year cycle, and the seeds sown two years ago are bearing fruit. Now, without needing to defend Mr Quine who is very able to defend himself, I was on Local Government two years ago and I think we all recognised, even then, that the housing problem was being worked on extremely hard. I think possibly now there is a greater acceleration taking place so I do commend the department and support it in everything that it is doing to try and get more houses built. Thank you, Mr President. The President: Hon. member for Garff, Mr Rodan. Mr Rodan: Mr President, I would say I find this debate has been very disappointing. This is the fourth housing debate that we have had in the last two days and, generally speaking, it has not been about this report. (Mrs Crowe: Absolutely.) This is not a report of the Housing Task Force’s recommendations or proposals on the way forward; it was not intended to be. It is not a report on the merits or otherwise of a new town or a report on the shortcomings of the planning system; it is not a report bringing forward short-term proposals to deal with an immediate problem, all things that have been highlighted that need addressing; this report is being criticised for complacency for saying that existing programmes are on target to deliver housing but unfortunately that is two years away and that fact has been criticised. So what is this report about? Well, if you read the front cover you can see very precisely what this report is on, and it is an evaluation of fiscal measures to influence the early development of land for housing, and it is the response of the Housing Task Force to whom this particular matter was directed following the motion of the hon. member for Ayre, Mr Quine, whose proposition was that it was fiscal measures that were vital to ensure the early development of land. The report addressed itself to some very precise questions which were: is there a case for government intervention in the market? Are fiscal measures likely to be effective? Is the use of the tax system, whether as an incentive to develop land or as a disincentive to the hoarding of land, likely to bring about early development of land? Now, these are the questions that were looked at and the conclusion reached was that, because of the net effect of rates of income tax on the Island at this time, even if the tax figure were to be doubled or tripled or reduced to nil, the impact would be insignificant. As I understand it, the tax system works retrospectively and any fiscal measures, to be effective, would require a one or a two-year period to bite if they could be devised, and what this report is saying is that, that being so, by the time any measures you might devise became effective, they would not be necessary because of government housing targets coming in at that time. That is what the report says. Now, criticise the report for making that statement, but do not criticise it for things it was not designed to be. The report goes on to say that fiscal measures could tinker at the edges but direct tax in its current form is unlikely to be an effective driver for change, and therefore what we are saying is that, whatever else you do, changing the tax system is not going to be particularly effective. The report also rightly talks about the disadvantages of fiscal measures and that they are an imprecise weapon, they are going to hit the innocent as well as the guilty and they are not going to target effectively the people you want to target based on past experience and current experience in other jurisdictions, and they would create unforeseen problems in other areas. Mr President, I think the task force has done its job on what it was asked to do, which is to report on the effectiveness of using the fiscal system as a weapon, and it has reported that there is no merit in that, but please do not criticise this report for something that it was not intended to be. The President: Hon. member Mr Karran. Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, the only thing I want to say was on the input from this report. One is, I was disappointed by the hon. member for Ramsey, Mr Bell, who had this situation of complaining about the previous administration. This problem has been going around for the last 10 or 15 years, and the problem I find today is that the executive does not listen to the parliament. These issues have been going around and what we hear, we heard before there: the same excuses we have heard for 10 years, and that is what upsets members in this hon. Court. I hear more spin from my good friend over in Rushen here, who tells me that she has only been in six months and she is going to give out 120 applications for new houses. Are these the same houses that we were debating about trying to get in the Department of Health and Social Security for land released for first-time buyers? What gets me is the fact that we have a situation that we do not seem to ever learn from. The third thing that I find disappointing is the input from the member for West Douglas, almost like a threat - the people who have objected to new housing estates. Well, I would like it put on record: I was the only member of the Onchan constituency who was prepared to get off the fence at the last Onchan plan and say about where there should be planning. I put input into that plan which was clearly identified about where I felt there should be housing put. I was the only member who said that. If it was for first-time buyer houses, I would put it up at Ballachrink, but the fact is the planners did not support that and now we have to honour that plan. So let us not put the excuse onto members in this House and try and have this situation where we try to blacken everybody’s name. Finally the only other issue I would like to raise is Mr Rodan the hon. member for Garff’s input, I understand what he is saying, that the issue is we have gone around all the houses but, at the end of the day, I have to say that the report is wrong. I believe that fiscal measures should be part of a package of measures to sort this problem out. The problem we have had is the classic example we heard from the hon. member for Ramsey, this cherry-picking: ‘This was your fault; this was my fault; this was everybody else’s fault,’ and the problem we have that I find as a member of this House - and Hansard will show it - is that I am sick to death of trying to crank over a car that is driven by the executive that we tell the people outside we want to drive forward and produce houses, but what happens? The people that in the driving seat do not seem to able to get the car to drive. (Interjection by Mr Downie) I am not denying the fact that things are moving now but I would resent the implication that people are saying that somehow in the last six months we have got 120 houses. Those houses were ongoing before this administration started, because I know we were talking about this before. I just feel the reason why I will not be voting for this report is simple: I think what the hon. member for Ayre says is right, and I think that the situation is that they are not prepared to tackle the real movers and shakers who are holding our people to ransom, and that is the bottom line and that is why I will not support this proposal - because I believe that what we have got here is the classic fence situation; we do not want the package of measures. I was prepared to stand just before the last election on having houses on the top of Birch Hill for first-time buyers, but unfortunately I was alone on that in my constituency and the situation is that the executive are - to be fair, it was not the executive - the planning position was they decided not to support me as one of the representatives, and I am sure that if there was a problem then, then the minister at the time should have told the local plan that was wrong and we should have put it in when we tried to get it put in as far as that is concerned. The President: Hon. member for Malew and Santon. Mr Gelling: Mr President, listening to the debate - and I have not spoken on any of the housing debates - I think there is one other area that I would certainly say to the Chief Minister, ‘Please consider,’ having been told that this is an interim report and the Treasury minister says the recommendations will come later. I know a dripping tap is slow, but it certainly fills the bucket, and there is one area that has not been discussed that I think we should be looking at. Obviously coming from a country area, there are numerous farm buildings, good stone farm buildings that, because of agricultural problems and because they are no longer any use for any of the modern equipment, the intrusion has happened, the building is there, and I am sure that if we, or the task force, could give the minister and in turn the planning chairman a little bit more of a steer on a policy decision, we have got a crisis, we have got a problem, and when you have got a crisis and you have got a problem sometimes you have to do something rather drastic, and if we are saying - I would say - you could probably get about 70 houses or 70 places for habitation in a very quick time by looking at isolated. . . they are usually up farm lanes so you have got no problems with entrances, they are usually very discreetly placed somewhere and there are a lot of small builders in this Island that would love to be able to build one house or two houses but they do not want to mix it with these big fellows; they cannot compete. The other advantage is you would have people not looking for grants, not looking for government put-in services; all you are doing is giving them the planning permission at this stage and putting buildings back into some use. It is a bit like having an old banger of a car: you can put it back into a good condition and make some use of it. So all I am saying, really, to the hon. Chief Minister is: if the task force is continuing, which he says they are, please look at other areas of getting over this problem. Even if it is only in small way, it all helps, Mr President. The President: Hon. member for Douglas South, Mr Cretney. Mr Cretney: Yes, Mr President, I have got one point only to make - I hoped somewhat optimistically or na•vely that I might be going down to Castletown to have a look at some land down there tonight, but it does not look as though it is going to happen. (Laughter) The point I would like to make, when they are looking at the empty property initiatives - and it is only a small area but I do believe it is worthy of investigation - the current situation, because of gross mismanagement, where in my local authority area they are now saying they are not going to allow properties to be transferred because there are so many empty and they have been empty for so long because they have not looked after them properly, and the sooner that is done. . . Then you could have some people who are currently on the list or some people who are waiting to transfer and they could move straightaway if we could assist or push them along to make some emphasis with regard to that, because it is really badly handled down there. The President: Hon. member for Michael, Mr Cannan. Mr Cannan: Mr President, housing, housing, housing, and I am sure hon. members are like me that almost every evening somebody is ringing up wanting a house; they are desperate, and I am sure that I am not alone as a member for that, ringing up. I got fed up with one lady the other night and I gave her Mrs Crowe’s number! (Laughter) Mrs Crowe: I thought everyone did! Mr Cannan: No, I used to handle them myself. But what I have to say is that the housing report, in the appendix, has got the achievements and what it hopes - the number of dwellings in the next five years, and we have heard all this about land and how many times over the last 10, 15, 20 years have I told this Court there is a whole campsite in government ownership, zoned for residential development, the community will not oppose it, the community is asking for it to be developed (Mr Cretney: Cannanville!) and nothing is really getting done. What I am pleased to see is that there is now an amended application for 16 housing units, but that is not new, that is two years old, and only now is it an amended planning application and when that is approved, well, hopefully they will actually start rather than to have another look at the plans and decide whether they want to have a second or third amended plan. But they have here 39 acres of the campsite, and what they have written against it is ‘service difficulties.’ All right, if there are difficulties with the drainage, well, get on and fix it and sort it; just do not write ‘service difficulties.’ If we are in a situation where housing is desperate, and it is, well, let us get up and do something about it instead of just writing ‘service difficulties.’ ‘We have got 39 acres there - a bit difficult’ Bless me! Other people, developers, go for land and they fight and fight for it, and when they get it and there are service difficulties they get on. They amend the sewage drainage system or put in pumps or other engineering projects to make sure they can build the houses, but here it is a negative ‘Oh well, 39 acres - oh no, no, service difficulties. Right, let us move on to something else.’ It is all talk and reports and there is no this get-up-and-do is just not there; the motivation just does not seem to be there in certain sections of the government. I say again, Chief Minister - and how many times did I write? I am only repeating what I said before. I wrote to you, Mr Gelling, five times, a file this thick, and you said ‘I have handed the problem to the local government department.’ It was always handed on to the local government department, and all that was achieved is now, two years later, 16 units on land we own - oh, tremendous stuff! And after the new Chief Minister came to office after two or three weeks, I wrote to him and sent him a photocopy of everything I had sent to Mr Gelling, and he sent it to the DLGE and so it goes on, this magic circle, and they have got 40 acres. Imagine Dandara if they had 40 acres in their hands, they would be on their way. A Member: Skyscrapers. The President: Chief Minister to reply. Mr Corkill: Thank you, Mr President, a voice from behind from Ayre said, ‘Well, that was enjoyable.’ (Laughter) Mr Houghton: Purgatory you mean! Mr Corkill: It is quite clear, Mr President, by the input of members that housing is still a number one issue, and admittedly it is six months after a general election and the going is tough. I think it was Mr Speaker who started off the debate and he said: ‘Well, the problem is now,’ and a number of speakers have obviously repeated that. With regard to land purchase, government does actively purchase land, and other comments were: ‘Well, maybe we have not bought enough in the past,’ ‘maybe there is not enough land banking being done.’ Maybe it i s not in the right places’ is what I would say in terms of the frustrations that the hon. member for Castletown, Mr Speaker, sees in his own constituency. It must be very frustrating when the phone does ring and you realise that very little or no housing has been built for many, many years in your own constituency, and yet we have other constituencies, and the hon. member for Middle, Mr Quayle, made this comment - well, he has made it to me before - that Middle or Braddan has succumbed, as it were, to a great deal of development over the years and of course my own constituency, Onchan, is similar in that respect. The whole housing problem was brought home to me recently, because it is not very long since I was knocking on doors up round the top of Birch Hill and every other door it was a question of: ‘Well, when can the young one get a house, because we are tripping over each other here? We want them out’, effectively; ‘they want to buy a first-time buyer house.’ Recently the very land that Mr Karran has been talking about where it was potentially zoned for land and at the eleventh hour the Onchan plan was withdrawn by the then minister, there has been some tree-planting going on. The phones lit up because the people in that area thought that developers and the builders were moving in to actually develop the land, but in fact it is a tree- planting exercise and it may well be in the not-too-distant future as plans evolve that that land does get developed, because if you only have to look at the topography - that ‘in’ word today - to see that at some point in the future - ‘when’ rather than ‘if’ - it is likely to be developed, and it was the very same people who were playing hell with me at election time falling over these children that have grown up and need to get a life of their own; it was the same people who were concerned about the development over the back fence, and this is the problem that we all face in our own constituency. I would like to bring the hon. Court back to the fact that this report is as a response to a motion in Tynwald on the fiscal measures and other measures which the hon. member for Ayre put down, and the Council of Ministers at that time thought it would be appropriate if the Housing Task Force looked at it, quite simply because we have the resource from all the departments around the table. We have Treasury with Income Tax; we have the Department of Transport; we have the Department of Local Government, whose prime responsibility in this area is obviously the housing, and so that is how we amended the motion at that time to look at it, and so we have come back with a response in this report specifically on the issue of fiscal measures and we did spend quite a lot of time with the Assessor of Income Tax, Mr Kelly, looking at these issues and how they might impact, and it was very clear early on with conversations with Income Tax that really tax is a negative issue, in effect. When you do start taxing a situation, you are actually likely to drive the very problem that you are trying to solve even worse. I know there are different opinions on this issue of tax and I think it was the hon. member of Council, Mr Lowey, who specifically said, ‘I think there should be a capital gains tax on properties’ and I respect him for that view. We had a speculation tax some years ago, and when I was in Treasury we reviewed that situation and historically when we looked at what had actually happened by that tax, it was quite clear that the very people we are trying to help, if they moved inside the three years for genuine reasons they paid their speculation tax, it was tax at the standard rate of income tax. But the very clever people who were trying to intervene just set up corporate structures; you just put your property into a property holding company, sell the company on, the capital value does not rise in the company until somewhere down the line. So immediately you create this raft of tax planning, and the very people who have got these resources are the ones who have got the best tax-planning accountants. And let us face it, hon. members, the Isle of Man has probably got one of the best resources in the world for tax planning, let us be honest. So we have looked at that in the past and we feel that that would hit the very people that we would wish to help. I did say at the beginning of the report that there were four areas we looked at, and it starts at the beginning of the report. We looked at fiscal measures; we looked at compulsory purchase, negotiation with developers and financial incentives, because if you want to create more housing, the best thing to do is to have an incentive. Now, just returning to the hon. member for Castletown, Mr Speaker, he mentioned the issue of specific planning orders to deal with issues, and I do know that that is very high in the mind of the Minister for Local Government and the Environment; that is something that is not a new measure and it is available to us. But he also then went on to say, ‘We will not support housing at any cost’ and I think that is probably true of us all. We want appropriate affordable housing in different parts of the Island to suit our population. I cannot fill in the gap on the back page at (5) - I have got a question mark there; I do not know what has happened to that. Mr Henderson said again, member for North Douglas, ‘The problem is today’ and made reference to the empty properties initiative, and obviously the census that we have not long had shows very clearly that there are some 2,000 or so properties that are empty and there are a number of those. I was out knocking on doors, as we all were in the House of Keys, and it is obvious that certain properties are empty; the neighbours say, ‘Well, we never see them’ or ‘We do not know who owns a particular house.’ There is one in my constituency where there is a fuchsia bush growing right out through the windowsill in a terrace of quite nice houses, and no- one knows who owns the property - Mr Quine: Peter! Mr Corkill: Thank you, Mr Quine. Mr Karran: I wish. Mr Corkill: - because when it comes to empty properties, yes, there may well be ways of forcing empty properties to become available and double rating might be an incentive; that may be something Treasury can look at. But I come across a number of empty properties where there is no economic reason why they are empty. They are empty because people just want them that way. They are losing money on a resource but they still just want it that way, and it is quite frustrating. Those properties can range from an ordinary affordable type house right up to a mansion. I know of another one in my constituency which must be worth at least £1/2 million, and if the people are there a month of the year then that is about it. The lights go on and off, the grass is cut - this property employs probably about three people, but the people just like to keep it that way. So it is frustrating, the empty properties, and the hon. member said, ‘What progress has been made with the empty properties initiative?’ I think the initiative identified what is there, but coming up with solutions, as always, in these areas is very difficult. Now, the hon. member for Rushen, Mr Gill, quoted a surgery experience and yes, I, like all of us, can appreciate the difficulties of being confronted with constituents with housing problems. He referred to page 6 in terms that one of the options that we identified was to propose some sort of fiscal disincentive to discourage non-resident beneficial owners. Income tax advice was that this would be technically quite difficult to do. I have not got the detail for the hon. member in my wind-up, but certainly I can provide him with further details with regard to that. It also falls foul of the general principle that, by introducing tax like this, it is a disincentive and what we are looking for is actually further investment to produce more properties, and that cuts against that way forward. He also mentioned about DoLGE reporting back, and certainly I think there is an existing Tynwald resolution which compels the Minister for DoLGE to report back with housing reports on a regular basis and certainly, as government, we have no intent to actually change or try to get away from that process. The hon. member for Peel, Mrs Hannan, talked about quite a lot of issues with her constituency which were detailed planning issues, and I think in my reply I should certainly keep away from actual planning issues, but I think we all have frustrations when we see areas of land which appear to us to be developable and for some reason they sit there and - Mr Cannan: Yes, Chief Minister, they sit there. Mr Corkill: - I took note of the reasons that the hon. member for Peel queried. But can I say and reiterate that this report is not the end of the Housing Task Force; this is an interim report coming back to this hon. Court because of a request made to it part way through our work. But I think it has been very helpful to the work of the Housing Task Force because obviously fiscal measures is an area that we were getting into anyway. Hon. member of Council, Mr Lowey - disappointed but supportive, and I appreciate the hon. member’s comments because he outlined the acute need, he outlined the prices that are out there in the marketplace; they do not fit the reality, and I would be the first to admit that. He also said there is no one answer and he saw capital gains as part of that and put the country’s need first, and I took heart by that because certainly a number of members have put forward the constituency angle, quite rightly. We all represent our constituencies, but we will have to make decisions with plans, with the zoning of land which is relevant to the whole Island rather than to our own particular backyard. My worry is that we have not just got NIMBY-ism, we have actually got what I would call ‘BANANA’ now, which is ‘build absolutely nothing anywhere near anybody’, and of course that cannot go on without things catching up on us. The hon. member for Ayre, Mr Quine, said that this report smacks of complacency. I was very disappointed with that comment, because I think the complacency has been around for some years. He then went straight on to the residency control and tried to pour water on that and can I say to this hon. Court there will be a report in October, as promised, on issues to do with residency control. And in terms of my comments in the newspaper, and I make no excuse for this, I do believe that the people of the Isle of Man are yet to have a residency debate in their minds about what the whole issue involves. It is very simple for us to say, yes, we have passed the primary legislation, we have got a residency control Act and we will pick it off the shelf and implement it and the secondary legislation is going to be relatively easy. There are very painful decisions to be made, not by us but by the community, if we are to implement that. The hon. member for Ayre has strong views on this and we continue to differ. Then he went on to say we ought to make land available. Well yes, developable land needs to be made available and nearly all members, I think, said this; it is how we do it. The hon. member wants fiscal measures; I would suggest that we need to zone more land around the Island, and we are certainly not afraid to deal with developers. Since the hon. member for Rushen, Mrs Crowe, has been the Minister for the Department of Local Government, there are not many weeks go by that I do not get one of the building companies on the phone to me saying, ‘Can you please pull her off the fight, because . . .’ and I am saying, ‘Well, no, you have got to speak to the minister,’ Mr Quine: Well, I can understand that! Mr Corkill: - because there are issues that have to be dealt with,’ and I know from the feedback from the industry that the hon. member for Rushen, Mrs Crowe, is having a considerable impact in terms of the developers and their plans. So they are, perhaps, not as confident about their own business and profit plans as they might have been just a little while ago, and obviously the way land is built upon, whether it is zoned or unzoned land which comes on stream, will make them think differently, perhaps about how they release land into the marketplace. Of course, the strategic plan I have been waiting for as a member of this Tynwald Court for many years - I feel the frustration that all of us do. I will not get into the issues about a new town; that is a matter for the strategic plan, but a number of members have made their views clear on the potential for a new town. I did take exception to the hon. member for Ayre’s comment that if the UK introduces a fiscal measure we just flip over backwards and introduce it on the back of it. We certainly do not do that. I thank the hon. member for Ramsey, Mr Bell, Minister for the Treasury, for his support. I think he also said there is a need to confront the public with the issues to do with planning, and I thank him for his support. I know the hon. member for Rushen, Mrs Crowe, the minister, was very tempted to wind up this debate because we have obviously been on housing a lot, but she did deal with a number of points and I am very grateful to her for her comments about the delivery of first-time buyers’ projects, and the very issue that extra houses are not necessarily a burden and, in fact, if you look at the development of Onchan, my own constituency, over the years the rate income has produced a lot for the longer-term residents of the village. The hon. member for Douglas West - I was a bit concerned he might have talked up the price of land values a bit; from my understanding the price per acre that he quoted - the reality is less than that figure because the last thing we obviously want to do in this hon. Court is talk up land prices by establishing any sort of benchmark. He mentioned about the opposition at Ballasalla and then there was a comment from the other side of the Court saying ‘Well, there is no sewerage.’ This is the joy of planning and building houses; it is a very problematical situation. I thank the hon. member for Council, Mr Crowe, obviously with his experience of being in planning, and I thank the hon. member for Garff, Mr Rodan, for getting us back a bit on to the issue of fiscal measures, because a lot of this debate has not been about the issues that the committee looked at, and we did look deeply at these things including compulsory purchase. I have a situation where I have had complaints from people where the Department of Local Government for the last few years has been threatening to buy their garden and the land around their house because it is zoned for development. They have been given ultimatums for compulsory purchase when, in fact, these people say to me ‘Just dezone it, will you, please. We do not want this land zoned.’ So I think compulsory purchase, like all things - there is a place for it and a place where it may be tried for the benefit and there is a place where it is totally inappropriate, and certainly the one thing I would like to make clear about compulsory purchase, as I did in my opening remarks, is that if a department of government wishes to compulsorily purchase land it has to be, under the law, for the purposes of that department, and therefore it would, if it was in the case of housing, have to be land that was already zoned. I just wanted to make that clear in terms of perhaps some members who may think we can compulsorily purchase cheap land and then zone it later. I thank all the members who have contributed. The hon. colleague from Onchan, Mr Karran, was saying that the executive is not listening to the parliament, and I would refute that; it is not the case. I think this whole debate has been very useful in that respect. True, he was very up front with his input into the Onchan plan last time around on the first-time buyer issue and he also made it quite clear that this is an ongoing long-term problem, and I would ask hon. members to consider that, bearing in mind this administration is only a few months old. The hon. member for Santon and Malew, Mr Gelling, came up with an idea which certainly needs to be looked at, but then he immediately said you could put 70 dwellings out of sight nowhere and immediately in my mind, I thought, ‘What sort of a drainage system would you need?’ Mr Gelling: Oh no, 70 individuals. Mr Corkill: Seventy individual drainage systems, right - Mr Gelling: Individual buyers. Mr Corkill: - and I looked at the hon. Minister for Tourism, because obviously I know that he is interested in redundant farm buildings for a tourist purpose (A Member: Hear, hear.) and current planning policy obviously does allow for that. Mr Henderson: Yes. Hear, hear. Mr Corkill: But he did then go on to say, and clarified, that this would be a way of dealing with buildings that are already in the countryside, but in my simple mind on these issues, surely if you are putting 70 dwellings up in a farm building area, then really you are actually zoning more land for development. Mr Gelling: No, no. Mrs Crowe: At all around the Island. Mr Gelling: There are 70 farms. Mr Corkill: Seventy farms? Sorry, I misheard. Mr Quine: Seventy new residents. (Interjection and laughter) Mr Corkill: The hon. Mr Cretney, member for South Douglas, talked about empty council houses, and this is an area where the authorities, whether it is housing authorities or government, has control, and really, if we in a global sense as housing authorities are unable to keep our properties properly occupied, then really what grounds do we have to insist that private properties have to be released into the marketplace? I think we ought to make sure we are on firm ground. I was certainly very relieved at the hon. member for Jurby - Mr Cretney: And the one from Kirk Michael! Mr Corkill: - made it back to make his point. He has very, very strongly put points forward about Jurby and does write to me, as he intimated, ‘Get up and do something.’ Certainly the hon. Minister for Local Government is fully aware of my desire for houses to be built at Jurby because it will certainly reduce the postbag in my office. (Laughter) Hon. members, this report is not coming up with housing solutions; we were asked to review the issue of fiscal measures. In this report it does not discount those fiscal measures, and I would wish developers and people who may read this debate after the event to realise that in this report fiscal measures are not forgotten about, but we do feel that at this stage it would be not profitable for the housing situation to introduce them. I beg to move the report in my name, sir. The President: Hon. members, the motion that I put is at 35 on the order paper, that the conclusions reached by the Housing Task Force in their report on the evaluation of fiscal and other measures to influence the early development of land zoned for housing be endorsed. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. A division was called for and voting resulted as follows: In the Keys - For: Messrs Anderson, Cannan, Rodan, Quayle, Rimington, Gill, Mrs Crowe, Messrs Houghton, Henderson, Cretney, Duggan, Braidwood, Mrs Cannell, Messrs Downie, Shimmin, Mrs Hannan, Messrs Bell, Corkill, Earnshaw, Gelling and the Speaker - 21 Against: Messrs Quine, Singer and Karran - 3 The Speaker: Mr President, the motion before the House of Keys carries with 21 votes for and 3 votes against. In the Council - For: The Lord Bishop, Mr Lowey, Dr Mann, Mr Kniveton, Mrs Christian and Mr Crowe - 6 Against: None The President: Six votes for in the Council, hon. members, the motion therefore carries. Procedural The President: Now, hon. members, I do not intend to take any further items on the main order paper, but as a matter of good housekeeping it has been brought to my attention that there is, in fact, an inconsistency in our standing orders regarding the date of the October sitting of Tynwald. Standing Order 1.1(c) states that Tynwald meets on the third Tuesday of the month, but this year the application of standing order 1.4 which reads: ‘Subject to Standing Order 1.1 (2) and (3), . . . from the conclusion of the last sitting in July to the third Monday of October.’ If we were to apply that particular standing order it would require the sitting to be held on the following week. This is a matter caused by the calendar, and nothing more than by the calendar, in this particular year. So, hon. members, what I propose to do, with your approval, is to call the sitting of Tynwald, as is normal, on the third Tuesday of October. It will require, with your agreement, that I suspend standing order 1.4 on this occasion. If you are happy with that, hon. members, we will continue as normal in October, the sitting being on the 15th October. Are we agreed, hon. members? Members: Agreed. The President: Thank you, hon. members. Supplementary Order Paper No. 1 – Suspension of Standing Order 2.4 (1) The President: Now I also feel, hon. members, as a matter of good housekeeping that we could tonight complete our two supplementary order papers and therefore give us a clean run in the morning, hopefully to finish both Tynwald business and Keys business in the morning. Dealing therefore, hon. members, with supplementary order paper number 1, I call upon the hon. Minister for Local Government and the Environment to move. Item 1. The minister for Local Government and the Environment to move: That standing order 2.4(1) be suspended, in order that the following business be considered. Mrs Crowe: Mr President, I beg to move. Mr Henderson: I beg to second, sir. The President: Agreed, hon. members? Members: Agreed. Paper Laid before the Court The President: Item 2. The Clerk to lay before the Court. The Clerk: Mr President, I lay before the Court: The Food (Emergency Provisions) Act 1986: the Food (Emergency Provisions) (Diarrhetic Shellfish Poisoning) Order 2002. Food (Emergency Provisions) Diarrhetic Shellfish Poisoning Order 2002 – Approved Item 3. The Minister for Local Government and the Environment to move: That the Food (Emergency Provisions) (Diarrhetic Shellfish Poisoning) Order 2002 {SD No 443/02] be approved. The President: Hon. members, I call upon the Minister for Local Government and the Environment. Mrs Crowe: Thank you, Mr President. This order is made under the powers of section 1 of the Food (Emergency Provisions) Act 1986 and will prohibit the harvesting of queen scallops from within a small designated area off the south-east coast of the Isle of Man. The location of the designated area is illustrated in the explanatory note which has been previously circulated to hon. members. Diarrhetic shellfish poisoning toxin has been found in recent samples of queen scallops and the department is of the opinion that there exist circumstances which are likely to create a hazard to human health through the consumption of this food. Consequently, it has been necessary for the department, after consultation with the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, to make this emergency order. The order came into effect one minute past midnight on July 2nd and will remain in force until such times as two consecutive negative sample results taken within seven-day intervals have been obtained. I am sure hon. members will recognise the need for this measure and give their backing to this order. Mr President, I beg to move. Mr Houghton: I beg to second, sir. The President: Hon. members, I put to you the motion printed at number 3 on the supplementary order paper that the Food (Emergency Provisions) (Diarrhetic Shellfish Poisoning) Order 2002 be approved. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Supplementary Order Paper No. 2 – Paper Laid before the Court The President: Now, hon. members, if we could simply deal then with supplementary order paper number 2, it is item 1 only and I call upon the Clerk. The Clerk: Mr President, I lay before the Court: The report of the Standing Orders Committee of Tynwald of Petitions of Redress presented on 5th July 2002. The President: Hon. members, they are simply laid before the Court. Mr Rodan: Mr President, on a point of order, the report, I suspect, may be incomplete in that the prayer of the petition of Sir Laurence New, is not in my copy; there is a blank page. Several Members: It is in mine. The President: I understand that it is in some and not in others, and I am sure, hon. member, that in fact, being aware of that, I am sure you could pick it up later. Thank you. Mr Rodan: Thank you. The President: With those housekeeping matters out of our hair, as it were, hon. members, we will commence tomorrow morning at item 36 at 10.30 a.m. with the intention of clearing our desks by lunchtime. Thank you, hon. members. The Court adjourned at 7.48 p.m.