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

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

P R O C E E D I N G S

D A A L T Y N

HANSARD

Douglas, Thursday, 21st July 2016

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

www.tynwald.org.im/business/hansard

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

Volume 133, No. 18

ISSN 1742-2256

Published by the Office of the Clerk of Tynwald, Legislative Buildings, Finch Road, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 3PW. © High Court of Tynwald, 2016 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

Present:

The President of Tynwald (Hon. S C Rodan)

In the Council: The Lord Bishop of Sodor and Man (The Rt Rev. R M E Paterson), The Acting Attorney General (Mr J L M Quinn), Mr D M Anderson, Mr M R Coleman, Mr C G Corkish MBE, Mr D C Cretney, Hon. T M Crookall, Mr R W Henderson and Mr J R Turner, with Mr J D C King, Deputy Clerk of Tynwald.

In the Keys: The Deputy Speaker Mr L I Singer (Ramsey); The Chief Minister (Hon. A R Bell CBE) (Ramsey); Mr G G Boot (Glenfaba); Hon. W E Teare (Ayre); Mr A L Cannan (Michael); Mr R K Harmer (Peel); Mr P Karran, Mr Z Hall and Mr D J Quirk (Onchan); Hon. R H Quayle (Middle); Mr G R Peake (Douglas North); Mrs K J Beecroft and Mr W M Malarkey (Douglas South); Mr C R Robertshaw and Mr J Joughin (Douglas East); Hon. J P Shimmin and Mr C C Thomas (Douglas West); Hon. R A Ronan (Castletown); Mr G D Cregeen (Malew and Santon); Hon. J P Watterson, Hon. L D Skelly and Hon. P A Gawne (Rushen); with Mr R I S Phillips, Clerk of Tynwald.

______2134 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

Business transacted

Order of the Day ...... 2137 Procedural – Self-imposed time limits to speeches ...... 2137 18. Environment and Infrastructure Policy Review Committee – Statutory Procedure for Complaints Against Local Authorities – Report received and recommendations approved ...... 2137 19. Social Affairs Policy Review Committee – Social Care Procurement Report and recommendations – Amended motion carried ...... 2143 20. Planning and Building Control – Report and recommendations – Amended motion carried ...... 2151 21. Select Committee on the Registration of Land (Petition for Redress) – Report received and recommendations approved ...... 2167 22. Public Sector Pensions Act 2011 – Isle of Man Government Unified Scheme (Amendment) Scheme 2016 approved ...... 2179 23. Public Sector Pensions Act 2011 – Tynwald Membership Pensions Scheme Bulk Transfer Regulations 2016 approved ...... 2181 24. European Communities (Isle of Man) Act 1973 – European Union (Côte d’Ivoire Sanctions) (Revocation) Order 2016 approved ...... 2182 The Court adjourned at 1 p.m. and resumed its sitting at 2.30 p.m...... 2182 25. Airports and Civil Aviation Act 1987 – Aviation (Cape Town Convention) (No.2) Order 2016 approved ...... 2183 26. Employment Act 2006 – Employment (Maximum Amount of a Week’s Pay) Order 2016 approved ...... 2184 27. Employment Act 2006 – Employment (Maximum Amount of Awards) Order 2016 approved ...... 2184 28. Fees and Duties Act 1989 – Town and Country Planning (Application and Appeal Fees) (No 2) Order 2016 approved ...... 2185 29. Building Control Act 1991 – Building Fees (No 2) Regulations 2016 approved ...... 2187 30. Financial Provisions and Currency Act 2011 – Agriculture and Fisheries Grant Scheme 2016 approved ...... 2188 31. Fire Precautions Act 1975 – Fire Precautions (Houses in Multiple Occupation and Flats) Regulations 2016 approved ...... 2192 32. Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 2001 – Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 2001 (Exceptions) (Amendment) Order 2016 approved ...... 2197 33. Road Transport Act 2001 – Motion not moved ...... 2197 34.-37. Financial Services Act 2008 – Regulated Activities (Amendment) (Class 1 – Deposit-Taking) Order 2016 approved; Financial Services (Exemptions) (Amendment) (Class 1 – Deposit-Taking) Regulations 2016 approved; Financial Services (Fees) (Amendment) (Class 1 – Deposit-Taking) Order 2016 approved; Depositors’ Compensation Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2016 approved ...... 2198 ______2135 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

38. Fees and Duties Act 1989 – Register of Fines Etc. (Miscellaneous Fees) Order 2016 approved ...... 2203 39.-42. Civil Registration Act 1984 – Registration of Births and Deaths (Fees) Regulations 2016 approved; Civil Partnership Act 2011 – Civil Partnership (Fees) Order 2016 approved; Marriage Act 1984 – Registration of Marriages (Fees) Regulations 2016 approved; Fees and Duties Act 1989 – Marriage and Civil Partnership (Venues, Etc.) (Fees) Order 2016 approved ...... 2204 43. Social Security Act 2000 – Social Security Legislation (Benefits) (Application) (No.3) Order 2016 approved ...... 2206 44. Social Security Act 2000 – Social Security Legislation (Benefits) (Application) (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2016 approved ...... 2207 45. Social Security Act 2000 – Social Security Legislation (Benefits) (Application) (Amendment) (No.4) Order 2016 approved ...... 2208 46. Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 – Income Support (General) (Isle of Man) (Amendment) Regulations 2016 approved ...... 2210 47. Referrals to Committees by members of the public – Motion lost ...... 2211 48. Fitness to work – Motion not moved ...... 2217 49. Compulsory teaching of Manx political system and politics in schools – Amended motion carried ...... 2217 Thanks to Members for their parliamentary conduct ...... 2233 Tribute to Mr P Karran MHK and thanks for parliamentary service ...... 2233 Tribute to Hon. J P Shimmin MHK and thanks for parliamentary service ...... 2234 Tribute to Hon. W E Teare MHK and thanks for parliamentary service ...... 2234 Tribute to Mr Z Hall MHK and thanks for parliamentary service ...... 2235 Good wishes to Members seeking re-election and thanks to Tynwald staff ...... 2235 The Council withdrew...... 2236 House of Keys ...... 2236 Good wishes to Members of the House ...... 2236 The House adjourned at 5.56 p.m...... 2236

______2136 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

Tynwald

The Court met at 10.30 a.m.

[MR PRESIDENT in the Chair]

The Deputy Clerk: Hon. Members, please rise for the President of Tynwald.

The President: Moghrey mie, good morning, Hon. Members.

5 Members: Moghrey mie, Mr President.

The President: The Lord Bishop will lead us in prayer.

PRAYERS The Lord Bishop

Order of the Day

Procedural – Self-imposed time limits to speeches

The President: Hon. Members, please feel free to remove jackets. The air conditioning is on 10 its way. As of last night we completed up to Item 17. We only have another 31 Items to go! (Laughter) I feel confident we will reach the end of the Order Paper today, but it will require your co- operation. May I reiterate my strong suggestion of self-discipline to five minutes’ contributions to speeches. Perhaps double that we will allow for proposers and for winding up. If we can stick 15 to those self-imposed limits, I think we will get through the business.

18. Environment and Infrastructure Policy Review Committee – Statutory Procedure for Complaints Against Local Authorities – Report received and recommendations approved

The Chairman of the Environment and Infrastructure Policy Review Committee (Mr Wild) to move:

That the Second Report of the Environment and Infrastructure Policy Review Committee for the Session 2015-2016 – Statutory Procedure for Complaints Against Local Authorities [PP No 2016/0065] be received and that the following recommendations be approved –

______2137 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

Recommendation 1 That Tynwald requires the Council of Ministers to bring forward an amendment to the Act by 31st December 2016 to make provision for a right of appeal against a decision not to investigate.

Recommendation 2 That Tynwald calls on the Council of Ministers to undertake whatever work is necessary to ensure that a Tynwald Commissioner for Administration is appointed before 31st December 2016.

Recommendation 3 That the Council of Ministers must ensure that the Decision Status is correctly reported in the annual Tynwald Policy Decisions Report and that items are not removed before they are actually completed.

Recommendation 4 That recommendations not completed within 12 months of their approval by Tynwald must be updated to provide an expected completion date and the reason for delay explained.

Recommendation 5 That any recommendation of the Tynwald Commissioner for Administration, approved by Tynwald, must be actioned within 12 months, or sooner if specified, and that they will not be marked as completed until the Commissioner is satisfied.

GD No 2016/0041 is relevant to this Item

The President: So we start with Item 18 on your Order Paper, Environment and Infrastructure Policy Review Committee. In the absence of the Member of Council Mr Wild, Mr Quirk is ready to move the Report with the Court’s consent. Does the Court agree to this? (Members: Agreed.) 20 Thank you, Hon. Members. Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Quirk.

A Member of the Environment and Infrastructure Policy Review Committee (Mr Quirk): Thank you, Mr President. 25 I am moving this motion today in the absence of our Chairman, Mr Wild, who is unwell. We wish him a speedy recovery. (Several Members: Hear, hear.) The Second Report of the Environment and Infrastructure Policy Review Committee for 2015- 16 was laid before Tynwald Court in May 2016 and concerned the matter of the Statutory Procedure for Complaints Against Local Authorities. 30 This was brought to the attention in a letter from myself, sent before I was a member of the Committee. I had written it on behalf of our constituent, Mr Hamilton, about the complaint which had been made about the conduct of a member of a local authority during a tender process. This complaint had originally been made to the Department of Infrastructure. Under sections 4 and 5 of the Local Government Act 1985, the Department of Infrastructure 35 has powers to make inquiries in relation to a matter concerning local government, and specifically to the manner in which any functions of the local authority are carried out. However they only have statutory powers to take action if a local authority has failed to discharge it functions. The definition of ‘function’ under the Act includes powers and duties. In the matter of the complaint about the tender process, the Department of Infrastructure’s 40 view was that they could have undertaken an inquiry as a tender process could be viewed as a local authority duty. However their view with respect to the remedy in this case was that it would in fact have been an action in court in respect of public law of tort, as a local authority has ______2138 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

a separate legal identity, with its own responsibilities for carrying out its functions powers and duties. 45 Both the Department of Infrastructure and the Chief Secretary stated that inquiries under the Act would be better concluded by an independent body or person and we agreed with this. We went on to conclude that provision for such a person had been made under the Tynwald Commissioner for Administration Act 2011 and have recommended that the Council of Ministers undertakes whatever work is necessary to ensure that the Tynwald Commissioner for 50 Administration is appointed before 31st December 2016. During our investigations, I provided a copy of a letter that Mr Hamilton sent to the Chief Secretary pointing out concerns with the Tynwald Commissioner for Administration Act 2011. The Committee reviewed these. We felt that a number of points had been addressed in the responses to the public consultation, undertaken before the original Bill was introduced. We 55 have however recommended that a final appeal stage is introduced if the Commissioner has chosen not to investigate a complaint but the complainant is not happy with the reason. We then turned our attention to another point raised by Mr Hamilton which related to previous recommendations approved by this Hon. Court which did not appear to have been actioned. We noted that recommendations from the Select Committee on Local Authorities: 60 Members’ Interests, which reported in 2012, were marked as completed in the Tynwald Policy Decisions Report in 2014. It was a serious concern that in spite of the Local Government Amendment Bill being intended to be a legislative change necessary to bring this into force, the requirement for Local Authority Members’ Interests to be registered had not yet reached the Branches. 65 We fully appreciate the fact that legislative priorities change and the Bill has been delayed but we do not think it is right that recommendations should be marked as completed because it is intended that something will happen. We therefore recommend that the Council of Ministers should ensure policy decisions are only marked as completed when they have been fully concluded. We have also added a 70 recommendation regarding the need for the Department to provide a target date for the completion of actions which would not be completed within 12 months of approval. We also would recommend that the approval of recommendations which have been made in the report from the Tynwald Commissioner for Administration must be signed off by him or her in order to ensure a degree of independence is upheld. 75 Before concluding I would like to thank our Clerk, for her patience with the Members of the Committee. Mr President, I beg to move.

The President: Hon. Member, Mr Cregeen. 80 Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr President. I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

The President: Hon. Member for … (Laughter) Members wishing to speak, would they please 85 rise? Hon. Member, Mr Thomas.

Mr Thomas: Just two brief points. I just wanted to fully support this Report and note, Mr President, that two recommendations based on findings of the Committee are similar to findings 90 of the Committee which I am going to report on in a moment, namely the importance of the Ombudsman. And secondly, that Tynwald administration needs to monitor compliance with its reports on where things are, in terms of follow-up of recommendations of Committees.

______2139 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

95 The President: Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I was waiting just to hear whether there was there an amendment, as far as this Committee is concerned. I wonder if the Acting Chairman can tell us whether any representation was made to local 100 authorities before these findings were made, as far as this is concerned. Does he feel that there could be a conflict of interest, sitting on a scrutiny committee on an issue that you have brought to the scrutiny committee? How do we actually have some sort of impartiality as far as that committee is concerned? It does seem something of a farce, when we are talking about the separation of powers, as far as that is concerned. 105 I am deeply concerned about recommendation 5, as far as the recommendation of 12 months to get a Tynwald Commissioner of Administration. I have watched fantastic amounts of grand titles ending up with public offices and big salaries, big costs to the taxpayer that have little or no importance, as far as the relevance of providing the services for the taxpayer and the people outside this Court. I know that we have had representations over the issue of maybe we 110 should have an MLC to become the Tynwald Commissioner. We have had the argument about the issue of whether we should have an ex-Clerk of Tynwald, as far as this issue is concerned. I am hesitant to vote for recommendation 5 until I see some sort of proper structure, as far as the Tynwald Commissioner is concerned, because I believe that all we are going to do is to end up with somebody else, part of the cosy cocoon in this Court that will turn black into white and will 115 actually just abide by the cover-up after cover-up in the past. So I am very hesitant to support recommendation 5. I believe that the only way forward as far as the Tynwald Commissioner for Administration should be approved. It should be done by an agency from outside this Island, so that there is a broad enough clientele, in order to do something. Otherwise what is going to happen is that it is just going to be another cosy 120 appointment for somebody. That is what worries me. I understand this will upset in this Hon. Court, but somebody in this Court has to actually talk about these things. It really is important, if we are going to have these scrutiny committees, there needs to be an arm’s length situation, as far as that is concerned. That is basic common- sense parliamentary process. If we are going to have a Tynwald Commissioner for 125 Administration, we have got to actually have some structure that actually gives people respect outside this Chamber, and not just looks on it like they are some sordid midden of self-interest. I hope Hon. Members will actually look at the message that I am giving, not the messenger, and look at these important principles – important principles that I fought for for 30 years, and had spent 10 years before that wanting to be an MHK to get in here. 130 So I think on recommendation 5, having this thing that we have got to have it within 12 months without the structure, I can see us wasting more public money, and that is what worries me.

The President: Hon. Member for Malew and Santon. 135 Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr President. May I first of all acknowledge Mr Quirk's work on this since before 2012, when we had the original Select Committee, when this was brought though from Mr Hamilton. I think there were myself and the Member for Castletown who reviewed all of this, and the recommendations 140 were quite clear at that time. (Mr Quirk: Endorsed.) They were endorsed by this Court that these actions should be taken. It was unfortunate, for whatever reason, that they were marked down as completed and they had not been, and that is why we have got the recommendation in there that some legislation should be put in place. Now the Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran says it is a grandiose name, and it is like there 145 is going to be this huge cost. Then he says, ‘Well, we have got to make sure it is somebody from outside and they have got this respect from everybody else.’ Well, it comes at a cost. ______2140 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

This has been worked up with the Cabinet Office. They have been in consultation with this. Mr Quirk brought this to the Committee prior to him being elected on it, and during that time there has been Mr Wild, myself and Mr Quirk on the Committee working this through, and he 150 should be commended for his persistence to ensure that we have this in place, because otherwise –

Mr Karran: Do you understand conflicts?

155 Mr Cregeen: Yes, I do understand the conflict. That is why there are other Members on the Committee to ensure that you have not got that conflict. I would hope that the Member after 30 years would have recognised that, but I would like to say, I hope Members do support this. It is a great leap forward, and I would recommend supporting the motion.

160 The President: Hon. Member for Douglas West, Mr Shimmin.

Mr Shimmin: Thank you, Mr President. Firstly, I think Tynwald has come a long way over the years to try and ensure that those persons who bring forward motions do not get put on the committee so they can give evidence 165 towards it, but that is a decision of Tynwald to elect people onto the position. There is no criticism of the Member for Onchan, Mr Quirk, who was appointed quite rightly and appropriately by Tynwald, but it is something we should all bear in mind, Mr President, when appointing people onto committees to ensure that there is not that in-built conflict – or even a perception of conflict. 170 I rise to apologise to this Court once again, and I am grateful to the mover, Mr Quirk, for his comment that priorities change. That is what has happened with regard to the Tynwald Commissioner for Administration. It was agreed by this Court a long time ago and it has not been progressed. When I have come into the Cabinet Office, I have tried to look at all of the options and the cost implications for what is a worthy post, but not one that we can afford at any price. 175 Having spent time working with a number of the committees, there are recommendations which will come forward to the next administration, which is going to bring forward something which will improve the situation. But I apologise, I have not been able to make this a high enough priority in my time, but we will hopefully leave it for the next administration as one of their priorities. 180 I would ask the Member for Onchan, Mr Karran, to possibly look again at whether it is recommendation 5 or recommendation 2 that he is actually concerned with. Recommendation 2 says that this should be in place by the end of 2016. Recommendation 5 comes back to the point I think Mr Quirk has made regarding inaccurate labelling or completion of them, and I think recommendation 5 is quite important that decisions and actions necessary (Interjection) should 185 be done within a timetable. That is not to do that appointment of the Ombudsman or Commissioner, but more to do with making sure that his or her actions are carried forward. I think it is regrettable that at times, Government has failed to accurately label completion on some of these areas in a way that is meaningful. I think that is a lesson for all of us, and I would argue, Mr President, quite strongly, that Freedom of Information will assist in this. There will be 190 a lot more information available to see and therefore to hold to account those of us who are putting in ‘completed’. They must understand that that will be something they will be answerable for. Thank you, Mr President.

195 The President: Hon. Member for Rushen, Mr Watterson.

Mr Watterson: Thank you, Mr President.

______2141 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

Members will have noticed that Mr Gawne is not in this morning and he has left some speaking notes on behalf of the Department. In the spirit of co-operation, and for those who 200 have heard Mr Gawne’s speeches before, I might just sum up by saying that he is broadly in support of all five recommendations. (Laughter and interjections)

A Member: Hear, hear!

205 The President: Now, I call on the mover to reply, Mr Quirk.

Mr Quirk: Thank you, Mr President. Can I first of all say, if anybody does not know me, I am always, on the committees I am on and the colleagues round the table, some new friends … I am always sure not to be conflicted 210 not to be conflicted by a certain issue, but I was never conflicted on this particular one. This particular issue has been flagged up on a number of occasions. In fact, I had been in touch with Mr Shimmin some time ago regarding the Tynwald Commissioner for Administration, asking for when it was going to happen, and this issue to come about, to put some clarity on it, because as far as I am concerned, I am sure the 215 Committee is concerned too. Do we require people to go to petitions of doleance to seek some justice at £20,000 or £30,000 just for a visit? Mr Karran is the champion in here, saying it is the equality of arms. We are actually bringing this in which will equal arms out! We will have an independent person, the Tynwald Administrator, to be able to seek advice, drag in all the relevant information and make that 220 conscious decision, and bring a report back to this Court. So I am a little but concerned about Mr Karran’s … and I am grateful to Mr Shimmin to explore the one he was trying to take away at number 5 there. That is clearly because whatever happens in Government sometimes things are missed, and one of these issues – because it was on a radar somewhere else – was actually missed. If we had not, in the Committee, found that 225 and brought it back to our attention, it would have been another 12 months – it could have been another two years before it was actually done and it was the will of this Court that something had to be done. What we are saying here is if it is not going to be done, or it is the legislative programme that is preventing it to be done because of priorities, it needs to be identified, but it still needs to be there to be done when the legislative programme is available. If you bring issues 230 to this particular Court, they need to be done. On that particular one, on members’ interests – the same as our interests out in the public domain – why shouldn’t other interests be out in the public domain? It should be done. It should have been done before the last local national election on it. Just referring to Mr Gawne’s comments, who is not here, I know he is supportive of this 235 because it would make life a lot easier to address a number of issues. Regarding Mr Thomas, I missed the front end of it, but I think he was clearly saying that the Tynwald Administrator was some time ago and consultation had been gone and it was put in. So I would ask Hon. Members here this morning to support all five recommendations. It is not going to cost the Government a fortune, but what it will do is give justice to those individuals 240 outside who cannot afford to go to court, which supports what Mr Karran has been on about for donkey’s years. In the last days of this Court, we could support him on that, couldn’t we? Thank you, Members.

Mr Karran: It is the conflict I am on about. 245 The President: Hon. Members, in light of the debate, I suggest we take the recommendations voted on separately. Recommendation 1: those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. ______2142 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

250 Recommendation 2: those in favour, say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Recommendation 3: those in favour, say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Recommendation 4: those in favour, say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Recommendation 5: those in favour, say aye; against, no. The ayes have it.

A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:

In the Keys – Ayes 19, Noes 2

FOR AGAINST Mr Bell Mrs Beecroft Mr Boot Mr Karran Mr Cannan Mr Cregeen Mr Hall Mr Harmer Mr Joughin Mr Malarkey Mr Peake Mr Quayle Mr Quirk Mr Robertshaw Mr Ronan Mr Shimmin Mr Skelly Mr Teare The Deputy Speaker Mr Thomas Mr Watterson

The Deputy Speaker: Mr President, in the Keys the voting is 19 for and 2 against.

In the Council – Ayes 8 Noes 0

FOR AGAINST Mr Anderson None Mr Coleman Mr Corkish Mr Cretney Mr Crookall Mr Henderson The Lord Bishop Mr Turner

255 The President: In the Council, 8 for and none against. The recommendation therefore carries. We turn to Item 19 – (Interjection by the Deputy Clerk) Yes, I must put the overall question, in light of having voted separately. Those in favour of Item 18, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

19. Social Affairs Policy Review Committee – Social Care Procurement Report and recommendations – Amended motion carried

The Chairman of the Social Affairs Policy Review Committee (Mr Cretney) to move:

______2143 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

That the First Report of the Social Affairs Policy Review Committee for the Session 2015-16 – Social Care Procurement [PP No 2016/0072] be received and that the following recommendations be approved:

Recommendation 1 That Tynwald is of the opinion that it is of the utmost importance that Accounting Officers be familiar with all regulations and procedures pertaining to the procurement process.

Recommendation 2 That Treasury should develop proposals for ensuring the regulations and procedures pertaining to the procurement process are fully understood by officers, and report to Tynwald.

Recommendation 3 That Treasury should consider implementing background checks on officers involved in the procurement process, and report to Tynwald.

Recommendation 4 That Treasury should develop a policy on social value in the procurement process, including a clear definition of what is to be understood by this term, and report back to Tynwald.

Recommendation 5 That any social value policy should as far as possible recognise the particular advantages of contracting with longstanding Manx organisations.

GD No 2016/0042 is relevant to this Item.

The President: Item 19: Report of the Social Affairs Policy Review Committee on Social Care 260 Procurement. I call on the Chairman of that Committee, Mr Cretney, Hon. Member of Council.

The Chairman of the Social Affairs Policy Review Committee (Mr Cretney): Thank you, Mr President. This Report deals with a number of issues arising from the procurement of social care 265 services during the autumn of 2014. Some of these issues had been raised by myself in questioning and debate in the Court in January 2015, but I make it clear that was before I became a member of the Committee. Following that sitting, two third-sector organisations, Crossroads Care and the Children’s Centre, contacted the Committee to express concerns. Both organisations had recently tendered 270 unsuccessfully for different care services, and they both disputed the fairness of the outcomes, though from different perspectives. The Children’s Centre contacted us because of a conflict of interest. One of the officers involved in the procurement process was, or had recently been, also a director of Family Action, one of the bidders. They had emerged as the preferred provider, and would have been awarded 275 the contract. Crucially, it was only when the Children’s Centre alerted the Procurement Division to the conflict that the tender process was stopped and then abandoned. Crossroads Care contacted us for a different reason. They were concerned that local organisations were being put at a disadvantage in the procurement process. They had lost out on a contract to a United Kingdom-based organisation, mainly because of cost. They were 280 concerned that local organisations could not compete with larger, UK-based organisations. Our investigation into these two cases highlighted a number of areas where the procurement process could be improved. Our first three recommendations address the procedural failings that led to the conflict of interest. In our Report we conclude that the situation arose because of a lack of communication ______2144 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

285 between the Department of Health and Social Care and the Procurement Division, which was at that time part of the Treasury. More fundamentally, the problem appears to have been that they were each following a different procedure. The Department maintains that Financial Regulations were not breached, because at the time the Regulations stated that a conflicted party was to inform either the Accounting Officer or 290 the Procurement Division, not both. The Accounting Officer had been informed. However, the Procurement Division clearly expected that any conflicts of interest would be declared to them as soon as possible. The Financial Regulations have since been updated to specify that both the Accounting Officer and the Procurement Division should be informed of any conflicts of interest, and this is an amendment that we welcome. Recommendations 1 and 2 underline the 295 importance of this. Turning to Recommendation 3, Mr President, it is especially troubling that the Procurement Division was not aware of the conflict of interest until the Children’s Centre told them about it. In other words, had it not been for the Children’s Centre’s intervention, the conflict would not have been known outside the Department. This is clearly unacceptable. 300 One reason why the conflict of interest was able to go undetected is that Procurement does not perform background checks on officers. Instead, the process relies on public servants’ commitment to the ‘Nolan principles’ of selflessness, integrity, and objectivity. The Government Response to our Report says that background checks would be divisive and bureaucratic. It is for Hon. Members to make up their own minds. For my part, I still think there is a case for 305 background checks. (A Member: Hear, hear.) In Recommendation 3 we say this should be considered, and I would urge Hon Members to support this Recommendation. Our last two recommendations concern the concept of ‘social value’. There is currently no official policy on social value, although we understand that this will be reviewed by the next administration. It is clear, from the evidence we heard, that the concept is generally regarded as 310 an important factor in assessing bids, but it is also clear that everyone has a slightly different understanding of what the concept means. This became a problem when it was used as one of the assessment criteria, as was the case for the bid made by Crossroads Care. Without a clear definition of ‘social value’, it is difficult for bidders and assessors to be sure that they are on the same wavelength. We would therefore like to recommend: that Treasury should develop a 315 policy on social value in the procurement process, including a clear definition of what is to be understood by this term, and report back to Tynwald. The subject of our fifth and final recommendation is longstanding Manx organisations. In both the cases we looked at, there were elements of the assessment criteria that could put smaller, local organisations at a disadvantage – for instance, prior experience with large 320 contracts. The emphasis on price means that larger UK-based organisations might also be able to employ a ‘loss leader’ strategy to win contracts. While we fully understand the need to keep costs down, I am sure that Hon. Members will agree that there are other advantages to contracting with local organisations. We were informed that there used to be a procurement policy of favouring local 325 organisations to a certain degree, but that it was removed because it was thought to be unlawful. As we understand it, it would be unlawful to promote the procurement of local goods or agricultural products, due to the terms of Protocol 3, but the same does not apply to suppliers of services. While this may of course all change in the future, for the moment it seems that it would already be lawful to promote local suppliers of services, including care services. The 330 question is whether or not such a policy is desirable. We believe that it is, and we would therefore like to make recommendation 5: that any social value policy should as far as possible recognise the particular advantages of contracting with longstanding Manx organisations. Mr President, before closing I must say a word of thanks to the two third-sector organisations who approached us in 2015 and asked us to do the work which led to this Report. In particular, I 335 would have to single out Jackie Betteridge of Crossroads Care and Mike Gardner from the

______2145 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

Children’s Centre. With their assistance we have uncovered some important issues and made proposals that we hope will make things better in the future. Mr President, I beg to move.

340 The President: Hon. Member for Glenfaba, Mr Boot.

Mr Boot: I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

The President: I call on the Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran. 345 Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I have to say that I am very happy with the Report. I think that the Report is a step in the right direction, but I just think that with these important recommendations … I actually did consider putting an amendment of our concern that the process of holding accounting officers responsible for the areas is insufficient and that the 350 Council of Ministers should report to the April 2017 sitting with how they are going to improve the levels of accountability. But I thought, after discussing with my colleague for South Douglas, that maybe that would be too far, as far as getting this through. The important thing is, Eaghtyrane, with these Social Affairs Policy Review Committees, it is important that these Committees that are set up need to actually maybe not be so blasé about 355 the timescale. It is important that we have some sort of timescale on these reports and maybe that will come as we see the ever improvement of scrutiny, which has been so wilfully lacking for so long in the past. My amendments are that at the end recommendation 1, to add that the Council of Ministers should report to Tynwald in April 2017 on proposals for improving levels of accountability for 360 senior staff and, to the end of recommendation 2, in April 2017 … Because what is the use of us making these reports if then they are just thrown into the long grass or tucked under the carpet, for someone later to end up falling over this? In my opinion, if a Select Committee or a Standing Committee is to make these recommendations, I think there should be some timeframe. I have no criticism as far as the Committee is concerned. I do not go 365 out of my way to criticise in this Court, but I try – (Interjection) You might think that. If anything, the problem (A Member: Hear, hear.) has been maybe we have not criticised enough. The fact is that what we want is to make sure that we have joined up parliamentary process with the Government and all I am asking for is that they should report back to Tynwald to make sure that your Scrutiny Committee actually has been listened to by executive Government, 370 because these are important issues. I had on the Question Paper the other day, Questions 41 and 60, where there has been total lapse as far as doing any background checks as far as officers are concerned on their appointment. I had a positive response from the Minister for Policy and Reform as far as we need to make sure we keep on getting these duds that we end up with in the public service that end up being a great cost to us and often then have to be put out to grass 375 at great cost to the taxpayer, when they get their public sector pension – that is the cheapest way. We have had our successes in recent times, with certain chief executives and high ranking staff. I hope Hon. Members will support this. This is about making sure that if you are going to have these Standing Committees, in my opinion, there needs to be some date for Council of Ministers 380 to come back and then if there is an argument then they come back and they say, ‘Well, this is why we have not implemented it.’ These three issues are fundamental for good governance, and I hope Hon. Members will support these proposals because this puts a timeframe in order that they can be reported back and Tynwald is not just getting another committee, another report that just is thrown in the corner and forgotten about. The work that the Committee members 385 have done should be recognised and what I am wanting to do is make sure that executive Government recognises and implements them, and comes back with some resolution. I hope Hon. Members will support my amendment: ______2146 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

At the end of recommendation 1 to add the words: ‘and the Council of Ministers should report to Tynwald in April 2017 on proposals for improving levels of accountability for senior officers’. At the end of recommendation 2 to add the words: ‘in April 2017’. At the end of recommendation 3 to add the words: ‘in April 2017’.

The President: Hon. Member for Douglas South, Mrs Beecroft.

390 Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Mr President. I have no hesitation in supporting the amendment. But before, I would like to congratulate the Committee on a very good Report (A Member: Hear, hear.) and excellent recommendations – and the two organisations that helped them come to those conclusions. But I do agree that there should be a date on these things so that they do not get missed, 395 because with all the other things that are going on – you have got the balancing of the finances, growing the economy, the Brexit implications – without a fixed date it is so easy to overlook these things, even with the best of intentions. But if there is a date it is flagged up, it is put in the diaries and everybody knows what they are working to. So I think that anything like this really should have a date where a report has to be brought 400 back to Tynwald for debate, or at least acknowledgement of any progress that has been made with the recommendations that have been brought before it, that Tynwald upholds – which I do hope that they will today with these. So, yes, I am more than happy to second the amendment and hope that other Members will support it. Thank you, Mr President. 405 The President: Hon. Member for Middle, Mr Quayle.

The Minister for Health and Social Care (Mr Quayle): Thank you, Mr President. Firstly, may I thank the Hon. Members of the Social Affairs Policy Review Committee for their 410 First Report for the Session 2015-16 on the Social Care Procurement which was laid before Tynwald in May. The Council of Ministers has approved the response being presented today. The recommendations in the Report were matters for the Treasury and are supported by both Treasury and my own Department, with the exception of the background checks on officers 415 involved in the procurement recommendation 3 process. Treasury has considered this recommendation carefully, but has come to the conclusion that the benefits would not outweigh the additional bureaucracy and may not, in fact, be effective in addressing the matter of the identification of potential conflict of interest. Amendments had, in fact, been made to the financial regulations in August 2015 to provide 420 clarity regarding procedures to be followed with respect to conflicts of interest. They ensured that both the head of Procurement Services and the chief officer of the relevant Department are involved in decisions regarding how to proceed when potential conflicts arise. Consistency in decisions of making across Government is therefore more assured. I take this issue seriously and even outside procurement processes, routine business meetings allow officers or Members to 425 declare an interest in the matters being discussed. That said, however, I am more than happy to accept the amendment by the Hon. Member for Onchan, for it to be reviewed again, in the spirit of good governance. My Department is taking seriously the obligation to find ways to support local third sector organisations. Discussions between senior officer representatives of the third sector have 430 commenced with the goal of a framework agreement being drawn up. The wide-ranging matters to be included in that agreement are covered in the response today. We welcome the greater clarity that will come with the introduction of a social value policy for use as part of the procurement process, as recommended by the Committee, and are ______2147 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

committed to working with Treasury on the development of that policy, where required. My 435 Department remains committed to ensuring that we follow due process in regard to procuring services, and we welcome this Report and its findings.

The President: Hon. Member of Council, Mr Turner.

440 Mr Turner: Thank you, Mr President. I do not think there is anybody who could disagree with these recommendations. I think you could in theory remove all their words to do with social care procurement, because this covers all procurement and I think that is a very important thing. I think the recommendations here are good recommendations and they are worthy of full 445 support. We have to remember of course that we have had numerous situations – some quite recently – to do with our procurement being handled in a manner where we have had Departments coming and apologising; in some cases, apologising when they have already been warned that they are heading off in the wrong direction, but still we are hell bent on doing that; 450 and we have had Ministers come back to this Hon. Court saying, ‘We got it wrong and we did this and we did that.’ Well, all of these things were known, so I think it is vitally important that these recommendations are followed. We have to remember as well some of the accounting officers are paid very high salaries to be in very important roles and they are effective guardians of the public purse in these areas, yet 455 what we see quite often is people lower down the food chain who make mistakes consistently are dismissed, but we never see people being held to account in those higher paid positions with the power … being held accountable. It is important – just as in any commercial organisation – if those people fail in their duty, then they should rightly be fully held to account; not send the Minister grovelling to the Court, apologising, but there should be some proper account because 460 we do see people lower down in the organisations losing their jobs. It has to be fair treatment. Some of these contracts involve substantial amounts of money and it is right that there is a process in place. I do think that Recommendation 3 is worthy of support. It does not instruct Treasury to do the background checks; it says, ‘They should consider implementing them’. It might be the case 465 that they can do it on contracts that may be of substantial value; there may be perceived conflicts there; there may be some whistleblowing gone on that somebody might be involved in, in which case it gives them the ability to consider doing that and I think that is vitally important. I am all for free trade, but also there has to be fair trade. I do wish we would stop saying, ‘the implications of Brexit’; I like to think of it more as the opportunities of Brexit. (Two Members: 470 Hear, hear.) The mover mentioned that we have some problems with favouring local suppliers, maybe, in the food industry. I hope that those days of not being able to favour them are coming to an end, because it is important that there is a balance. Part of our role is to make sure the balance is such that there is sufficient fair trade, but we should be able to lean towards supporting the likes of local producers for that reason; because in some areas we are 475 hamstringing local businesses with rules and regulations, and we are making it easier for competition to come in from across, but then saying, ‘Well, we would love to support you but we are not going to,’ to the local suppliers who have higher costs – higher energy costs, higher transport costs and everything else. So I think hopefully we can look at those particular issues and I think the United Kingdom 480 coming out of the EU obviously does have an impact on our Protocol 3 and that might just give us the opportunities. Let’s be determined to find a way of doing it, rather than finding excuses not to do it, because that is all we hear at times, ‘We cannot do it because it is unlawful.’ I thought this was the place that made the laws, so let’s see where the opportunities lie, in particular with that, and let’s support the recommendations.

______2148 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

485 Obviously we have only just had sight of the amendment in the name of Mr Karran. On the surface I think it is also worthy of supporting. It does give a timetable and if for some reason the timetable is difficult to meet then they could come back and say, ‘We need a bit more time.’ But at least what that would do – the amendment by Mr Karran – is it would get it in the Tynwald Policy Report programme and it will be there to be ensured that it does not get kicked into the 490 long grass. Please support the recommendations of this Report. Thank you, Mr President.

The President: Hon. Member of Council, Mr Henderson. 495 Mr Henderson: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. I would like to thank the Chairman for his Report. I fully support everything that is there, happy with the amendment. What I would like to ask though in connection to the Children’s Centre issue is: he mentioned 500 that civil servants operate by integrity and so on and common sense; however, what I want to ask is did the committee measure the situation against the Civil Service code of conduct that they have to also operate by, which gives clear guidance on such issues? My second question is: that any particular civil servant could well be a professional member or a member of their professional organisation or associate to their organisation, which again 505 applies a set of professional and technical rules to their conduct in what should be expected and not expected, which again would give, I would suspect, clear guidance in this situation … So the queries are: were those issues taken into account?

The President: Hon. Member for Douglas West, Mr Thomas. 510 Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr President. Picking up on the hon. colleague from Council, Mr Turner’s, observation that there are opportunities post-Brexit, I just wanted to mention in the Court that in actual fact the UK procurement legislation is actually an EU directive so it will automatically fall. Back in 2013 and 515 2014, I actually engaged quite a lot with Treasury about the prospects of bringing in a Private Member’s Bill for public services social value legislation, which we could not really do in the Isle of Man because we do not have procurement legislation. So I would seek the Committee Chair’s support for the fact that we could possibly think more strongly in terms of recommendation 4 and 5, and it might be that we do not actually only need 520 a policy review, we need to think about how we put in place legislation to make sure that we can actually exercise social value constraint rather than an economic value constraint, which was there until the Public Services Social Value Bill was brought in in the UK in 2012, that amended the EU directive. So we definitely have got an opportunity to put in place our own better legislation and we 525 will need to with an opportunity arising from Brexit. The second point is that I think social value goes wider than just the issue of recognising longstanding Manx organisations. Social value, I think, affected the Department of Infrastructure’s decision about the Peel silt, because I think there were aspects to do with encouraging local economic value. The Committee, in its investigation, kindly included in its 530 annexes the discussion that was had about other measures of social value to do with local contribution to income, funds that were retained on the Island, social enterprises which were a concept raised by an earlier Minister for Social Care who talked about rewarding social enterprise organisations in Adult Social Services and Children’s Social Services. So I hope the Committee Chair will agree that recommendation 5 means that all aspects of social value policy 535 should be reviewed at this stage and not just the one that is identified.

______2149 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

Finally, I hope the Treasury Minister would not contradict me by saying that I am not right in pointing out that procurement goes beyond just Treasury now, because many of the functions of procurement have been transferred over to the Attorney General’s office; and also often procurement is actually a shared function between a Department and the Attorney General’s 540 office and Treasury, so I hope this Court understands that the meaning of recommendations 2 and 3 is that various parts of Government should be involved in doing background checks. In closing, I wanted to join with all the other previous compliments and congratulations and validations of what has been said in this Committee Report. I want to say that I support the amendments. It is a shame that they do not extend to recommendations 4 and 5 as well, 545 because I think Government should actually have a timetable for the non-governance aspects – the social value aspects – and I fully agree with the Committee Chair that recommendation 3 in its raw form is better than in its amended form.

The President: Hon. Members, I call on the Chairman to reply, Mr Cretney. 550 Mr Cretney: Yes, thank you very much and in the spirit of trying to move things along, Mr President, I will restrict my remarks to those who have asked questions and I will also, just again, to Mr Quayle, the Minister, thank him for his support. I do, though, believe that recommendation 3 should remain as is. 555 In relation to Mr Henderson, he spoke about the code of conduct and whether we had asked about that. We were informed that the matter of the officer’s conduct had been referred to the personnel HR office and, as such, we did not go any deeper into the matter; it was left at that. Mr Thomas spoke about social value and he and I for some time now have spoken about this, so I hope he welcomes the recommendations in here. 560 Mr Karran’s amendment – as has been indicated by the Government, they are supportive, I am supportive. I recognise the point he is making. I hope Hon. Members will support as I have indicated.

The President: Thank you, Hon. Member, for your summing up. 565 Hon. Members, I put the recommendations in turn. To recommendation 1 we have an amendment in the name of Mr Karran. Those in favour of the amendment, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Recommendation 1 as amended: those in favour, say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. 570 Recommendation 2, I put the amendment by Mr Karran. Those in favour of the amendment, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Recommendation 2 as amended: those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Recommendation 3, firstly the amendment by Mr Karran: those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Recommendation 3 as amended: those in favour 575 say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Recommendation 4: those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Recommendation 5: those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. The motion, as amended: those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. 580 Thank you, Hon. Members.

______2150 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

20. Planning and Building Control – Report and recommendations – Amended motion carried

The Chairman of the Select Committee on Planning and Building Control (Petition for Redress) (Mr Thomas) to move:

That the Report of the Select Committee on Planning and Building Control (Petition for Redress) 2015-16 [PP No 2016/0076] be received and that the following recommendations be approved:

Recommendation 1 That the Council of Ministers’ Environment and Infrastructure Committee planning review revisits the commitment to Tynwald and sets out in its report to Tynwald in July 2016 how it intends to ensure this is met in a subsequent stage of its review.

Recommendation 2 That the ‘Pre application Guidance for Customers’ should be updated to make it clear that the planning officer providing advice at this stage will not be the planning officer who determines the application, in the event that the application does not go to the Planning Committee, and to explain why this is the case.

Recommendation 3 That all of the criteria setting out who will determine planning applications should be added to the planning advice section of the Government website in a format which will be easy for the public to find and understand.

Recommendation 4 That guidance for applicants should include a clear explanation of the significance of land classification and which policies may be considered in relation to the various types.

Recommendation 5 That the Council of Ministers’ Environment and Infrastructure Sub-Committee Planning Review should look closely at the process followed during the preparation of future area plans to ensure that the significance of land classification and re-classification is highlighted.

Recommendation 6 That the Council of Ministers’ Environment and Infrastructure Sub-Committee Planning Review should look closely at what the Department must have regard to under Section 10 (4) of the 1999 Act, in addition to the development plan, and consider bringing it all together into one series of papers, probably Planning Policy Statements, to improve clarity, with periodic review dates of such papers to confirm continued suitability and relevance.

Recommendation 7 That the Planning Policy Unit in the Cabinet Office give consideration to introducing a mechanism to allow for the adaptation or re-interpretation of policies, such as Housing Policy 14, which may include consultation with a body established under Section 40 of the 1999 Act, where experience shows that professional interpretation is frequently contradictory, without waiting for a full review of Strategic or Development Plans.

Recommendation 8 That the Department reword section 8(7) (d) of the Standing Orders to replace the words ‘only if invited to do so and’ with ‘but’. It will read ‘the applicant and/or agent or any third party

______2151 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

may address the Committee but only to provide factual clarification of any matter relevant to the planning application which is the subject of the site visit;’.

Recommendation 9 That the Council of Ministers’ Environment and Infrastructure Sub-Committee Planning Review should consider how the planning process at appeal can be streamlined, taking note of the suggestions in this report.

Recommendation 10 That the Department amend legislation to remove the third party interested person’s right of appeal after determination if they have not made their objections known during the application process, prior to determination.

Recommendation 11 Further that the Council of Ministers’ Environment and Infrastructure Sub-Committee Planning Review consider removing the third party interested person status altogether.

Recommendation 12 That as soon as the Department is made aware that action of any sort may be taken against it with respect to a planning application, the applicants and any interested parties should be notified.

Recommendation 13 That the Department introduce a target timescale for redetermination decisions to be made, which should be no more than 8 weeks after the date of a judgment or consent order.

Recommendation 14 That Tynwald calls on the Council of Ministers to undertake whatever work is necessary to ensure that a Tynwald Commissioner for Administration is appointed without delay.

Recommendation 15 That the Council of Ministers’ Environment and Infrastructure Sub-Committee Planning Review give consideration to changing the way in which departmental planning applications are decided to ensure parity of transparency with respect to other planning decisions.

Recommendation 16 That the Council of Ministers’ Environment and Infrastructure Sub-Committee Planning Review give consideration to defining criteria for ‘national importance’ as described in the 1999 Act.

Recommendation 17 That the Council of Ministers’ Environment and Infrastructure Sub-Committee Planning Review give consideration to including consideration of enforcement matters in their review.

Recommendation 18 That the results of the planning review led by the Council of Ministers’ Environment and Infrastructure Committee, the recommendations from this report and the outcome of the cases considered but not reported on here, are referred to the Environment and Infrastructure Policy Review Committee of Tynwald for future scrutiny.

GD No 2016/0043 is relevant to this Item.

______2152 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

The President: Now Item 20, Report of the Select Committee on Planning and Building Control. I call on the Chairman of that Committee, Hon. Member for Douglas West, Mr Thomas.

585 Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr President. Our Committee believes that Mr and Mrs Jenkins raised a number of valid points about the current planning application processes and we have therefore made a number of specific procedural recommendations for the Department, alongside some broader recommendations for consideration by the officers conducting the planning review, led by the Council of Ministers’ 590 Environment and Infrastructure Committee. Firstly, we would like to thank Mr and Mrs Jenkins for having put down the Petition of Grievance. I think Government actually respects them very much as well, because Hon. Members will have noted that Government also thanked Mr and Mrs Jenkins for the time they have given to our Committee, and remarked, ‘their patience in this matter,’ which I believe 595 Government meant that they were referring to their own planning application. Mr and Mrs Jenkins have been thanked by Government as well for ‘causing Government to reflect on how well it is delivering a service from the customers’ perspective,’ and concluded that, ‘improvements do need to be made’. So, quite clearly, Mr and Mrs Jenkins can feel vindicated in raising their concerns and the 600 value of a good Tynwald Hill Petition for Redress of Grievance for public policy development is validated. We drew our Committee’s work to a conclusion in May, in order for our Report to be considered by officers conducting the planning review led by the Council of Ministers’ Environment and Infrastructure Committee, who had already indicated that they will make an 605 initial report to Tynwald in July, which we received yesterday and approved yesterday. So our Report could have been rushed, but two points arise from this. The first is that the breadth and depth of our Committee’s analysis was huge despite the time available, and I think my colleagues, Mr President and Mr Joughin, will agree that this achievement is a significant part, due to the excellent submissions made to us by people 610 involved from outside and, most importantly, due to the professionalism and application of our Third Clerk, Mrs Corkish, and the other Tynwald Clerks and staff she mobilised in the effort. The diligence and intellectual organisation of Mrs Corkish also shaped the Report in the way that she worked to understand the maze of planning and then to use it as she contributed to structuring our Committee’s investigation with preparations for oral evidence and the handling of 615 interaction with some sophisticated witnesses. I think this shows the value of Tynwald Committee work. The home-grown analysis in this Tynwald Report is equal in weight and worth, I suggest, to that of the parallel investigation and this is an important context of our recommendation 18, if you turn to your Order Paper:

That the results of the planning review led by the Council of Ministers’ Environment and Infrastructure Committee … [should consider] recommendations from this report and the outcome of the cases …

which we considered but have not yet reported on, and also that the Tynwald Policy Review 620 Committee continues investigating in this area in coming years. Whatever we decide today, I do strongly recommend to Members and others who will become involved in the forthcoming review of planning policy that they look back at the comparison of the Isle of Man planning system with the UK – our appendix 5B – to the four countries’ comparison to learn more about other planning systems around the British Isles, and 625 also the planning statistics and doleance costs which our work brought together. As Chair, in fact, I go beyond the Government’s comments about this recommendation, because I do recommend that the Tynwald Environment and Infrastructure Policy Review Committee does take this investigation up in coming months, given the weight of some of the evidence we took, but we are not able to publish given the status in law of the planning

______2153 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

630 applications when our Committee was investigating; the other evidence that was offered to us, which we did not have time or ability to consider, given the constraints of the petition text; and also given the other significant planning issues raised in the last couple of years – for instance, the statutory basis of the Planning Committee delegations, master planning, draft planning policy statements, development orders, enforcement issues. 635 This personal recommendation of mine is despite Government’s amendment to recommendation 18, which is effectively that Tynwald limits itself to ex-post-scrutiny, but I do not think my personal recommendation is actually in conflict with Government’s amendment, because to support my argument, I note the Tynwald Report on the Tynwald Committee System, which concluded, ‘that parliamentary committee work can take many forms,’ including 640 ‘participation in policy development’, ‘looking at a broad issue and contributing ideas ex ante facto as to what the executive might do next’ – as the Economic Policy Review Committee did, very helpfully, in Open Skies and as Lord Lisvane concluded. He actually recommended that we think more broadly about how the policy review committees work. He said we should reconsider that they only review implemented policies. 645 Planning, to me, quite clearly is one of these areas where, given that we have Mrs Corkish fully engaged in planning now given there are so many issues, I do genuinely think that witnesses can be called in to help us from outside. That leads to my second point, which is that we noted that Government has changed, at least in the initial stages, how it goes about its own review; because basically the broad stakeholder 650 consultation which was initially envisaged was downgraded as an activity during the work of our Committee. Originally, Government was going to involve and engage with architects, agents, advocates, developers, local authorities, the general public, but it has not done that as yet and I think I heard yesterday from the Minister for Planning that it intended to. Minister Shimmin, yesterday, talked when I mentioned the Section 40 Committee about the 655 pre-1999 body. That is not what I had in mind at all. I actually had in mind the post-2016 body, which will include, or would include, the Chamber of Commerce, the chartered surveyors, other professional bodies, housebuilders, as well as the Building Conservation Forum, the Municipal Association, and all that sort of type of body. This advisory forum would not be involved in individual planning applications; it cannot be 660 involved in that according to the law. It would not be involved in zoning land; it cannot be involved in that according to the law. But it would be a great help to actually engage with everybody affected by the planning system as we go about making our planning system work for everybody, and I strongly support – and this Committee strongly found – that we should actually be considering activating that section 40 process. 665 Some specific recommendations: recommendation 2, recommendation 3 and recommendation 8 are all entirely in line with the principles agreed yesterday of making planning documentation simple and easy to use so that normal, regular people – whether they be developers or neighbours, or whoever – can actually fully, properly understand the process and engage with it. 670 We then have recommendations about white lands, and more generally about land classification and more generally about how the public understands the area planning process – which made an important step forward this year, both with the Eastern Area Plan starting in recent weeks and at Christmas time with the Castletown housing partial review taking place, and last summer with the Employment Land Review taking place. 675 We do have an issue with different understandings of what ‘white space’ means, because I could not help but notice that around Castletown one of the issues is about open space and fields and the countryside and there is reference in applications to that being white land, which basically means anything can be done with it. But there are other people that want open space and environmental policies to actually be there, more specifically made solid. So this is an 680 important issue and that is the context of Recommendation 4 and Recommendation 5 in our Report. ______2154 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

Moving on to planning policy guidelines: we concluded in our Committee that what the Department should have regard to as set out in section 10.4 of the 1990 Act is not straightforward and in actual fact it had got more confusing over the last 10 years, given all of 685 the initiatives that had taken place – piecemeal initiatives – to bring in draft planning policy statements, guidelines – only one of which got Tynwald approval, but then we had the Master Plan which did get Tynwald approval. Some of them are recent, some of them are old. There are all sorts of issues that need to be looked at and I strongly recommend, as the Committee does in Recommendation 6 that the Council of Ministers’ Environment and Infrastructure Sub- 690 Committee does look at how all of these documents can actually be brought together and their relative importance be given weight. I do believe this will be a very helpful way, finally, to square the circles of conflict inside the planning system. It also deals with the localisation initiative raised by the Hon. Member for Castletown and Malew with his Private Member’s Bill. (Interjection) Because in essence the best way for local 695 communities to engage with the planning process is at the earlier stage which is when the Area Plans are laid down. The Centre of Douglas Master Plan is an important initiative and I strongly encourage local authorities in the west and in the north to actually get involved at this stage to actually make sure that, when pre-publicity stage starts in the area planning process, it is clear for officers what Government wants. 700 We now move on to politicians in decisions and appeals and I want to categorically state that this is not about whether or not there should be a political Chair of the Planning Committee; it is about more fundamental decisions and aspects of decision-making. A couple of years ago, it was brought to our attention that there had been a judgement relating to the Landscape Policy 21 in the Strategic Plan, which was commented on: the role that 705 political Members had played in a decision which was eventually overturned in a legal process. In our Committee we went back and discovered the Deemster Kerruish case of 2006, which had a similar conclusion: that politicians, if they went too far away from the law, it might be held against them subsequently in the legal process. When we looked at the statistics, we actually noticed that the Minister and politicians 710 delegated with responsibility by the Minister did not actually get really involved in planning decisions necessarily in the vast majority of cases. Deemster Kerruish had found, back in 2006, that in most cases – in 96% of cases – Ministers just went along with inspectors’ recommendations and even in 3% or the 4% where they did not, the changes were minor. What we have actually recommended in Recommendation 9 is that the review takes note of 715 this and the whole role: making sure that politicians are involved in making policy and when there are planning decisions of national or general importance that the politicians are involved. Perhaps we could move to a Northern Irish or, perhaps better, a Scottish solution where politicians are only occasionally involved in the direct decision-making for appeals. Mostly in the appeals process, it can become like it is in the actually planning application decision process 720 where officers implement policy that has been made by politicians. We move on to Recommendations 10 and 11, where there is a small Government amendment – which I have no issue with and the Committee has no issue with – which is about third-party status. Essentially we make a very specific recommendation which arises directly from the Jenkins Report about what you have to have done before you can take action under a 725 petition of doleance process. We make a general recommendation that Government, in its official review, in its formal review, should actually consider the whole issue of third-party status. Mr and Mrs Jenkins put on record their appreciation and the weight that they thought that third-party status had. Our Committee has not taken a view on the need for third-party status 730 but we do think it is something that needs to be investigated. It could be that, in time, if the rest of the planning process is improved in the way that we have described and that people come to have confidence in the way that the process is working, we can actually make planning better by

______2155 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

removing the third-party status appeal right, if there are sufficient opportunities earlier on the in the process because the process is working better than it has done in the last 10 or so years. 735 We have asked the Review to consider that basis and take evidence from people. There are people out there who are worried about this and this is the biggest single item on which I have received direct submissions, but I do think it is worthwhile us recognising that, in Ireland, they have the third-party right of appeal, but they do not in Jersey, Guernsey, England, Wales, Northern Ireland. So we should consider it, but it is true to say that their planning systems in all 740 those other places are much more developed than ours, in terms of some of the other issues that we have identified. That comes on to an important aspect of the Committee Report, which is about the use of lawyers and petitions of doleance more generally. We have got three recommendations, 12, 13 and 14. I fully accept Government's recommendation to make one of them more practically 745 possible but, in essence, I think these are helpful, practical suggestions, and I hope this Court will support them. In particular, the Ombudsman – this is the third time that we have seen this – is crucial. This case would not have got to where it was and it would not have needed a walk up towards Tynwald Hill if we had an Ombudsman in place, which has been Tynwald policy since 2004. It is 750 quite shocking that we have not managed to do it, and I really hope that by now, with all of this weight of evidence amassing, we will by Christmas-time have a definite plan in place, to actually implement that. That leads on to planning processes, where the Council of Ministers are involved. This whole item or element of planning came to public attention in the context of Douglas Promenade. A 755 recent application, which surprised a great number of people in the Isle of Man, was that the Cabinet Office received the independent inspector’s report on 31st January but, differently if it had been a regular planning application, it was not actually published till after the decision had been made by the end of March. So given that there is this public focus on that process, I think the time is right, in particular, for Government to revisit how national general importance issues 760 are dealt with and how all the development that we are very pleased has taken place and we are very proud of in the actual planning application process is replicated in cases where Government is involved, and perhaps also even in cases where there is national importance. Hence, recommendations 15 and 16. Government’s small amendment to the recommendation about national general importance 765 is welcomed. I just bring to the Government's attention that ‘national importance’ is the phrase that is used in the Strategic Plan whereas ‘general importance’ is used in the law. So in itself, there is a contradiction between the two documents at the basis. So that has got to be taken into account by Government later. So, enforcement, building control aspects: we only had a few months so we could not control 770 or deal with everything, but we do feel there is substantial evidence provided to us that we do need to look at enforcement; we do need to look at how planning conditions are monitored; and we do need to look at how maps and plans are used in the sequential processes of a planning application, planning approval, building control, and so we did not take it up ourselves, but we are absolutely sure that Government needs to take these issues up – hence our 775 recommendation 17. In the Petition for Redress of Grievance, there was an allegation, a suggestion made, in a very professional way, in a very mature way, that there is a perception among the general public that cronyism exists within planning. In our Committee, we felt that this was a subjective matter and it was beyond the scope of our investigation, especially given the time we had available. So we 780 have acknowledged that those concerns exist, and we hope that by the end of this high-level planning review process, we will be in a better place to deal with those accusations, allegations and perceptions.

______2156 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

So in closing, I wanted to thank Committee colleagues, thank the staff, thank everybody who submitted evidence, even if we did not use it as yet. I think other people might choose to use 785 the evidence that we have already received in future. And another thing that we investigated was earlier, another Petition by Mr Whittaker down in Ballasalla, issues and at the end of that Mr Whittaker thanked the Committee that investigated his concerns for taking the time to hear oral evidence and read written evidence, and to see a way forward. He said he was a small individual and he was somewhat encouraged 790 rather than discouraged from making a planning application – but then nothing happened. So the late Mr Whittaker, if he had still been here –

Mr Cregeen: He is not ‘late’!

795 Mr Thomas: Okay, Mr Whittaker would be late …. Sorry, I misread my notes here. Tynwald Court has been late in actually addressing Mr Whittaker’s concerns. (Laughter and interjections)

Mr Cregeen: Get your grammar right!

800 Mr Thomas: Tynwald Court has been late in actually addressing Mr Whittaker’s concerns. And I really do hope that this Court and this Government will not let down Mr and Mrs Jenkins, given all the time they went to, given all the trauma that they have been caused, given all the effort that the Committee has gone to in piecing together and linking it with lots of other cases. I do hope no later than a few years’ time – a couple of years’ time – because this is a massive 805 topic, we will have finally put to bed all of these issues raised in these 18 recommendations. I hope the Court will fully support it. As Churchill said, when I have got this Committee set up, the essence of a politician is knowing when to stand up and knowing when to sit down.

810 The President: Hon. Member for Douglas East, Mr Joughin.

Mr Joughin: Thank you, Mr President. I wish to second the motion and reserve my remarks.

815 The President: Hon. Member for Castletown, Mr Ronan.

The Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture (Mr Ronan): Thank you, Mr President. I have two amendments, which I would like to propose today, which have already been circulated:

Recommendation 12 That Recommendation 12 be amended to read: ‘That as soon as practically possible after the Department is in receipt of any legal challenge such as a petition of doleance the landowner and applicant be notified.’

Recommendation 16 Delete reference to ‘national importance’ and insert ‘general importance’.

820 I would also like to make a few other comments, if that is okay. The Council of Ministers has considered the Report, its recommendations and thanks the Committee for their time commitment and analysis of the issues raised by Mr and Mrs Jenkins. The Council of Ministers would also like to thank Mr and Mrs Jenkins for the time they have given to the Committee (A Member: Hear, hear.) and for their patience in this matter.

______2157 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

825 The general spirit of the conclusions of the Report to seek to improve clarity, openness and understanding in respect of the processes and decision-making within planning are understood and accepted. The Select Committee's Report provides 18 recommendations, and the Council of Ministers accepts the majority of these. Those recommendations that are proposed to be amended are either considered to be more 830 appropriately dealt with as part of the recently indicated high-level review of the Island’s planning system or are proposed to be reworded in order to allow the issues raised to be addressed, whilst maintaining the general intention envisaged by the Select Committee. Regarding recommendation 12, Council of Ministers is concerned that what is being sought is for the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture to notify any interested parties of any 835 intent to take action against it. In practical terms, this is considered to be unworkable and would require the Department to react to any threat, irrespective of the likelihood of it becoming formal. Accordingly, I propose to amend the recommendations to read as follows, Mr President:

That as soon as practically possible after the Department is in receipt of any legal challenge such as a petition of doleance the landowner and applicant be notified.

Regarding recommendation 16, the intention of the recommendation is accepted. However, the reference of ‘national importance’ should be amended to read ‘general importance’ as per 840 the wording of the section of the 1999 Act referred to. Accordingly, I propose to amend the recommendation to read as follows:

That the Council of Ministers’ Environment and Infrastructure Sub-Committee Planning Review give consideration to defining criteria for ‘general importance’ as described in the 1999 Act.

Thank you, Mr President.

The President: Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran. 845 Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I thought the Report was very interesting. There are a couple of points that I would like to ask the Chairman, or the Caairliagh, about the Report. It should not be a matter which the officer gives pre-application advice, as the advice is given should be always on the grounds of what is in the planning guidelines, which could then be 850 determined under delegated powers, so I think the point is it would be interesting to know why they should not be giving advice, unless it is under the planning guidelines, and that any application which falls or is considered to fall outside those planning guidelines should automatically have determination by the full Planning Committee on recommendation 2. I am interested to know that on the issue of recommendation 9, I know that in other 855 jurisdictions – the likes of the Welsh Office before the devolution of the Welsh Assembly – they actually changed it so that the Planning Committee was personally responsible if they did send it to appeal, that they would end up being liable. I just wonder whether there is any way of making sure that we have a Committee that makes the proper decisions in the first place. On recommendation 10, if a third-party-interested person’s right to appeal should always be 860 considered if information which is important to appeal, which was not available to the planning application, becomes known. I think sometimes we find out too late and I really appreciate it, with the Government taking on these little signs – admittedly I was wanting something more like a for-sale sign on land, in order to make sure that adjoining landowners could know when there was an application. I am glad that that non-achievement is part of the situation now, as far as 865 executive Government is concerned. I do feel that the issue on recommendation 11, whether the third-party status … Has the Committee considered whether there are any human rights implications, as far as that is concerned?

______2158 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

On recommendation 13, if the Department is unable to determine within the timescale a 870 determination in favour of an applicant, it should become mandatory that they should be some sort of period of time where a decision needs to be made. I am with the Government. We need to get planning moving obviously in the right direction and to be fair to the Hon. Member for West Douglas, planning can be very subjective as far as people are concerned. What I am concerned about is that on recommendation 11, I believe that 875 further to the Council of Ministers’ Environment and Infrastructure Sub-Committee Planning Review do not consider removing the third-party interest status but reviews it to ensure that they may be able to award it to all parties legitimately affected. We have seen a situation where we had people who had leasehold on property, where the likes of in one case of the tennis courts at Mount Murray, where the individuals were going to lose their tennis court, the tennis 880 club and they had no effective status as far as that is concerned. I think these are issues that maybe the Council of Ministers will consider, because there are other statuses as far as that is concerned. As Hon. Members would know, with Questions 1 and 2 on the Order Paper to the Chief Minister about the registration of buildings, we have reduced it to almost a farcical situation at 885 the present time, as far as the registration of buildings is concerned. I appreciate we are in hard times. Some of us have been trying to help as far as that, for some considerable time to get more efficiency as far as spending money is concerned. So I believe that for the likes of registration, there should be recognised bodies. Not just cranks but bodies that should be able to have some input if there is something to severely make 890 detrimental appearance or affect a building that is registered or should be registered, as far as that is concerned. So I do hope Hon. Members will consider that and also the fact that when we were asking the question on Question 15 to do with planning enforcement to the Acting Attorney General and the fact that even some of my colleagues, the Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Quirk, tells me 895 there are 250 – (Mr Quirk: 300!) 300 cases at the moment as far as planning enforcement is due. This is a really important issue. I hope the other Members will consider my proposal. Obviously I cannot speak to the other two amendments. They are not in front of us yet. I just feel that we need to consider if we are to remove the third-party status, I think that we should be looking to ensure that there is some way of awarding party status to legitimately affected 900 persons, and I think that my amendment is the way forward. And I must say to the mover of the Report, when he talks about it being 2004 we first put the resolution down for a motion, which was effectively killed off by people put on it in 1988, for an ombudsman. So I do hope that we will see in the very near future that the mover of the Report … that we will see a proper ombudsman on a proper basis in order to make sure that 905 there is audit in the system. This Island is blessed to be able to have its own parliamentary process. But with small nations, there are other competing issues and making sure that impartiality has to be put into the system. So I Hon. Members will consider that the fact is that the Environment and Infrastructure Subcommittee Planning Review does consider and does make 910 sure that it does not take away the third-party [Inaudible]. I think it would be wrong. I think it put planning back, in my opinion, and also look at issues like conservation and other groups like that – maybe sporting organisations, where their facilities are going to be decimated. There are times. I would like to give the planning people that flexibility. I so move:

In recommendation 11 to leave out everything after the words: ‘Further that the Council of Ministers’ Environment and Infrastructure Sub Committee Planning Review’ and add the words: ‘do not consider removing the third party interested person status but review it to ensure that it may be awarded to all parties legitimately affected’.

______2159 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

915 The President: Hon. Member for Douglas South, Mrs Beecroft.

Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Mr President. I beg to second Mr Karran’s amendment.

920 The President: Hon. Member, Mr Cregeen.

Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr President. I think there have been more planning issues than anything else over the last 10 years and they are always a major concern to people and from the Whittaker, Crossag Farm and 925 everything else like that, there have been lots of concerns. The third-party rights, there is scope for those to be in there, because you have to have a legitimate reason for it. You do not want to have somebody just for the sake of – because they consider themselves an expert in a field – that they object to everything, even if it is not going to affect them. It delays the process. I think that it is valid to have a legitimate reason for a third- 930 party objection. I have heard cases of people having an objection to planning, moving house, and still objecting and they do not even live there any more! That is the sort of thing that people will get fed up with is that you should not really be having that. Once you have moved house, and it no longer affects you – 935 Mr Quirk: They still own it.

Mr Cregeen: If they do not own it, then why continue the process? We have had so many planning battles down in Malew, it is unbelievable. The Whittaker one, 940 the petitions of doleance, everything like that just costs so much money. Something needs to be put in place and I would support the recommendations. I do have concerns regarding the removal totally of third party rights.

Mr Quirk: Hear, hear. 945 The President: Hon. Members, at this point there is only one amendment before the Court that has been duly proposed and seconded, and that is one of Mr Karran. Hon. Member for Douglas West, Mr Shimmin.

950 The Minister for Policy and Reform (Mr Shimmin): Thank you, Mr President. I too welcome the Report by the Select Committee, and do thank all of those for what has been a mammoth task. There is something masochistic about planning, because it is something that we live with in politics, and it is frustrating in a variety of ways, but actually it does get under your skin, because it is so important. 955 The majority of these recommendations are accepted. The amendments that I am moving vary in their format but are all, I believe, supportable by both the Committee and hopefully the Court. The first one is quite simple on recommendation 7, where we just take the terminology of the Planning Policy Unit in the Cabinet Office to replace with the more appropriate body, which 960 is the Council of Ministers’ Environment and Infrastructure Sub-Committee High Level Review of Planning, which just trips off the tongue. (Laughter) So, trying to take that into the forum and the right body. That then moves me on to what is a more subtle but probably one of the most important amendments that I am putting forward, on recommendation 10. We are very aware of third- 965 party status and the emotive elements that that has. We have already had a couple of Members talk about it, and I know a number of people have raised it both with the Chairman and myself. ______2160 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

Let’s not try and pre-empt what the review will do as we roll forward. We agreed yesterday the high-level review of planning to consider the amendments necessary as my amendment to recommendation 10. All we are doing is saying that the Council of Ministers’ Sub-Committee 970 Planning Review ‘considers amending’. That ensures that it will come back to this place, nothing will happen without it coming back here for approval. Is it right to consider? Of course it is. In all of these matters, we should not pre-empt any outcome and decision. I think the Committee went a little bit further at this stage in saying it should amend legislation. I think the Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran, goes too far in saying 975 we should not. Therefore I would hope the Court could support that one where it considers amending. It covers all bases. The final recommendation that I am looking to amend is number 18, and that is really a timing issue. I have some agreement with the Member moving this motion, the Chairman, when he looks at scrutiny. We have already discussed this week, Lord Lisvane and his 980 recommendations. We do have a situation at the moment where the Scrutiny Committees can only look at pre-existing policy. What we are talking about here is asking them to look at something which is not yet policy, because it is still being reviewed. Therefore the amendment at Item 18 is one which is to ensure it goes to the right body, and that is that Tynwald gives consideration to refer any changes to policies made as a result of the planning review led by 985 Council of Ministers and by the Infrastructure Committee with the recommendations from this Report and the outcome of the cases considered but not reported on here to the Environment and Infrastructure Policy Review Committee of Tynwald, for future scrutiny. That is only because at the moment that scrutiny committee could not pick it up. The way that we have phrased this, with the agreement, is that at the moment they can currently not do 990 what is asked by the Committee. We will put it in a phraseology, which means Tynwald will be able to refer it for that Committee to look at, which would be quite appropriate. I think the next administration will have to look at Lord Lisvane, to see what the role of the scrutiny committees are of parliament. Those of us who were here at the time they were brought in seem to trying to move in a 995 direction, but I think we have just sat on them for too long. I think they need to be revisited. This amendment is in the interim a better way of having recommendation 18. So I beg to move:

Recommendation 7 At the beginning of Recommendation 7, delete the words ‘That the Planning Policy Unit in Cabinet Office’ and insert ‘That Council of Ministers’ Environment and Infrastructure Sub- Committee High Level Review of Planning’.

Recommendation 10 At the beginning of Recommendation 10, delete the words ‘That the Department amend’ and insert ‘That the Council of Ministers’ Environment and Infrastructure Sub-Committee Planning Review considers amending’.

Recommendation 18 That Recommendation 18 be amended to read: ‘That Tynwald gives consideration to referring any changes to policies made as a result of the planning review led by the Council of Ministers’ Environment and Infrastructure Committee, the recommendations from this report and the outcome of the cases considered but not reported on here to the Environment and Infrastructure Policy Review Committee of Tynwald for future scrutiny.’

The President: Hon. Member for Rushen, Mr Skelly.

______2161 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

1000 The Minister for Economic Development (Mr Skelly): Yes, Eaghtyrane, I would just like to second Mr Ronan’s amendment.

The President: Hon. Member for Rushen, Mr Watterson.

1005 The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Watterson): I beg to second the amendment in the name of the Member for Douglas West, Mr Shimmin.

The President: Hon. Members, the position is we have three amendments before the Court, properly moved and seconded. 1010 Hon. Member for Douglas South, Mr Malarkey.

Mr Malarkey: Thank you, Mr President. Just quite briefly, I commend the Report coming forward. It is a very good Report. One or two issues have been brought to light, just in the last few conversations, really, and I presume that 1015 when the review is done, they will read the Hansard of today’s debate for more information moving forward. I specifically go to recommendations 10 and 11. I was actually minded to support Mr Karran’s recommendation 11, but I will come back to that in a second. I can agree with recommendation 10, where at the appeal stage, third-party status be 1020 removed. I can understand that moving forward. But I am extremely worried about third-party interest being removed altogether at application stage. I say that as an MHK. The amount of planning applications I have been involved in in the last 10 years, for constituents etc, who come to you for advice, and you get involved as a third party. I am involved in one at the moment. It is not outside my house; it is on Douglas Head and I 1025 am representing several of my constituents, because I know the history to the area and the problems. As a third-party status in that, I am informed what the procedure is going forward and I get the letters coming back when decisions have been made, and it can help my constituents moving forward with appeals, if necessary. So there are certain stages where third-party status is very important and it certainly is for 1030 the political Member who is here to help constituents. So I just hope when they do the review … I will not support Mr Karran’s motion, because I have spoken to the Chairman and I have spoken to the mover of the amendment as well and I am sure that these things will be discussed moving forward. So, yes, in supporting what is here today I just ask that when they look at removing third- 1035 party status altogether that is a very serious position as far as I am concerned, Mr President.

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

1040 Mr Thomas: Thank you very much, Mr President. I congratulate you on your appointment, but express regret that you are not here to have helped me today dealing with the things, as a very valuable member of the Committee.

Mr Quirk: He can’t vote, you know! 1045 Mr Thomas: I accept on behalf of the Committee all the amendments moved by Government but note, in doing that, the points made by Minister Shimmin and the spirit in which some of them will be investigated – and, in particular, the observations about the Tynwald Committee and Lord Lisvane’s comments about how Policy Review Committees of this Hon. Court can 1050 develop into policy development if they are so minded. (A Member: Hear, hear.)

______2162 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

I pick up, first of all, Mr Malarkey’s points, just to say that I think Members of this Court as they think about their political activity, should go back and re-read what we talked about in this Committee Report on the role of politicians, both as in Government and outside Government in the planning process, because we do make some comments about what can happen if politicians 1055 get involved in it. I also bring to Members’ minds the discussion that took place around the Members’ Standards and Interests Committee Report a couple of months ago to do with our professional liability insurance because I, myself, have represented successfully … almost represented … it was definitely successful, although I am not sure whether I represented them, given what I am going to say next. 1060 Basically, a planning application is not between a person and Government; it can be between two parties outside Government; and we had very specific guidance a couple of months ago about to what extent we could get involved in disputes between parties outside Government. So I strongly say that this third party and a politician’s role in these cases is something that the Committee and Government need to look at, and we need to have very definite guidance in 1065 terms of –

Mr Malarkey: But don’t rule them out.

Mr Thomas: So we are not ruling anything out. 1070 That leads me on to my observations on the Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran’s amendment, which I cannot support – and it is on a very simple ground, which is that it is constraining the review. We should not actually rule out an unlikely conclusion before we have even started, that is the simple basis of it. I go back to his persuasive case. The Minister heard yesterday about building registration 1075 and, to my mind, if we have a very limited definition of what sorts of buildings should be registered purely based on social, historical and cultural context there is an absolute requirement to register some buildings. Castle Rushen is not just a pile of stones as, apparently, it was once described; and there are other buildings that are of that category. I think it is not actually anything to do with commercial and business decisions in terms of 1080 some places, but at the minute we have a very wide definition of what is included in registered buildings. So my point is that yesterday Mr Karran tried to move an amendment to the overall high- level planning amendment and that was also premature. We do need to consider all the issues he raised but that should be in the context of this review and who should be interested party 1085 status. I think there are many people out there who do think that environmental organisations and building conservation organisations could – as seems to be required by the law – be involved automatically in specific applications to do with specific places. And finally, to reassure Mr Karran, if the process has not been handled properly of course there are rights to be involved in changing the process. So for instance, Government … as I 1090 mentioned yesterday in respect of Rotherwood House on Belmont Road, who forgot to put a yellow notice up when it was getting planning permission from itself for a development on a property, and Douglas Borough Council, quite properly, appealed on behalf of the general public because it is wrong that nobody even knew that the application had been made before they noticed that it had been decided. 1095 So thank you very much, Hon. Members. I hope that you can support the motion I have moved in its form, amended by the five Government amendments.

Mr Quirk: What about Richard’s one?

1100 The President: The motion is that set out at Item 20, and to it we have three amendments to various recommendations. If you are agreeable, it seems to me that the most efficient way of

______2163 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

doing this – and only if you are agreeable – we could take recommendations 1 to 6 together as a block. (Members: Agreed.) You are content with that. We could also take recommendations 13, 14 and 15 together – there do not seem to have 1105 been any comments about those individually. (Members: Agreed.) In that case, thank you very much. I put to the Court, recommendations 1 to 6 inclusive. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Recommendation 7, and to it there is an amendment in the name of Mr Shimmin. Those in 1110 favour of the amendment, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Recommendation 7, as amended, then. Those in favour, say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Recommendation 8: those in favour, say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Recommendation 9: those in favour, say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. 1115 Recommendation 10 has an amendment, also by Mr Shimmin. Those in favour of the amendment, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Recommendation 10, as amended. Those in favour, say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Recommendation 11: I put the amendment in the name of Mr Karran. Those in favour of that 1120 amendment, please say aye; against, no. The noes have it.

A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:

In the Keys – Ayes 4, Noes 17

FOR AGAINST Mrs Beecroft Mr Bell Mr Harmer Mr Boot Mr Karran Mr Cannan Mr Quirk Mr Cregeen Mr Hall Mr Joughin Mr Malarkey Mr Peake Mr Quayle Mr Robertshaw Mr Ronan Mr Shimmin Mr Skelly Mr Teare The Deputy Speaker Mr Thomas Mr Watterson

The Deputy Speaker: Mr President, in the Keys, the voting is 4 votes for, and 17 against.

In the Council – Ayes 2, Noes 6

FOR AGAINST Mr Cretney Mr Anderson Mr Turner Mr Coleman Mr Corkish Mr Crookall Mr Henderson The Lord Bishop

The President: In the Council, 2 votes for and 6 votes against. The amendment fails to carry.

______2164 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

I put recommendation 11. Those in favour, say aye; against, no.

A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:

In the Keys – Ayes 19, Noes 2

FOR AGAINST Mr Bell Mrs Beecroft Mr Boot Mr Karran Mr Cannan Mr Cregeen Mr Hall Mr Harmer Mr Joughin Mr Malarkey Mr Peake Mr Quayle Mr Quirk Mr Robertshaw Mr Ronan Mr Shimmin Mr Skelly Mr Teare The Deputy Speaker Mr Thomas Mr Watterson

The Deputy Speaker: Mr President, in the Keys, the voting is 19 votes for, and 2 against.

In the Council – Ayes 8, Noes 0

FOR AGAINST Mr Anderson None Mr Coleman Mr Corkish Mr Cretney Mr Crookall Mr Henderson The Lord Bishop Mr Turner

1125 The President: In the Council, 8 votes for and none against. So recommendation 11 carries Recommendation 12: I put the amendment by Mr Ronan. Those in favour of the amendment, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Recommendation 12, as amended. Those in favour, say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. 1130 Recommendations 13, 14 and 15 as a block. Those in favour, say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Recommendation 16: I put the amendment in the name of Mr Ronan. Those in favour of the amendment, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Recommendation 16, as amended. Those in favour, say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The 1135 ayes have it. Recommendation 17: those in favour, say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Finally, recommendation 18: I put the amendment in the name of Mr Shimmin. Those in favour of the amendment, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Recommendation 18, as amended. Those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The 1140 ayes have it.

______2165 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

Item 20 as a whole, as amended: those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it.

A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:

In the Keys – Ayes 21, Noes 0

FOR AGAINST Mrs Beecroft None Mr Bell Mr Boot Mr Cannan Mr Cregeen Mr Hall Mr Harmer Mr Joughin Mr Karran Mr Malarkey Mr Peake Mr Quayle Mr Quirk Mr Robertshaw Mr Ronan Mr Shimmin Mr Skelly Mr Teare The Deputy Speaker Mr Thomas Mr Watterson

The Deputy Speaker: Mr President, the voting is, in the Keys, 21 votes for, and none against.

In the Council – Ayes 8, Noes 0

FOR AGAINST Mr Anderson None Mr Coleman Mr Corkish Mr Cretney Mr Crookall Mr Henderson The Lord Bishop Mr Turner

1145 The President: In the Council, 8 votes for and none against. The amended motion therefore carries unanimously. I think, Hon. Members we are making quite good progress at this point.

A Member: Hear, hear. 1150 Mr Robertshaw: Don’t spoil it! (Laughter)

The President: May it continue!

______2166 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

21. Select Committee on the Registration of Land (Petition for Redress) – Report received and recommendations approved

The Chairman of the Select Committee on the Registration of Land (Petition for Redress) to move:

That the Report of the Select Committee on the Registration of Land (Petition for Redress) [PP No 2016/0078] be received and that the following recommendations be approved –

Recommendation 1 That legislation be introduced to require that before any land is voluntarily registered, notice should be served on any interested parties who can be identified and advertised on the land concerned in the same way as a planning application.

Recommendation 2 That legislation be introduced to require that where any land is subject to compulsory registration triggered by a transaction where the parties are represented by the same advocate, notice should be served on any interested parties who can be identified and advertised on the land concerned in the same way as a planning application. GD No 2016/0050 is relevant to this item.

1155 The President: Item 21, Select Committee on the Registration of Land (Petition for Redress). I call on the Chairman of that Select Committee to move. Mr Coleman.

The Chairman of the Select Committee on the Registration of Land (Petition for Redress), 1160 (Mr Coleman): Thank you very much, Mr President. The Report of the Select Committee comes from the Petition of two individuals, and I will summarise it very quickly. It simply is that they had a bad experience and they have offered us a recommendation to try to prevent that experience happening again, with reference to unregistered land. 1165 Essentially, according to the Land Registry you register land; and the top one of their bullet points on their website is:

Registration of title gives finality and certainty by providing an up-to-date official record of land ownership

The definitive statement of title in the Isle of Man is registration. Normally registration of land is prompted by the transfer of either the title in a property, a leasehold of over 21 years, and the remainder of a lease which is over 21 years. So it can be not 1170 just transfer of physical property, but also it can be the lease or the benefit for an asset. In this particular case the Committee felt that, because of the nature of the Petition, we should not go in too great a detail into the issues which affected the resolution of their problem – one of which involved a case in front of the Land Commissioner. We did not feel that the Petition, as worded, required us to do that. We were required by the Petition simply to look at 1175 the efficacy of their solution to try and prevent the problem that had occurred with the unregistered land. Essentially, their land was included in a registration for another piece of unregistered land; they questioned that and the Land Commissioner found in their favour. They have come to Tynwald, quite frankly, to try and prevent this happening again. 1180 Mr President, the system of land registration looks fine on paper; however, in practice, it is far from fine. The Petitioners in this case – Dr Craine and Ms Hommet – had a very bad

______2167 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

experience. They brought their experience to Tynwald Hill because they wanted us to consider improving the system so that others would not suffer the same fate. As I have said, the problem the Petitioners had was that their neighbour registered his land 1185 and that registration included a part of the land that they deemed to be theirs. The Petitioners did not find out about this until after the mistake had been made, and it happened quite coincidentally that they did find out. But they were able to have it corrected after a lot of anguish, time, effort and expenditure. Their suggested improvement to the system is very simple one. They think that before 1190 someone registers a piece of land, their neighbours should be notified as a matter of course, in a similar way that we notify our neighbours when we apply for planning permission. If someone sees the yellow card on a tree, or something like that, they can go and look at it and then they can go and look in the Planning Department and see how it is going to affect them. Their suggestion is simply that when someone is registering land for the first time that a similar, 1195 maybe red, laminated card – not green because that would get hidden in the trees – be put up for 30 days to give someone the opportunity to dispute a registration, if that is necessary, without getting involved in the expensive legal arena. The Land Registry do not like the Petitioners’ idea. They think that the idea is disproportionate and would slow down the property market. They also think it would encourage 1200 disputes. It is somewhat of a juxtaposition to something where you are trying to have the definitive Land Registry – and then not put up a notice which would give someone the opportunity to question the registration that someone is putting through. They also think it would encourage disputes, and in fact in their evidence they believe that it:

•may lead to malicious claims; •will raise a large question over who will police it and how; •introduces further costs; •introduces another level of bureaucracy, and does not appear to align to Government's strategic aims •[may] retard the development of land in the Island.

Methinks they protest too much with reference to this. 1205 We are talking about putting a card up to notify our neighbours, or a neighbour: ‘I am going to register the land so that we can get the boundaries sorted out properly.’ We make two recommendations, and these recommendations are based upon us not following the exact recommendation of the Petitioners. What we have done is, we have refined it and looked at the actual incidents that appear to us to be at risk. In the particular case of the 1210 Petitioners it is the voluntary first registration of the land. So we checked with the Land Registry: how many of these are there? There are four a month. Four – one, two, three, four. Massive amount of burden on the Land Registry.

Mr Quirk: They are very busy there. 1215 Mr Coleman: Unbelievable! Our secondary recommendation is title registration where land is being transferred and they are using the same advocate. Now, I refer you back to the previous Tynwald, and at the previous Tynwald Her Majesty’s Acting Attorney General stated in the Harcroft debate that that sort of 1220 thing is not allowed. I expect that to be a particular circumstance, and in this particular case it is more possibly developers moving land around using their own lawyers between corporate vehicles. Again, why do we not want that to also be accurate, and when it is registered in those circumstances to have it looked at and the sign put up? Thirty days delay in their plans. I do not think that is particularly unreasonable, to have a Land 1225 Registry which is fully accurate. We have still approximately 30,000 unregistered properties on the Island. We asked the Land Registry, ‘Have you any idea how many of those registrations could be flawed?’ No idea at all.

______2168 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

So I think I have summarised the situation here. The two recommendations we have made are going to be objected to by the Department of Economic Development, which is essentially 1230 the Land Registry. And what they are recommending is that they want more time to evaluate and come back in December. Well, in our Report we actually offer more than they want in the amendment!

The President: Hon. Member, there is no amendment before the Court. (Mr Coleman: Sorry. 1235 Okay.) You referred to it as – (Interjection by Mr Quirk)

Mr Coleman: But essentially what we have done in our Report is to say that we would expect our recommendations to go forward to all the stakeholders, the Attorney General's office and anyone else who might be involved. So I think if there were to be any amendments they would 1240 probably be less favourable to the people who are raising them than we have actually already offered within the Report. So on that basis, Mr President, I beg to move.

The President: Hon Member for Glenfaba, Mr Boot. 1245 Mr Boot: Thank you, Mr President. I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

The President: Hon. Member for Rushen, Mr Skelly. 1250 The Minister for Economic Development (Mr Skelly): Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. I have put before you an amendment here today and before I come on to that particular amendment I would just like to acknowledge the work of the Committee, in which I think they have done a very good job, because it is a very difficult, complex matter and they have delved 1255 into great detail with this. It is very clear that the individuals involved have experienced an incredible amount of stress, expense, time and effort going through something they really should not have had to – there is no doubt about it and I think action does need to be taken. However, what I have put before you, Hon. Members, is an amendment. There are two 1260 recommendations there and they are to bring forward legislation; and what my amendment will state there is, in the first recommendation:

… at the beginning leave out the words ‘That legislation be introduced’ and insert ‘That the Minister for Economic Development considers the case for the introduction of legislation’; and at the end insert ‘lays before Tynwald a report for consideration at its December 2016 sitting.’

And in the second recommendation of the Report

… at the beginning leave out the words ‘That the legislation be introduced’ and insert ‘That the Minister for Economic Development considers the case for the introduction of legislation’; and at the end insert ‘and lays before Tynwald a report for consideration at its December 2016 sitting.

The reason being, as I stated earlier, this is a complex issue, and I am sure you have read the report and will see that there is considerable concern being raised by the Land Registry, and of 1265 course the Attorney General is there; and the Committee themselves I think agree that there are a number of disadvantages by introducing legislation. We do need to consider very carefully when we introduce legislation, because of potential unintended consequences. There has been a lot of discussion during this sitting around enforcement, which has probably been one of the biggest issues. So if you introduce legislation 1270 and there is a breach, then there is the question about enforcement. I think the figure in

______2169 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

Planning that was quoted by Mr Quirk earlier is 300 outstanding enforcement issues – and we cannot keep pace with it (Interjection by Mr Quirk) and it is frustrating for everyone concerned. And the big issue of ‘how’ and ‘who’ would the enforcement actually follow; and then there is the whole issue about delaying conveyancing, and malicious claims, and added bureaucracy, 1275 etc. Those are the points that I believe should be considered, and for that reason I put forward this amendment to actually have those points considered and bring forward a report for Tynwald to decide the best method forward, rather than just stating at this particular time, ‘Let’s introduce the legislation.’ 1280 Let’s actually look into the matter in greater detail because, as I say, we do not want that unintended consequence by introducing legislation without actually finding another method that might be more efficient, more effective and I think be satisfactory for all concerned. So, with that Eaghtyrane, I beg to move my amendment.

Amendment That in the first recommendation of the Report of the Select Committee on Registration of Land – (a) at the beginning leave out the words ‘That legislation be introduced’ and insert ‘That the Minister for Economic Development considers the case for the introduction of legislation’; and (b) at the end insert ‘and lays before Tynwald a report for consideration at its December 2016 sitting.’

In the second recommendation of the Report of the Select Committee on Registration of Land – (a) at the beginning leave out the words ‘That legislation be introduced’ and insert ‘That the Minister for Economic Development considers the case for the introduction of legislation’ and (b) at the end insert ‘and lays before Tynwald a report for consideration at its December 2016 sitting.’

The President: Hon. Member for Ramsey, Mr Deputy Speaker. 1285 The Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Mr President, I beg to second.

The President: The Hon Member for Malew and Santon, Mr Cregeen.

1290 Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr President. As somebody who has been involved in a boundary dispute in the past, and I have dealt with a number of constituents who have had boundary disputes, it can be a very expensive and very time-consuming event; and sometimes people with deep pockets win. I think when you are looking at this you have to take careful consideration that, if you are 1295 bringing legislation in, you could actually increase the cost to those people who are affected. It may be very well to say that we can stick a leaflet up on the boundary to say, ‘This is where it is going to go; we are going to have this through.’ But which boundary? I have known a couple of properties where you can put it on one boundary where the people see it, but they are also accessed on the other side. So you have to be very careful. 1300 I personally would say that what you should do, if you are going to notify people that there is going to be any registration of land, is that they should actually send something like a recorded letter to each property surrounding it, so you know that it has been received rather than just putting a leaflet up. I would support the amendment by the Minister, just so you have clarity that we are doing 1305 the right thing. The last thing we want to do is to create additional expense just bringing

______2170 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

legislation in without it having the proper consideration that there may be easier ways, so that we are not burdening property owners with a legislative confinement that has been proposed.

The President: Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran. 1310 Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I was going to move an amendment but I think it may be too late to actually develop it further. The obvious situation is that I welcome the Report. I think the Members of the Committee have done an excellent job as far as the issue is concerned. Maybe I would have liked to have 1315 seen it go a bit further, because the problem is that it is very expensive and there is a Land Commissioner. But there needs to be some way to give the access to justice. I have to declare a sort of interest because one of the parties was an ex-constituent of mine and I have been quite friendly with him over the years, so I do know about the case. I think the Chairman has been very wise to keep out of the rights and wrongs of the case as far as the issue 1320 is concerned. But I do think that we need to find a more progressive way, like we have with the land courts for the agricultural industry, which goes back to the old days when they had a sizeable political weight in this Chamber. I think that the Land Commissioner needs to be beefed up as far as making sure we can get something that does not end up in the situation that the Hon. Member 1325 for Malew and Santon is complaining about. I had another case the other week and, to be perfectly honest with you, if the individual goes to court this case will almost certainly put his own house at risk, in order to protect his access to a piece of land which has been purposely blocked. And I have dealt with a number of cases over the years over this issue. I can give you a fine 1330 example of one where there was a piece of land that was bought primarily to make an overload car park. It had access which the Committee recognised; and if things did not work out, long- term plans were that there was going to be a mobile classroom put on it for a pre-school. The situation was that it would never have been bought under any other circumstances. Then you find the situation that affidavits are put in, and you know nothing about the access 1335 being affected until several years later when there is a new committee that decides to start blocking your access and starts interfering with your access. There has been no problem when the previous potential owner of the access was a family friend and then they end up with a situation of having the ability to tell them that is where the access was – when they were going to buy the two plots of land, one for their father and one for themselves, and you are told there 1340 was a funny access to it. Then you go to the Land Registry and you find out that there are affidavits; and there are affidavits particularly from one party, where the actual person was wanting to have a ransom strip. I had never come across the issue of a ransom strip for a long-seated dispute as far as they hated one another – basically disliked one another! The fact is they wanted to have a ransom 1345 strip, bought off this particular landowner – which was me – to stop me being able to give any wayleave, they used my access over the adjoining land. Then to find out that they have signed an affidavit that there was no access in the first place – which somewhat contradicts the whole principle – and to be told by lawyers that it is going to cost you, more than likely, £15,000 or £20,000 in order to do it. In that particular case, 1350 fortunately, the adjoining landowner had the ability, because it was on the land, to share their access – so that land, potentially, becomes totally landlocked. I think it is important, Eaghtyrane, because these cases happen to us all. What concerns me is, I had the financial means to actually do something about it. This case that came to me less than two months ago has not got the access and has not got the issue, as far as that is 1355 concerned. I think there is a problem here and I think you should stick with the Report of the Committee.

______2171 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

I can tell you other cases where people buy land that has a porch on it. They find out this porch has been there for 60 or 70 years and then they are told to get the porch off the land. Then you go to your lawyers and you find out you are going to have to spend £15,000 to defend 1360 your own porch for a Manx Centre! Then you find the situation that you technically – under the common law land situation of the highway – are the part-owner of a roundabout. I think it is important that we must not allow a situation where this could be a serious issue; and I will not be supporting the Department of Economic Development. I understand that they 1365 have got an issue to sort out, but other people have an issue as well. I think, Eaghtyrane, we should stick with the recommendations of the Report. I would maybe have liked to have seen some more binding arbitration that we could end up with a situation where you have got the big man against the little man, and you have a situation where they can get away with these things. 1370 And I must point out that when you talk about land registration, you can actually own the land under a highway, but not own the highway – that is part of the law as far as that issue is concerned. So when people nod … I know, because I had to go to lawyers in two cases which were motivated by third parties. But the point is – 1375 The President: Hon. Member, I would be grateful if you could just clarify to the Court when you talk about you going to lawyers and you refer to ‘my case’. Are you talking about a personal situation or acting on behalf of constituents?

1380 Mr Karran: Over those two cases, they were individuals of mine. But I have had these cases off and on over the years, and I think that this recommendation from the Report should be supported. I think any idea especially with the Hon. Member –

1385 The President: Hon. Member, resume your seat, just for one moment. Sorry to interrupt. My reason for asking is, if you feel it necessary to declare an interest, please do so if you are talking with reference to an individual, personal situation that applies to the subject matter here.

1390 Mr Karran: Well, they are both dead cases, so there is no interest, as I say. But the point is that it shows it can affect other people. And that is why I think you should support the original Report, as far as that is concerned, because these issues have been resolved. But the point is, Eaghtyrane, if the Chairman of this Committee – who I regard as being pretty establishment – is saying that there are four cases a month, and what are the reasons for them? 1395 I think that speaks volumes and I think you should support the Hon. Chairman as far as this Committee is concerned, because it needs to be supported. We do not need watering-down amendments because, as I say, I am dealing with another particular case and the individual is potentially going to lose his house and he has got two kids and a wife to support. I think that we have got to find a way forward. 1400 The President: Hon. Member for Peel, Mr Harmer.

Mr Harmer: Thank you, Mr President. Just a brief comment; and again, I thank the Committee for their hard work and an excellent 1405 Report. It is just purely on the fact that the recommendations do not have any timeframe and do not have any dates on them, where actually the amendment does. So I would be interested in

______2172 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

comments, but I think the amendment will actually take things further forward more quickly. So I am minded at this point to support the amendment. 1410 Thank you.

The President: The Hon. Member for Michael, Mr Cannan.

Mr Cannan: Thank you, Mr President. 1415 Clearly, the movers of this original Petition for Redress were my constituents, but I do want to obviously just support the work of the Committee on this, being a member of that Committee. I just want to pick up on a comment from the Minister for Economic Development, when he said this is a difficult, complex matter. Actually, it is not really a difficult and complex matter, it is 1420 a very simple matter, in that a family found out by accident that a piece of their land had been registered at the Land Registry; and the fact is that piece of land that had been registered could have had significant consequences on access to and from their land. Had they been informed of that first registration that was taking place, then they clearly would have acted to ensure that they then did not have to go through a long, drawn-out process 1425 of appealing to the Land Commissioner, with a protracted court case and spending in excess of £10,000 or so, to fight their corner and win their case. It is very simple. All we are recommending here is that rather like Planning, when somebody decides to make an alteration to property near to people, that some form of protection is introduced and that notice should be served, or made visible, that that land is being made for 1430 land registration purposes, i.e. somebody is registering that land as theirs for the first time. The second issue within the recommendation is that with this case, and in the case of first registrations, you have one advocate doing all parts of the work. It is not like a conveyance where you have two separate parties and two separate advocates who are constantly checking in and rechecking the accuracy of the information. This is one advocate who does the searches 1435 and submits the plans to the Land Registry – who would appear to just simply accept the application as served on them. So we are clearly recommending some additional protection around that. It is not complicated; it is actually a very simple matter. We are simply saying first registration of land must carry the same sort of weight as a planning application so that people are aware of 1440 it, and that these kinds of costs and implications are absolved, hopefully, for the future. The Hon. Member from Peel has just mentioned the issue with the dates. The amendment that you have got in front of you really solves very little, it just says that the Minister for Economic Development is going to consider the case. Well, your Committee has considered the case and it is a simple case. (A Member: Hear, hear.) We found no weight of arguments to 1445 suggest that there were going to be any erroneous implications for anybody in this – other than that the applicants will just have to do a little bit of extra work to inform everybody. I thoroughly recommend that we support the recommendations and move onwards.

The President: The Hon. Member for Douglas South, Mrs Beecroft. 1450 Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Mr President. I would like to add my support to the Committee for the work that they have done on this. But I do have a couple of questions, because we are being told different things and I would be obliged if the mover could respond to them when he is summing up. We are told that the 1455 recommendations could actually increase costs for people. My understanding would have been that if we have got clear legislation that it would actually decrease those costs because everybody would know where they stood in the first place, rather than having to go into a court battle to decide who is in the right or the wrong. The legislation would be clear.

______2173 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

We are also told that there could be unforeseen consequences to legislation, but I would 1460 have thought you will draft legislation, it goes out for consultation and then it has to go through Keys and LegCo. Hopefully, any unforeseen consequences would have been picked up during that process. So I cannot see the argument the other way that is saying it is going to cost more and that there could be unforeseen consequences. But I would appreciate the Chairman's comments on 1465 that in the summing-up to make up my mind. Thank you.

The President: The Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Quirk.

1470 Mr Quirk: Thank you, Mr President. With reference to the amendment from the Minister for Economic Development, I would just draw Members’ attention to where it says ‘considering the case’. It is down to the Minister … and I know the honesty of the Minister on this. But what it does say here is that it is in his gift whether he does anything or not:

… considers the case for the introduction of legislation

1475 It is down to the Minister to do that – whether he thinks the case is good or not. If he thinks it is not, he does not bring it forward. It does not give us any control and that is why I will not be supporting the amendment, but I will be supporting the Committee’s Report. It is fairly simple and I would say it probably happens more in the countryside than in the 1480 towns, but sometimes boundary disputes can happen in the semi-rural areas as well. And, as Mr Coleman has said, for a month … we also now have online digital mapping, so it becomes easier as more properties are registered online and the digital mapping is gathered together to do it. I would say to Hon. Members, support the recommendations from the Committee. It is a way forward and it may help people from the past because, as Mr Karran has said, when you do go to 1485 lawyers it does cost you money all the time – and sometimes it is a small strip of land that people fight over and then it becomes personal.

The President: The Hon. Member for Douglas West, Mr Thomas.

1490 Mr Thomas: Thank you very much, Mr President. I commend the Committee for its work and the Chair for the presentation of the work. I have two questions for the Committee Chair, please. Can the Committee Chair just tell us slightly more about the clear statement in the original Report in paragraph 20, which is that:

If our recommendations are approved by Tynwald we would expect such consultation to follow as a matter of course.

So therefore it seems to me that, combined with the points made by the Hon. Member for 1495 South Douglas, Mrs Beecroft, we would have a lot of time for unforeseen consequences to come to light. The second question is: given the diligence and the application of the Chair and the members of the Committee, would the Chair like to speculate about some of the unforeseen consequences and what they might be, just so we have full knowledge? 1500 Finally, and I think I said two questions (Interjection) but the third one – which I just encouraged from Minister Gawne in his observation – is: can the Committee Chair just advise us why recommendation 2 is written like it is? I know of situations where a neighbour would have no reason to put a caution on a property because there is no actual dispute, but for years and years and years maps can be wrong – for instance in planning applications.

______2174 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

1505 I cannot see why only such a compulsory registration should receive notice. I can think of people who have gone in every month to check to see whether an application had been noticed, and it seemed to me that some sort of digital notification would be helpful for everybody. So I wondered why the recommendation was drafted in such a way.

1510 The President: I call on the mover to reply. Mr Coleman.

Mr Coleman: Thank you, Mr President. I did not bring my crystal ball with me today to talk about unforeseen circumstances which, by definition, are not necessarily foreseen. 1515 First of all I need to correct something. When I said that there are four cases a month, I did not mean there are four cases where a dispute is being found. There are only four applications to the Land Registry for voluntary first registration. So it is not a massive amount of work when we are talking about costs. What are we talking about for the people who are legitimate and there are no questions? 1520 Thirty days delay if we do it the same way as Planning. Well surely developers, if they are shifting land around, could think 30 days ahead! I do not see a problem with that, personally. There is another issue, of course. There is a facility within the Land Registry to put a caution on a piece of land such that if anyone wants to do a first registration on that, then they will be advised under section 60 of the Land Registration Act. It is called a ‘Caution against First 1525 Registration’ – we have had it for 14 years, and only 28 people have used it on all of the registered land! So it is not widely known about. The whole problem that we are trying to solve is that people just do not know what is happening potentially to their land. It is as simple as that. With reference to Mr Thomas’s comments about the second recommendation, it is really the 1530 single advocate issue why it is worded in that way. If you have got one advocate looking after both halves, we feel that then the neighbours to the land that are being affected ought to have some knowledge of what is going on. In other issues of transfers there are likely to be two advocates available, and there might possibly be the option there of one advocate finding a problem with the work of the other, or with the maps, or whatever. 1535 So we felt that where one advocate was involved, we really ought to at least post it. All we are talking about here is putting up a placard – maybe four if it is a large piece of property – which essentially says that something is going on with this piece of land ... ‘I think I had better go and check it to look after my own interests.’ That is what we are saying. And I do not actually see, for four cases a month, that that is going to be a massive burden on the Land Registry. 1540 I think I have covered most things there, haven’t I? (Interjection)

Mr Quirk: What about the amendment?

Mr Coleman: Again, I think, as I said in in in my opening speech, at section 20 of the Report 1545 where it says ‘Further consultation’:

The Land Registry has suggested that before legislation is changed in this area it would be appropriate to consult the Acting Attorney General, the legal profession and other stakeholders. If our recommendations are approved by Tynwald we would expect such consultation to follow as a matter of course.

I just do not see the value of it, personally, except that it is not committing to legislation – the legislative change would be in the Land Registration Act 1982. That is where I would envisage it and it would simply be a question of notification. So with that, Mr President, I beg to move. 1550 The President: Hon. Members, the motion set out at Item 21 and to it we have an amendment in the name of the Hon. Member for Rushen, Mr Skelly. ______2175 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

I put the amendment to the first recommendation first. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The noes have it.

A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:

In the Keys – Ayes 10, Noes 11

FOR AGAINST Mr Bell Mrs Beecroft Mr Cregeen Mr Boot Mr Peake Mr Cannan Mr Quayle Mr Hall Mr Ronan Mr Harmer Mr Shimmin Mr Joughin Mr Skelly Mr Karran Mr Teare Mr Malarkey The Deputy Speaker Mr Quirk Mr Watterson Mr Robertshaw Mr Thomas

1555 The Deputy Speaker: Mr President, in the Keys the voting is 10 for, and 11 against.

In the Council – Ayes 1, Noes 6

FOR AGAINST Mr Crookall Mr Anderson Mr Coleman Mr Corkish Mr Henderson The Lord Bishop Mr Turner

The President: In the Council, 1 for and 6 against. That amendment therefore fails to carry. I put recommendation 1. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it.

A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:

In the Keys – Ayes 20, Noes 1

FOR AGAINST Mrs Beecroft Mr Bell Mr Boot Mr Cannan Mr Cregeen Mr Hall Mr Harmer Mr Joughin Mr Karran Mr Malarkey Mr Peake Mr Quayle Mr Quirk Mr Robertshaw Mr Ronan Mr Shimmin Mr Skelly Mr Teare The Deputy Speaker Mr Thomas Mr Watterson ______2176 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

The Deputy Speaker: Mr President, the voting in the Keys is 20 votes for, and 1 against.

In the Council – Ayes 7, Noes 0

FOR AGAINST Mr Anderson None Mr Coleman Mr Corkish Mr Crookall Mr Henderson The Lord Bishop Mr Turner

The President: In the Council, 7 for and none against. The recommendation therefore carries. 1560 Recommendation 2, I put the amendment in the name of Mr Skelly. Those in favour, say aye; against, no. The noes have it.

A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:

In the Keys – Ayes 10, Noes 11

FOR AGAINST Mr Bell Mrs Beecroft Mr Cregeen Mr Boot Mr Peake Mr Cannan Mr Quayle Mr Hall Mr Ronan Mr Harmer Mr Shimmin Mr Joughin Mr Skelly Mr Karran Mr Teare Mr Malarkey The Deputy Speaker Mr Quirk Mr Watterson Mr Robertshaw Mr Thomas

The Deputy Speaker: Mr President, the voting in the Keys is 10 for, and 11 against.

In the Council – Ayes 2, Noes 5

FOR AGAINST Mr Crookall Mr Anderson Mr Henderson Mr Coleman Mr Corkish The Lord Bishop Mr Turner

The President: In the Council, 2 for and 5 against. The amendment therefore fails to carry. 1565 I put recommendation 2. Those in favour, say aye; against, no. The ayes have it.

A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:

In the Keys – Ayes 21, Noes 0

FOR AGAINST Mrs Beecroft None Mr Bell Mr Boot Mr Cannan Mr Cregeen

______2177 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

Mr Hall Mr Harmer Mr Joughin Mr Karran Mr Malarkey Mr Peake Mr Quayle Mr Quirk Mr Robertshaw Mr Ronan Mr Shimmin Mr Skelly Mr Teare The Deputy Speaker Mr Thomas Mr Watterson

The Deputy Speaker: Mr President, the vote in the Keys is 21 votes for, and none against.

In the Council – Ayes 7, Noes 0

FOR AGAINST Mr Anderson None Mr Coleman Mr Corkish Mr Crookall Mr Henderson The Lord Bishop Mr Turner

The President: In the Council, 7 for and none against. That recommendation carries unanimously. I put the motion as a whole. Those in favour, say aye; against, no. The ayes have it.

A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:

In the Keys – Ayes 14, Noes 7

FOR AGAINST Mrs Beecroft Mr Bell Mr Boot Mr Cregeen Mr Cannan Mr Quayle Mr Hall Mr Skelly Mr Harmer Mr Teare Mr Joughin The Deputy Speaker Mr Karran Mr Watterson Mr Malarkey Mr Peake Mr Quirk Mr Robertshaw Mr Ronan Mr Shimmin Mr Thomas

1570 The Deputy Speaker: Mr President, in the Keys the vote is 14 for, and 7 against.

In the Council – Ayes 7, Noes 0

______2178 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

FOR AGAINST Mr Anderson None Mr Coleman Mr Corkish Mr Crookall Mr Henderson The Lord Bishop Mr Turner

The President: In the Council, 7 for and none against. That motion therefore carries.

22. Public Sector Pensions Act 2011 – Isle of Man Government Unified Scheme (Amendment) Scheme 2016 approved

The Vice-Chairman of the Public Sector Pensions Authority (Mr Shimmin) to move:

Isle of Man Government Unified Scheme (Amendment) Scheme 2016 [SD No 2016/0200] be approved.

The President: Hon. Members, we move on quite well and we reach the Orders. The first of those is at Item 22, Public Sector Pensions Act 2011. 1575 I call on the Vice-Chairman of the Public Sector Pensions Authority, Mr Shimmin, to move.

The Vice-Chairman of the Public Sector Pensions Authority (Mr Shimmin): Thank you, Mr President. Today I am asking this Court to approve the Isle of Man Government Unified Scheme 1580 (Amendment) Scheme 2016. The purpose is to amend the Isle of Man Government Unified Scheme 2011 to create a new section for Tynwald Members to join. In accordance with the recommendations made in the Public Sector Pensions Joint Working Group Report, entitled Fairness and Sustainability, Members will recall that the PSPA commenced a programme of formal negotiation and consultation with the Tynwald Emoluments 1585 Committee and indeed the members of the Tynwald Membership Pension Scheme 1995 with a view to progressing the implementation of the proposed changes. These proposals had previously been outlined to Members via an informal consultation in July 2015 for agreement in principle, which was reached. Subsequently, the Emoluments Committee and the PSPA concluded that pension scheme arrangements for Members of 1590 Tynwald should be reformed and that these reforms should be in place by October 2016. The proposed reforms have been progressed in two parts: Part One changes were completed with the making and subsequent approval by Tynwald in May 2016 of the Public Sector Pensions (Admission) Regulations and the Tynwald Membership Pension Scheme (Amendment) Scheme. The scheme I am bringing before you today represents the first stage of Part Two and 1595 introduces a range of reforms to put the pension arrangements for Tynwald Members on a more affordable and sustainable footing. In order to do so, the scheme creates a new section of the Unified Scheme specifically for Tynwald Members. In addition, the PSPA is seeking to make regulations in order to permit the bulk transfer of all Members’ pension liabilities – those are active, deferred and pensioners – to move from the Tynwald Membership Pension Scheme 1995 1600 into the Unified Scheme. This will discharge the Tynwald Membership Pension Scheme 1995 of all liabilities in respect of Members’ benefits and is the second stage of the Part Two changes. I intend to seek approval for these regulations at the next Item.

______2179 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

On joining GUS, Tynwald Members’ pension benefits will be reformed on a similar basis as is 1605 being proposed for other public sector employees. In summary the reforms are: member contributions will be increased from 5% to a mandatory 10% of the annual sum; the rate at which pension will be built up will be reduced to 2% of the annual sum per year of service; normal pension age will be extended from age 60 to 65; existing members will be given the opportunity to protect the current rate of pension accrual of 2.5% of the annual sum and a 1610 normal pension age of 60, but in return for a higher contribution increasing to 15% via increases of 1% a year from October 2016; the minimum age of retirement will be raised to age 55; and there will be a reduction in the amount of widows’ and widowers’ pensions for future pension accrued after October 2016, from 75% of pension to 50% of pension. Additionally, as members of the Isle of Man Government Unified Scheme 2011, Tynwald 1615 Members will also be subjected to any sustainability reforms that will be applied to the Unified Scheme in the future. Mr President, I beg to move the Item standing in my name.

The President: The Hon. Member, Mr Watterson. 1620 Mr Watterson: I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

The President: Hon. Members, I put the motion that the Isle of Man Government Unified Scheme (Amendment) Scheme 2016 be approved. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. 1625 The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Item 23, Public Sector –

Two Members: Division called. (Interjections)

1630 The President: Division called? Sorry, I did not hear a division being called but if it was … I will take it that it was.

A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:

In the Keys – Ayes 20, Noes 0

FOR AGAINST Mrs Beecroft None Mr Bell Mr Boot Mr Cannan Mr Cregeen Mr Hall Mr Harmer Mr Joughin Mr Malarkey Mr Peake Mr Quayle Mr Quirk Mr Robertshaw Mr Ronan Mr Shimmin Mr Skelly Mr Teare The Deputy Speaker Mr Thomas Mr Watterson

The Deputy Speaker: Mr President, in the Keys, voting is 20 for, and none against. ______2180 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

In the Council – Ayes 7, Noes 0

FOR AGAINST Mr Anderson None Mr Coleman Mr Corkish Mr Crookall Mr Henderson The Lord Bishop Mr Turner

The President: In the Council, 7 for, none against. The motion carries unanimously.

23. Public Sector Pensions Act 2011 – Tynwald Membership Pensions Scheme Bulk Transfer Regulations 2016 approved

The Vice-Chairman of the Public Sector Pensions Authority (Mr Shimmin) to move:

Tynwald Membership Pensions Scheme Bulk Transfer Regulations 2016 [SD No 2016/0201] be approved.

The President: Item 23, Public Sector Pensions Act. 1635 The Vice-Chairman of the Public Sector Pensions Authority to move.

The Vice-Chairman of the Public Sector Pensions Authority (Mr Shimmin): Thank you, Mr President. This refers to the Item I mentioned previously, which is the Tynwald Membership Pensions 1640 Scheme Bulk Transfer Regulations 2016. I beg to move.

The President: Mr Watterson.

1645 Mr Watterson: I beg to second, sir, and reserve my remarks.

The President: I put the motion as set out at Item 23. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it.

A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:

In the Keys – Ayes 20, Noes 0

FOR AGAINST Mrs Beecroft None Mr Bell Mr Boot Mr Cannan Mr Cregeen Mr Hall Mr Harmer Mr Joughin Mr Malarkey Mr Peake Mr Quayle Mr Quirk ______2181 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

Mr Robertshaw Mr Ronan Mr Shimmin Mr Skelly Mr Teare The Deputy Speaker Mr Thomas Mr Watterson

The Deputy Speaker: Mr President, 20 votes for, and none against.

In the Council – Ayes 7, Noes 0

FOR AGAINST Mr Anderson None Mr Coleman Mr Corkish Mr Crookall Mr Henderson The Lord Bishop Mr Turner

1650 The President: In the Council, 7 for and none against. The motion carries unanimously.

24. European Communities (Isle of Man) Act 1973 – European Union (Côte d’Ivoire Sanctions) (Revocation) Order 2016 approved

The Minister for Policy and Reform to move:

That the European Union (Côte d’Ivoire Sanctions) (Revocation) Order 2016 [SD No 2016/0223] be approved.

The President: Item 24, European Communities (Isle of Man) Act 1973. I call on the Minister for Policy and Reform

The Minister for Policy and Reform (Mr Shimmin): Thank you, Mr President. 1655 Following the EU's decision to revoke its sanctions measures concerning Cote d'Ivoire, the Order before Hon. Members today revokes the Island's Cote d'Ivoire Application Orders and Regulations to remove them from the Island’s statute book. Mr President, I beg to move.

1660 Mr Watterson: I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

The President: I put the motion as set out at Item 24. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. I think, Hon. Members, this will be a convenient point to stop, before I call the Minister for 1665 Economic Development (Laughter) who will take the floor at 2.30 p.m. The Court will now stand adjourned until 2.30 p.m.

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

______2182 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

25. Airports and Civil Aviation Act 1987 – Aviation (Cape Town Convention) (No.2) Order 2016 approved

The Minister for Economic Development to move:

Aviation (Cape Town Convention) (No.2) Order 2016 [SD No 2016/0229] be approved.

The President: Hon. Members, congratulations on our steady progress this morning and keeping up the momentum. 1670 We turn to Item 25, Airports and Civil Aviation Act 1987, and I call on the Minister for Economic Development to move.

The Minister for Economic Development (Mr Skelly): Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. This Order gives effect to the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment and 1675 the Protocol on Matters Specific to Aircraft Equipment. The Convention and Protocol are commonly known together as the Cape Town Convention. The Order applies to the Island, with modifications, the UK’s International Interests in Aircraft Equipment (Cape Town Convention) Regulations 2015. It will enable a request to be made for the UK to extend its ratification of the Convention to the Island. 1680 The Cape Town Convention provides an internationally agreed framework for the legal rights of financiers of large, high-value aircraft, helicopters and aircraft engines. The flow of capital of these aircraft objects is encouraged by self-guarding creditors if a debtor should default on a finance agreement. Creditors are able to register an international interest in an aircraft object which ensures that their interest will be treated as a priority enforceable in any contracting 1685 state. Default remedies are also provided, such as the ability to have the aircraft deregistered and physically transferred from the territory in which it is located. These remedies can be obtained quickly, which prevents the aircraft object reducing in value during lengthy and costly interjurisdictional legal processes. Approximately 70% of aircraft currently registered on the Island would qualify for registration 1690 of an international interest. Sixty-four countries, including the Aircraft Registry’s competitors, have already ratified the Convention. If the UK’s ratification is not extended to the Island, clients of the Registry are likely to become progressively reluctant to support registration of aircraft on the Island. This Order does not disrupt the Manx insolvency regime and will not create any resource 1695 implications. Eaghtyrane, I beg to move this motion standing in my name.

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

1700 The Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Mr President. I beg to second. Giving effect to the Cape Town Convention is classed as a top priority in order for the Registry to maintain its competitive position. The Aircraft Registry boosts the local economy by attracting businesses to the financial sector and its success also contributes to the Island’s international reputation as a centre of excellence. Members will probably be interested 1705 to know that our Air Register is the sixth, or possibly fifth now, largest in the world – it is certainly the fastest-growing Aircraft Register in the world – and 15% of European private jets are registered on the Isle of Man, so we can see how important the Air Register is to the Island. So, implementing the Cape Town Convention is necessary and beneficial. It does not present any negative impact, only a positive move forward for the Aircraft Registry, and thus the wider 1710 Island economy, so I hope Members will support this motion.

______2183 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

The President: Hon. Members, I put the motion at Item 25: Aviation (Cape Town Convention) (No.2) Order. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

26. Employment Act 2006 – Employment (Maximum Amount of a Week’s Pay) Order 2016 approved

The Minister for Economic Development to move:

That the Employment (Maximum Amount of a Week’s Pay) Order 2016 [SD No 2016/0219] be approved.

The President: Item 26: Employment Act 2006. Minister for Economic Development to move. 1715 The Minister for Economic Development (Mr Skelly): Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. The Isle of Man Employment Tribunal is a special court of law which determines complaints brought under employment legislation. Under the Employment Act 2006, some awards made by the Employment Tribunal to an employee against an employer, such as the basic award for 1720 unfair dismissal or an award for failure to issue a written statement, are calculated on the basis of a weekly rate of employee’s pay, subject to a prescribed maximum amount. The weekly rate and prescribed maximum are also used to calculate redundancy payments under the Redundancy Payments Act 1990. While there is no statutory basis for calculating the maximum amount of a week’s pay, the 1725 Department considers that the amount should, in general, be reasonably close to or at the level of median earnings. The current prescribed maximum amount of £480 was set in 2009, seven years ago, and the Department consider it is time to increase that amount. The Employment (Maximum Amount of a Week’s Pay) Order 2016 therefore increases the maximum amount from £480 to £540. This is based on the median gross weekly pay of full-time employees in 2015, 1730 which is £536, according to the Isle of Man Earnings Survey 2015. It should be noted that the Order affects payments made to businesses and individuals by Treasury out of the National Insurance Fund in certain circumstances. Though Treasury’s formal concurrence of the Order is not required, Treasury has approved the increase. Eaghtyrane, I beg to move the motion standing in my name. 1735 The President: Hon. Member for Malew and Santon.

Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr President. I beg to second and reserve my remarks. 1740 The President: I put the motion at Item 26: that the Employment (Maximum Amount of a Week’s Pay) Order 2016 be approved. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

27. Employment Act 2006 – Employment (Maximum Amount of Awards) Order 2016 approved

The Minister for Economic Development to move:

______2184 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

That the Employment (Maximum Amount of Awards) Order 2016 [SD No 2016/0220] be approved.

The President: Item 27: Employment Act 2006. Minister for Economic Development. 1745 The Minister for Economic Development (Mr Skelly): Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. The Employment Act 2006 also provides that, subject to a small number of exceptions, a maximum amount be prescribed for certain other awards to employees by the Employment Tribunal, such as the compensatory award in unfair dismissal cases. The limit also applies to 1750 awards under the Employment (Sex Discrimination) Act 2000 and awards for detriment in relation to enforcing the right to the minimum wage under the Minimum Wage Act 2001. As in the case of the Employment (Maximum Amount of a Week’s Pay) Order, the maximum amount that the Employment Tribunal can award was last increased in 2009. The Employment (Maximum Amount of Awards) Order 2016 increases the limit from £50,000 to £56,000. The 1755 maximum amount is based on approximately two years’ median earnings. Eaghtyrane, I beg to move the motion standing in my name.

The President: Mr Cregeen.

1760 Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr President. I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

The President: I put the motion at Item 27: that the Employment (Maximum Amount of Awards) Order 2016 be approved. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. 1765 The ayes have it.

28. Fees and Duties Act 1989 – Town and Country Planning (Application and Appeal Fees) (No 2) Order 2016 approved

The Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture to move:

That the Town and Country Planning (Application and Appeal Fees) (No 2) Order 2016 [SD No 2016/0163] be approved.

The President: Item 28: Fees and Duties Act 1989. I call on the Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture, Mr Ronan.

The Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture (Mr Ronan): Thank you, Mr President. 1770 Since the Planning and Building Control team have joined DEFA, I have seen again what an important job the team do to enable economic development. I would like to put on record my thanks to the team for the work they do to enable applicants and concerned parties to achieve their aims. The challenge they face is that the aims of the applicants and concerned parties are often entirely contradictory, so it is no surprise that one party or the other is often disappointed. 1775 This important service does not currently achieve full cost recovery and will still not do so after the proposed marginal increases in this Order. The Order introduces a maximum planning fee to ensure that larger applications are not disadvantaged, which is expressly intended to enable and support further appropriate economic development. The proposed cap would be £90,000 in 2016, a figure established after 1780 consultation with stakeholders, and this is a competitive figure that is below the maximums of most other Crown Dependencies and jurisdictions. ______2185 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

It should be noted that about 20% of applications do not incur any fee; a further 20% incur the lowest fee rate, which, if agreed, would be £90 in 2016; and a further 25% incur a fee which would be £275. Therefore, only 35% pay a fee in excess of £275 and only 3% of applications 1785 exceeded £1,000 this year. I fully understand that fee increases are never popular; however, I hope you will accept that these are reasonable changes, and as such I would like to move the motion.

The President: Mr Boot. 1790 Mr Boot: Thank you, Mr President. I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

The President: Hon. Member for Douglas West, Mr Thomas. 1795 Mr Thomas: Thank you very much, Mr President. A resident of Garff has written to me to raise the potential for charities involved in the building registration sector, if you could call it that. In other words, charities looking to ensure building legislation currently have to pay a fee for an appeal; whereas, for instance, local 1800 authorities would not have to pay a fee because any public body has an exemption. So I am asked to enquire whether or not the £175 fee is justifiable when voluntary bodies are substituting, in one sense, for the conservation officer role that is not actually in post at the minute, and I am led to believe that even members of the Planning Committee have suggested that it is heroic, even beyond heroic, for voluntary conservation charities to be paying this fee 1805 using their member subscription when they could be applying it to other cases. The other point that has been raised with me is that there have been some cases recently where the independent inspector has found similarly to the case being made by these building conservation-type charity bodies, but then the political person has actually overruled the decision of the independent inspector, and it has been suggested that a case could be made that 1810 in that situation the funds should be refunded, because at least they got it right according to professional judgement, if not political judgement.

The President: I call on the mover to reply.

1815 The Minister: Thank you, Mr President. I think what we are trying to do with our fees is to be reasonable. There are always going to be cases … and I have had cases myself in my constituency and tried to help people see if there are ways round it. I suppose in some cases it can seem unfair, and I think what we have to do is work on those areas. 1820 In regard to the independent sector finding one way and the politicians finding another, I think that is exactly what we are trying to cut through with the high-level review of planning – to find ways in and around that and planning changes … [Inaudible] I think that is for another day, but certainly I would not necessarily tend to disagree with the Member, but that is certainly a wider argument going forward. 1825 Thank you, Mr President.

The President: Hon. Members, I put the motion at Item 28: that the Town and Country Planning (Application and Appeal Fees) (No 2) Order 2016 be approved. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

______2186 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

29. Building Control Act 1991 – Building Fees (No 2) Regulations 2016 approved

The Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture to move:

That the Building Fees (No 2) Regulations 2016 be approved. [SD No 2016/0164]

1830 The President: Item 29: Building Control Act. I call on the Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture to move.

The Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture (Mr Ronan): Thank you, Mr President. This Order introduces a maximum Building Control fee, which, like the planning fee cap, is 1835 intended to ensure that larger applications are not disadvantaged, which is expressly intended to enable and support further appropriate economic development. The proposed caps would be £108,000 for inspections and £36,000 for plan fees in 2016, a figure established after consultation with stakeholders. Again, this is a competitive figure that is below the maximums of most other Crown Dependencies and jurisdictions. These caps are 1840 proposed in response to discussions about very large projects which are being brought forwards on the Island where we would want to minimise any barrier to the project. However, it should be noted that most fees are much smaller and only 18% of inspections incurred a fee of more than £1,000 in the last year. The fees are increased by 2%, again rounded up to the nearest £5, which is in keeping with inflation. 1845 To encourage the use of ground and air source heat technologies, these will be added to the list of those forms of development that are exempt from fees. I hope you will accept that these are reasonable changes and as such I would like to move the motion in my name.

1850 The President: Hon. Member, Mr Boot.

Mr Boot: Becoming a bit repetitive, Mr President, I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

The President: Hon. Member for Douglas South, Mrs Beecroft. 1855 Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Mr President. I will be supporting this, but I just wanted to flag up that if the fees keep on increasing, ordinary people soon are not going to be able to afford it, and I have some concern about that for the future, so it is just flagging it up as a future point to consider if further increases are 1860 planned.

The Minister: Can I just ask you to say the start of that? Sorry, I did not quite catch what you said at the start.

1865 Mrs Beecroft: Yes, I am just concerned that with the … It is okay at the moment, but if it is going to be increased year on year all the time it is going to get to a point where ordinary working people cannot afford to do these things and they are just going to be priced out of being able to do any of the building works that they can afford to do now, because of the fees. I just wanted to flag that up as a concern. 1870 The Minister: Thank you.

The President: Minister to reply.

______2187 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

1875 The Minister: I remember when this happened, actually – the Member was Chairman of Planning at the time. The Planning in the Department of Infrastructure were miles behind and what we did was develop a very simple formula which we thought was fair and proper. But you are right: I think, going forward, they always have to be looked at. We did that again this year and they still seem to be fair … [Inaudible] other jurisdictions. At the point where they are not, I 1880 am sure –

The President: Hon. Member, we have difficulty hearing you. If you would direct your remarks to the Chair, we could all hear.

1885 The Minister: … [Inaudible] I beg to move. (Interjection)

Mr Corkish: You’ve upset him now!

The President: The motion is that the Building Fees (No 2) Regulations 2016 be approved. 1890 Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

30. Financial Provisions and Currency Act 2011 – Agriculture and Fisheries Grant Scheme 2016 approved

The Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture to move:

That the Agriculture and Fisheries Grant Scheme 2016 [SD No 2016/0210] be approved.

The President: Item 30: Financial Provisions and Currency Act 2011. Again, I call on the Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture.

The Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture (Mr Ronan): Thank you, Mr President. 1895 The Food Matters Strategy identified three key themes, of which the first was creating resilience through increased diversity, and, within that, the second action to make amendments to capital grant schemes to include diversification grants and value added projects. That is exactly what this Scheme does and it mirrors DED’s approach outlined in Vision 2020. The Scheme aligns and broadens the current agriculture and fisheries capital grant schemes 1900 with my Department’s Food Matters Food Business Development Strategy and Future Fisheries Strategy, both of which have been approved unanimously by this Hon. Court, each being supported by the sector stakeholders. The change introduced in this Scheme enables support to directly stimulate investment into diversification and producers adding value to their products, or even developing new food 1905 products, whilst still supporting fishermen and farmers who wish to invest and grow their core businesses. We are already seeing some businesses investing and achieving good returns; however, we need to help more producers have the confidence to expand or do things differently. I believe this scheme will make a difference for the significant number who are talking to us about the 1910 exciting ideas they have and plans they are already developing. The scheme has been developed alongside DED and is intended to complement their existing wide range of support for new and growing businesses. This is a great result, which comes from our close work with the Department of Economic Development on the Food Matters Strategy. The new Scheme introduces amended criteria and application processes which aim to 1915 improve the consistency of process for applicants and ensure that they can clearly demonstrate that their planned investment will achieve economic development which is good for their ______2188 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

business and good for the Island’s economy, whilst ensuring we achieve the best possible returns for taxpayers’ money. The new Scheme will be open all year round, subject to funding availability, rather than the 1920 current approach of the Farm and Horticultural Scheme only opening for discreet periods. This ensures that assistance is available at the right time, preventing delays and lost opportunities, which may have happened in the past. The Scheme is aimed at agriculture and horticultural production businesses, agricultural contractors, commercial bee keepers, fishermen, fish processing businesses and food production 1925 businesses using local produce. There is also additional support for young people starting out in the fisheries and farming sectors. Concerns have been raised that a potential amalgamation of budgets could result in a loss of budget from one sector to another. However, I can assure you that this is not the intention and separate budget allocations will remain in place for the majority of the year. I expect the 1930 majority of the budget will be spent on agricultural and farm food type investment, reflecting the previous use of the funds, and that most applications are likely to come from that sector. Concerns have also been raised about the reduced level of definition and detail in the scheme, compared to its predecessors. However, unlike its predecessors, the new scheme is made under the more comprehensive Financial Provisions and Currency Act. 1935 Please be reassured that the detail is included in the accompanying Policy and Guidance documents and I hope you have all received copies of the current drafts of those documents in the last couple of days, which we would expect to share and discuss with the industry next. Hon. Members, as you will all be aware, I stand here today with a passionate belief that supporting growth and innovation, as well as developing added value products in our fish and 1940 agri-food industries is key to our future success as a nation. To achieve this, we must make best use of our finite financial resources and I believe that this Scheme, together with existing Department of Economic Development schemes, provides the support required to deliver the opportunities for growth in the Island’s primary producers and food industry that have been identified through the Food Matters and Future Fisheries strategies. 1945 I would, therefore, propose to move the motion in my name.

The President: Hon. Member for Rushen, Mr Skelly.

The Minister for Economic Development (Mr Skelly): Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. 1950 I have every pleasure to second this motion because it simply supports the joint promotion of the Food Matters Strategy. Working together I think in a very joined-up approach with DEFA and DED, this does complement what I would regard as a very key sector for our economy, a key sector that I think has significant potential for the future and, with this new Scheme, it gives us the opportunity to grow in the appropriate manner and in an organic manner, and it supports 1955 diversification. It also supports import substitution and it supports, very importantly, inward investment, so very happy to second this. The other point I would highlight is that this sector also fits very well with regard to the hospitality and tourism sector, which enjoy … the food and drink sectors complement together. Last but not least, there have been a significant number of interested parties that want to 1960 apply for this Scheme, and we hope we will be able to bring this forward and they will be able to get started in business very soon. Gura mie eu.

The President: Hon. Member for Malew and Santon. 1965 Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr President. I received a letter from the Manx National Farmers’ Union, which I have shared with the Minister. I think he has clarified a couple of points. There is just one thing I wish he would clarify. ______2189 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

He said that the funding for the sectors would be ring-fenced for the majority of the year. Does 1970 he mean – (The Minister: All year.) All year? (Interjection by the Minister) Available, yes; it’s just that I thought you said ‘majority’. The other one is that we were circulated with the draft guidance (A Member: Yesterday.) yesterday, and –

1975 The President: Through the Chair, please.

Mr Cregeen: Sorry, Mr President, I was just looking at my notes. We were circulated with the draft notes yesterday, guidance notes. How firmed up are they – I know it says ‘draft’ – and when are they going to be signed off? I think the concern is that … As 1980 they are only draft and we are going to be approving this, there is just a bit of concern that … And it did not give that undertaking that there should be much change to the draft … I think they will be a lot of more content.

The President: Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran. 1985 Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I welcome any moves that will help the infrastructure to add added value to the base agricultural products on this Island. Our problem has always been the fact that we have the ability to produce first-class agricultural products as good as anywhere else, and we have seen some vast improvements from the days when the likes of what would be classed as 1990 ‘jam butties’, the townies in this Chamber, playing up about the issue of waste and just dumping cheese into the UK, costing the taxpayer horrendous money … by arguing about putting added value onto it. We have seen that now, even though at the time we were ridiculed and rubbished. What I want to see is … and I want to congratulate the Ministers, if they can get this to work right to create the viability so that we can actually upgrade that basic product into quality 1995 produce, so that we actually sell it and give that added value. One of the biggest problems there has been over the years is that you have had one or two movers who basically have reckoned on and controlled the price, and that, most times, has been to the detriment. Whilst some of us are not as keen as far as Brexit is concerned, one of the things I hope that the Minister will be considering … Obviously, I have been, for years, on about the EEZ, the 2000 Exclusive Economic Zone, which I believe we should have, and we should be not … [Inaudible] to the UK. But the issue is that if Brexit comes along, we might get our proper territorial seas back, and what we need to do is make sure that in this grand scheme we are able to develop a funding mechanism in order that we can get the fishing industry that we used to have when I was a child. I do hope that the Minister will bear that in mind. There is that opportunity. It will mean that we 2005 will have to be resolute and forceful in the future, but I think this needs to be properly funded because I believe that the more money we can keep on the Island and spend on the Island and help facilitate the added value of these products … I believe that agriculture can be an increase in economic activity, as far as the Island is concerned. More importantly, I see this grant scheme as a way forward. There is going to be a world 2010 shortage. We do not have to defend ourselves, we do not have to represent ourselves as far as foreign affairs are concerned – we let the Brits do that under the present constitutional position – but this Chamber needs to make sure it has a long-term policy as far as being able to feed the nation, and I believe that if this works properly and is funded properly, working with Economic Development, it is the way forward, and I do hope that this will help many fledgling businesses 2015 to come about and maybe help to create the environment so that when fishing areas come back up for negotiation we will be resolute to get back our Manx territorial seas as part of any Brexit negotiation, and we will be able to put our people not on the disadvantage that we used to so often have in the past when we first came into this Chamber, when Manxies were on the back foot. 2020 I will be supporting this proposal. ______2190 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

The President: Hon. Member for Douglas West, Mr Thomas.

Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr President. I notice that this is made under the Financial Provisions and Currency Act 2011, and already 2025 the Minister has said that was because it was a more comprehensive piece of legislation. It is not the first time that this sort of scheme has been made under this Act. I just wanted some words from the Minister about whether or not this Scheme was close to being makeable under existing farming and agricultural support loans or whether there is any risk through making it under this general Treasury scheme. It is only fair to ask, because I always ask the Department of Economic 2030 Development the same question whenever they use this provision.

The President: I call on the Minister to reply.

The Minister: Thank you, Mr President. 2035 First, a thank you to Minister Skelly for his seconding of the motion and also for his support, and I just want to put on record my thanks to DED and the Members of DED for … because we have two of them in my Department as well, which was strategically done in the first place because of the importance of our indigenous industries – food, environmental, everything – and we felt it key, I certainly felt it key, that we engage with DED. I have had a very open door from 2040 all the officers, and especially the Minister, on that and I do thank him for his support in this very important step forward facilitating new targeted growth. Mr Cregeen: first, of course, I must put on record my sincere thanks to him for sharing that letter with me in plenty of time. It is deeply appreciated. The old schemes are a little bit narrow, they are in certain windows and it is difficult to access, and I find that very difficult for 2045 businesses to plan and be more fluid. The draft guidance yesterday – again, apologies if that was late. There are a lot of details around that. I see little or no change with them, if I am honest with you, and I can assure you – I give you my word – that will not be the case. There is nothing underhand at all here. I just wanted to say one thing about Mr Karran: he has always been very consistent with 2050 areas around agriculture. I can always remember one area which he talked on and raised questions on, which was the ageing demographic of the agriculture industry, and he raised his concerns on this. I share his concerns and I know the MFU do as well and are trying hard to balance that and address it, although that is very difficult, but these grants … We have had a lot of interest already – I believe it is up to half a dozen specific cases already. The irony of all this is 2055 that the people coming forward in food and agriculture related industries are of the younger element, the younger generation. We have to propel these people. I can put on record here now that I have been, in the two years since I was appointed, right across the agricultural sectors and, trust me, there are some absolutely outstanding agricultural industries, farmers, new and old. What we are here to do is to facilitate and help them grow. 2060 Mr Karran said about first-class products. Well, that is what we have been trying to do with the Food Matters Strategy and with the support of the Council and Government ourselves here. Yes, it is about added value and about creating a better product, but I have to put on record as well that it is not just about that, and the MFU, in fairness to them, have been fair to point out to me that maybe there is a little bit too much emphasis put on just that added value. There is 2065 still a very large part of that industry which is commodity; that will always be the case. We have just got to find other routes to market for that, and that is all we are trying to do. You also touched, Mr Karran, on the dumping of cheese. Well, the Isle of Man Creameries, I would say, are a shining example in the food sector with absolutely outstanding marketing techniques, and certainly their exports overseas, especially to the United States of America and 2070 other parts of the world, are growing and growing, and I can assure you that all the other environmental accreditation they are getting right now only adds value. This is what these

______2191 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

markets want, and so I am pleased to say that they are the trailblazers and I am very proud to be associated with them. Brexit: of course, we do not know. We do not know what opportunities there will be – we 2075 hope they are good. I am sure that the forthcoming administration will keep their eye fully on the ball and create opportunities across agriculture and, as you said, in the fishing industries, which we have worked very hard, with the future fishing strategy, to try and keep money on the Island and make these industries sustainable. Mr Thomas, about using a different Act, I think really a lot of that is to do with it going away 2080 from the old traditional. We are working with the Department of Economic Development, we are mirroring their schemes, and this had support with Treasury as well. Thank you, Mr President. I beg to move.

The President: Hon. Members, I put the motion at Item 30: that the Agriculture and Fisheries 2085 Grant Scheme 2016 be approved. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

31. Fire Precautions Act 1975 – Fire Precautions (Houses in Multiple Occupation and Flats) Regulations 2016 approved

A Member of Home Affairs (Mr Thomas) to move:

That the Fire Precautions (Houses in Multiple Occupation and Flats) Regulations 2016 [SD No 2016/0218] be approved.

The President: Item 31: Fire Precautions Act 1975. I call on the Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Watterson.

2090 A Member of Home Affairs (Mr Thomas): Mr President, I think that is a previous Order Paper.

The President: Right. Mr Thomas.

2095 Mr Thomas: Mr President, in the 20 years since the Fire Precautions (Flats) Regulations 1996 came into operation there have been substantial changes to building control regulations and fire safety standards. In addition, since the commencement of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011, there has been a need to ensure there are measures in place to ensure fire safety within houses in multiple occupation. The Regulations before the Court seek to provide 2100 modern fire safety standards for flats and introduce similar measures for houses in multiple occupation. In preparing these Regulations, the Department has liaised with colleagues in DEFA and the DoI and has undertaken a full six-week public consultation that included a meeting with the Landlords and Tenants Association and the chartered surveyors’ and estate agents’ professional 2105 bodies. The Department has carefully considered the feedback given throughout this process and has taken this into account in finalising these Regulations. Part 8 of these new Regulations makes provision to ensure owners of existing flats and buildings containing flats are not required to make structural changes to meet the new fire safety standards. In the event any property owners feel that the fire safety measures proposed 2110 in these Regulations are not appropriate to their premises, they can apply for an exemption from the Department by proposing suitable fire safety measures that provide an equivalent level of protection. ______2192 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

Mr President, I beg to move that the Fire Precautions (Houses in Multiple Occupation and Flats) Regulations 2016 be approved. 2115 The President: I call on the Hon. Member for Douglas East, Mr Joughin.

Mr Joughin: Thank you, Mr President. I beg to second and reserve my remarks. 2120 The President: Hon. Member for Douglas South, Mr Malarkey.

Mr Malarkey: Thank you, Mr President. I would like to congratulate the mover, the Department, the fire brigade and the officers for 2125 finally bringing these well-overdue Regulations forward. These are really outstanding and well overdue. I thank the mover and the officers for the consultation with the Landlords and Tenants Association at Mount Murray a month or so back, where we had a chance to go through the Regulations in great detail. Having read through them now and seen them from what they were 2130 then, I have just one concern. How does a multiple occupancy, where …? The main theory here is that a house will normally supply a kitchen and everybody in the house just rents the rooms. At the meeting, at that time, if I remember, in the Regulations … The concerns are for people putting toasters and kettles, etc. in the individual rooms, and the Regulations at that time made the landlords responsible. Of course, I think everybody felt that that was wrong, because you are 2135 not going to know what your tenant is bringing into the room, if you are not there. I notice that has now been removed from the Regulations, which worries me slightly, Mr President, because I think I remember a fire down in Port Erin or Port St Mary four or five years ago, where it was an appliance sitting on the floor in a basement flat that actually went on fire. At least now we have got the Regulations so we know the building will have a fire alarm system with it and it will have 2140 fire doors and everything else, but it is not going to stop people inside the flats using equipment, on a carpet, which should really be used in a kitchen. So, all I would say to the mover is I would like to see something moving forward in the future, maybe when the new Landlord and Tenant Bill is incorporated. There may be some PAT testing, which is portable appliance testing, for any appliances used in flats or used in even these rooms, 2145 because some of these toasters and kettles are picked up as recycling down at the community sites and are brought back … These people who rent these rooms do not have a lot of money and they think if they can just make a bit of toast and boil a kettle it will save them going down three flights of stairs into the kitchen downstairs, or whatever, and I believe that that is where the fire hazards are. 2150 At the time of the presentation, I quite agreed that the landlords should not have been made responsible, but I do feel as if some type of ban should be put into a regulation that these should not be allowed in these rooms, because I still see this as a problem moving forward. I have briefly spoken to the mover of the Regulations and I am hoping, moving forward, as I said, that maybe when the Landlord and Tenant Bill, which I believe is still being drawn up … that we can 2155 bring this regulation in with those regulations, because there is not a lot of difference between flats and houses of multiple occupancy – the same risks apply in both areas. So I am just hoping, going forward, that … Yes, this is 95% great, moving forward, well overdue, but I still think we have to be regulating for what people are using inside these rooms, Mr President.

2160 The President: Hon. Member for Douglas South, Mrs Beecroft.

Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Mr President. I suppose it is a similar sort of query for the mover of these Regulations, really, in that are they meant to cover …? This is for apartments particularly: is it just the communal areas, or is it ______2193 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

2165 the private areas as well that they are meant to cover? Regulation 7 states that the responsible person is the owner or their agent, Regulation 20 specifies that the responsible person must conduct inspections in accordance with Schedule 5, but Schedule 5 does not distinguish between the communal and private areas. So if it is just meant to be the communal, I think that should be corrected or clarified somehow within the Regulations; and if it is meant to be the private areas 2170 as well, how on earth is the responsible person meant to do that? I would like some more information on that. Thank you.

The President: Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Quirk.

2175 Mr Quirk: Thank you, Mr President. Just echoing the sentiments of my colleague from South Douglas, Mr Malarkey, with an appreciation to the fire brigade, who do put the … [Inaudible] and the Member encourages them. Could I just ask the Member regarding the PR as this is rolled out for the future, and what will 2180 be the role of the local authorities, which have in their jurisdictions the lists of housing in multiple occupation? From my recollection, they would be responsible for having them on the list, but the local authorities would have … [Inaudible] duty than to provide a list, and I just wonder what the onus would be on them if they are holding lists and approving housing in multiple occupation as well as flats. Is there not a duty of care for them to do something as well, 2185 or notify the service that these potential hazards could occur?

The President: Hon. Member for Ramsey, the Chief Minister.

The Chief Minister (Mr Bell): Thank you, Mr President. 2190 It is just an observation I would like to make, please, while obviously supporting the Regulations coming forward. I had the great pleasure back in the 1990s, during my tenure as Minister for Home Affairs, of introducing the flats regulations, which to say was controversial would be a gross understatement and I think they are probably still arguing about it today, actually, to ensure it is 2195 all brought in. My only comment, Mr President, is by way of trying to be helpful. The one thing above all, I think, which caused problems when we were introducing the flats regulations was the lack of consistency of interpretation of those regulations in the first place. I had to deal with many people – and maybe other Members have had the same problem – where the fire officers had gone in on a certain day to vet the flat for whatever was required and a month or two later 2200 there would be a follow-up with a different officer with a different set of interpretations. This caused real problems, it caused great expense and great deal of, I think quite unnecessary, aggravation between the property owners and the Fire Service, who I admit were only doing their job. I would just make a plea to the Department of Home Affairs that, when these are brought in, 2205 please could we ensure a consistency of approach so we do not end up with the same problems we had before, because whilst I think we all recognise houses of multiple occupation are potentially a hazard, they are also a lifeline for a part of our community, (Two Members: Hear, hear.) and if we were to come in too heavy-handed on some of these properties, and again if there is confusion on interpretation of the implementation of them and we find ourselves with 2210 any of these properties having to be closed down, there are very few options for some of these residents of these properties to move on to. This is often the last port of call before the street and it is most important we recognise these are an important element within our community and we do not unnecessarily take steps which could actually disadvantage them still further to what they are at the moment. 2215 The President: Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran. ______2194 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I would support the issue as far as the consistency as far as the interpretation of regulations is concerned – that is a very valid point by the Chief Minister; but I do not think it is to be used as an excuse that because we have not got adequate housing we 2220 should not have adequate fire regulations as far as the Island is concerned. The only issue I wanted to raise is the issue of the manning to actually check the regulations. Is there sufficient staffing? It is all well and good bringing these Regulations in … The second thing I would like to see is a consistent approach. We seem to have one or two landlords who seem to be allowed to get away with murder, which actually does a disservice to 2225 the vast majority of good landlords on this Island, who should be applauded. Allowing for the simple fact that you actually end up with, more than likely, more of a capital outlay because of the price of property on this Island, you actually get less return for your investment than many parts that would be in the adjacent islands, in the United Kingdom or in the Irish Republic. So I just want to ask what has been factored in as far as the policing of these Regulations to 2230 make sure that there is that policing so they are not just a matter of a thing that is not consistently enforced; and secondly, that there will be that consistent approach. There are far too many of our citizens living in squalor at the moment, and we need to do something about it – and we should not be using the excuse that the fire regulations should not come in to excuse us from our duty in this Court to make sure there is decent, affordable accommodation, which, 2235 to be fair, for the last couple of administrations we have not done. Fortunately, we did not sell off the council houses over here, for which I must applaud the administrations on that front.

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

2240 Mr Thomas: Thank you very much, Mr President, and to all Members for contributing with some excellent questions. I will start with the Chief Minister’s first, because every question is helpful for Government as it goes about developing its business and improving policy. The Chief Minister made some very valuable points from his rich experience in the 1990s when he was Minister. Essentially, at that 2245 time we had the luxury of having more officers than we do have now. We only have two officers in the inspection team, plus their supervisor and the like, and I imagine that means that with good training, with good education and with good professionalism they will make sure there is complete consistency, and it might have been the case in the past that things got lost. Two other things I wanted to add to the reassurance. The first one is that what was evident 2250 at the meeting that we had at Mount Murray was the close working between the Fire Service, building regulations, DEFA, and the local authorities by implication, (Mr Malarkey: Politicians.) and I am sure that that action works to make sure that people are speaking accurately. The very notion of having a meeting like that will help the consistency. Finally, we have to remember as well that what these Regulations embody are the 2255 professional standards that are widely known in the industry and by people involved in this business, and that must in itself help consistency. This was a point picked up by Mr Karran as well in his question when he talked about what resources do we have available – he called it ‘policing’. Well, I have described the supervisory office, but also rest assured in this Hon. Court that we do take our responsibilities as an 2260 enforcement body seriously as well, and if we have a case from the Fire Service we check it with the Attorney General and then we have to take an action, and we have taken serious action in quite a few cases. So that is another thing that the Hon. Court can rest assured of. Obviously, Mr Karran has a good point. I think he misinterpreted what the Chief Minister was saying, which is that in coming years we will have the issue about what sort of accommodation 2265 things become classified as, because there will be choices for owners of particular buildings. We are up for that and I know that the officers have been working together, talking with people to explain risks about certain routes and the like, and one of the best things to come out of this process is that we have now got very clear demarcation. People like Building Control apply a ______2195 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

risk-based approach to assess alternatives, and once the approvals have been given, the Fire 2270 Service, in respect of fire regulations, are taking over to make sure that promises that have been made are kept. So, in that sense it is better than Planning at the minute, because we have actually thought through those divisions very clearly about conditions that are imposed. That moves us on to the Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Quirk’s question about the PR for this as it is rolled out. The local authorities are involved in the sense that, as you described very 2275 clearly, local authorities through DEFA are actually responsible for the houses in multiple occupation registration process. So we cannot as yet tell anybody, if they ask, how many extra properties this will correspond to, because we do not know how many places will be on the register when it comes to 1st January 2017. So we are working closely with DEFA. There are separate regulations that cover different things to do with property, so there will be good PR 2280 through things like the meeting that Mr Quirk and Mr Malarkey already attended. That moves us on to the observation from Mr Malarkey, and yes, he correctly expressed the existing situation about the coverage of these Regulations in respect of the sort of devices that he described. We thought about including cooking appliances in the rooms as a general category, which would not have covered all of the devices but we thought about it. They are not 2285 included at this stage, but it is an issue that could be under review in the future; but in 20 years I do not think the Fire Service has identified it as a particularly serious issue. So that is there and the mechanism that Mr Malarkey described is the way that we could adopt it. Given this close working relationship between DEFA, DoI and DHA, easily changes like that proposed could be introduced into the forthcoming Tenancy Bill, which is expected early in the next House, or a 2290 Housing Bill, or something like that, because any piece of legislation in Manx process can actually be used for any purpose, and with this close working we could do that if it is something that is worth looking at, so we appreciate Mr Malarkey bringing that to our attention. Finally, dealing with Mrs Beecroft’s, Hon. Member for Douglas South, question about the communal areas, yes, these Regulations do apply to all parts of the building, in fact mainly to 2295 communal areas, so there is no difference in that respect between the existing flats regulations and the new regulations as proposed in that area, so I do not think it is something that people should be worrying about unnecessarily, and if people do have specific concerns, please go and speak to your friendly, helpful fireman.

2300 Mrs Beecroft: Would the Member give way?

Mr Thomas: Of course I will.

Mrs Beecroft: Thank you. 2305 My concern, if it is covering the private areas and it is apartments, is how is the responsible person expected to get into all those private areas on a regular basis to carry out their functions under these Regulations? It seems terribly onerous to have to go into every apartment and check every fire door and every piece of equipment on a monthly basis for the owners of these properties, when they find it difficult to get into them in the first place. If people are out at work 2310 or are on holiday, or whatever, it could be an impossible task.

Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr President. That is a very helpful question. Mrs Beecroft is describing the way the process should work, and I think it is working in flats already, which is that we do have officers who prioritise their 2315 work and their inspections in a risk-based way. The other thing I should say is obviously landlords can impose anything inside a tenancy agreement that is legal, and there has to be a responsibility on the landlord in this respect. What we have tried to do in these Regulations is incorporate culpability on both sufficiently, such that the landlord has got sufficient ability to deal with issues arising from tenancy behaviour. That is, 2320 I think, the way that we have approached it in this regulation. ______2196 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

If I have not made things as clear as a working operational expert could have done, I will arrange for further information to be circulated. I beg to move.

2325 The President: Hon. Members, I put the motion that the Fire Precautions (Houses in Multiple Occupation and Flats) Regulations 2016 be approved. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

32. Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 2001 – Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 2001 (Exceptions) (Amendment) Order 2016 approved

The Minister for Home Affairs to move:

That the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 2001 (Exceptions) (Amendment) Order 2016 [SD No 2016/0221] be approved.

The President: Item 32: Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 2001. I call on the Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Watterson. 2330 The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Watterson): Mr President, the Order before the Court will exempt appointments to the Financial Intelligence Unit from the application of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 2001. It will enable the imposition of the requirements on persons seeking appointment to this body to disclose any convictions, spent or unspent, that 2335 they may hold. This will ensure that appropriate checks are made on persons appointed to a body that plays a key role in preventing money laundering and countering of financing of terrorism in line with our international obligations. I beg to move that the Order be approved.

2340 The President: Mr Skelly.

Mr Skelly: I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

The President: I put the motion at Item 32. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The 2345 ayes have it. The ayes have it.

33. Road Transport Act 2001 – Motion not moved

The Minister for Infrastructure to move:

That the Road Transport Regulations 2016 [SD No 2016/0212] be approved.

The President: Item 33, as we have been advised recently by the Minister, will not be moved at this sitting.

______2197 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

34.-37. Financial Services Act 2008 – Regulated Activities (Amendment) (Class 1 – Deposit-Taking) Order 2016 approved; Financial Services (Exemptions) (Amendment) (Class 1 – Deposit-Taking) Regulations 2016 approved; Financial Services (Fees) (Amendment) (Class 1 – Deposit-Taking) Order 2016 approved; Depositors’ Compensation Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2016 approved

The Minister for the Treasury to move:

34. That the Regulated Activities (Amendment) (Class 1 – Deposit-Taking) Order 2016 [SD No 2016/0188] be approved. 35. That the Financial Services (Exemptions) (Amendment) (Class 1 – Deposit-Taking) Regulations 2016 [SD No 2016/0186] be approved. 36. That the Financial Services (Fees) (Amendment) (Class 1 - Deposit-Taking) Order 2016 [SD No 2016/0189] be approved. 37. That the Depositors' Compensation Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2016 [SD No 2016/0187] be approved.

The President: We turn to Item 34. The Treasury Minister has indicated that he would like to move the next four motions, Items 34 to 37, together, but have them voted on separately. Is the 2350 Court content for this to be done? (Members: Agreed.) Thank you, Hon. Members. Item 34, then, Mr Teare.

The Minister for the Treasury (Mr Teare): Thank you, Mr President. If I could just thank Hon. Members for agreeing that these four Items can be moved together 2355 but, as you said, voted on separately. Both the Isle of Man Financial Services Authority, which I shall ‘the Authority’, and Treasury are empowered by the Financial Services Act 2008 to make orders and regulations in certain circumstances. The introduction of the Alternative Banking Regime, requiring new subclasses of class 1 deposit-taking regulated activity is one such circumstance. 2360 The Alternative Banking Regime was originally instigated by the Department of Economic Development so as to enable greater flexibility of ownership for non-retail banks and a new type of licence for representative officers of foreign banks. The Alternative Banking Regime will split the existing class 1 deposit-taking regulated activity into three subclasses, which are: class 1(1) for all service retail deposit takers or banks; class 1(2) 2365 for wholesale or non-retail banks that may only provide services to corporates and to a very limited sector of individuals; and class 1(3) for offices of foreign banks that wish to carry on business development here but which must not undertake any transaction of banking. The new licence types, namely classes 1(2) and 1(3), will not impact on the provision of banking services to the general public. This service will be provided by class 1(1) licence-holders. 2370 Customers of class 1(1) will continue to have the protection of the Depositors’ Compensation Scheme (DCS), but the DCS will not apply to class 1(2) banks. The lack of DCS protection is one reason why only corporates and those individuals whose disposable assets meet a very high threshold will be permitted to be clients of class 1(2) banks. Initial licensing requirements will differ for class 1(2) banks from those imposed currently for 2375 class 1(1), as applicants that are part of non-banking groups may be welcomed into class 1(2) subject to them meeting adequate standards. Although class 1(1) deposit takers may also be owned by non-banks, they must have a bank in their group. The licensing of class 1(3) banks, also known as representative offices, is designed to facilitate relationship management by foreign banks for their Isle of Man clients. Such banks may be 2380 encouraged to transition to full licences in due course, subject to their meeting adequate standards. ______2198 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

The Alternative Banking Regime is considered to be beneficial overall to the Isle of Man, as it is expected to bring additional banks to the Island. However, as with all new licence classes and licence-holders, there may be reputational risks to the Isle of Man if licensed entities fail. 2385 However, the authority will mitigate these risks with a strong licensing policy, high prudential requirements and by requiring that licence-holders are run by experienced individuals. The proposals are not expected to impose any burden on existing licence-holders and the lack of a DCS for class 1(2) entities will also mean no increased compensation burden for Government in respect of such banks. 2390 The four items of legislation that I shall move are: the Regulated Activities (Amendment) (Class 1 – Deposit-Taking) Order 2016; the Financial Services (Exemptions) (Amendment) (Class 1 – Deposit-Taking) Regulations 2016; the Financial Services (Fees) (Amendment) (Class 1 – Deposit-Taking) Order 2016; and the Depositors’ Compensation Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2016. 2395 The Regulated Activities (Amendment) (Class 1 – Deposit-Taking) Order 2016 makes changes to the Regulated Activities Order 2011, and the associated Financial Services (Exemptions) (Amendment) (Class 1 – Deposit-Taking) Regulations 2016 amend the Financial Services (Exemptions) Regulations 2011. These changes will split the existing class 1 regulated activity into three subclasses, namely class 1(1), class 1(2) and class 1(3), and provide a definition for 2400 ‘restricted depositor’. This new definition enables the Authority to specify the types of permissible client of the class 1(2) type of bank to individuals who have specified assets above a threshold of £500,000 and to corporates. The Financial Services (Exemptions) (Amendment) (Class 1 – Deposit-Taking) Regulations 2016 also make an incidental change that widens an exemption for class 4 licensing to 2405 subsidiaries of charities. The Financial Services (Fees) (Amendment) (Class 1 – Deposit-Taking) Order 2016 amends the Financial Services (Fees) Order 2016. It will impose the same application fee of £9,850 for class 1(2) as for class 1(1) and an annual fee of between £19,000 and £22,000 depending on the size of the bank. Class 1(3) banks will pay an application fee of £3,000 and an annual fee of £2,500. 2410 The Depositors’ Compensation Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2016 amend the Depositors’ Compensation Scheme Regulations 2010 and will confine the application of the DCS to class 1(1) licence-holders. An unconnected amendment removes two banks from the schedule to the DCS, due to the banks’ restructuring. Other requirements for the new licence classes will include the Financial Services Rule Book 2415 2013 (the Rule Book) and licence conditions. All existing rules in the Rule Book that currently apply to class 1 will apply to class 1(1) licence-holders. A few existing rules will be modified very slightly for class 1(2) licence-holders and four standard licence conditions will require class 1(2) banks to ensure their clients continue to meet the eligibility criteria. Class 1(3) banks will not be subject to the Rule Book but will be subject to eight standard licence conditions based on those 2420 in other jurisdictions. No changes to the Rule Book result from these proposals, further details of which may be found on the Authority’s website. The Authority issued a discussion paper in January 2016 on its outline proposals, based on ideas developed by the Department of Economic Development in 2015. The Authority then 2425 carried out a full public consultation with draft legislation and licence conditions from March to May 2016 and only received one response with no adverse comments. Mr President, I beg to move that the Regulated Activities (Amendment) (Class 1 – Deposit- Taking) Order 2016 be approved. I also beg to move that the Financial Services (Exemptions) (Amendment) (Class 1 – Deposit- 2430 Taking) Regulations 2016 be approved. I also beg to move that the Financial Services (Fees) (Amendment) (Class 1 – Deposit-Taking) Order 2016 be approved.

______2199 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

Finally, I beg to move that the Depositors’ Compensation Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2016 be approved. 2435 Thank you, Mr President.

The President: Hon. Member of Council, Mr Anderson.

Mr Anderson: Thank you, Mr President. 2440 I beg to second all the motions on the Order Paper. (Interjection and laughter)

The President: Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, obviously this is one of the lifelines as far as the Manx economy is 2445 concerned. Whilst I am not attacking anything here, as far as these Regulations are concerned, I really am concerned that we need to be producing regulations that are going to actually address the issue of deposit taking as far as getting more flexibility so that we can get more bank accounts open on this Island. I know that one particular industry has had big problems as far as gaming is concerned, and 2450 whilst these Regulations will not actually solve this problem, what I am hoping is that with one of the regulations we will see these small collective banks where you have two or three people who are in that bank and they can hopefully operate and have some way of having a mechanism with a clearing bank. I do hope that we do address this issue, because it does concern me when I get regular 2455 representations from advocates on this Island that they cannot open bank accounts for their clients, that we do need to make some sort of representation to create a more flexible approach. We are not wanting to do money laundering, we are not wanting to do something dodgy; this is legitimate business that is being stopped on this Island, where we will be grateful for the tax revenue and also the jobs that it creates. 2460 So I hope the Minister … This is not going to be a panacea, but I do think there is some latitude in some of these Orders that maybe we can get a smaller bank with a prescribed membership that can actually operate and develop what is needed, the infrastructure finance. The other issue is the Depositors’ Compensation Scheme, and obviously I have got no problem as far as that. Obviously these two operators, the Co-op Bank and the Coutts (Manx) 2465 Ltd Bank, are not operating on the Island. What I am concerned about is the fact that obviously the base to cover a failing is less, and I am really pleased that after all the hassle of the situation over the Icelandic bank that went down – and we were very fortunate that that worked out well – we have actually now agreed that there is an upper limit of £¼ billion, but I do not see where we have that sort of money. 2470 So I just think that we have got to be seriously looking at … Here we are, less than the base as far as people to actually pay out for a failed bank leaves the taxpayer even further exposed, that we need to be looking either at some sort of self-financing system or the proposal that we were talking about back in the early 1990s to the Treasury, about some way of putting a percentage profit in, in order to create a cushion if there is a call on the banking industry on the Island. We 2475 need to be more proactive. Regulation 37 – the only thing that worries me is there are fewer people who are actually within that scheme. There are two less banks to help fund that thing and expose the taxpayer further. The last thing that I would like the Minister to do, as it is my last time here, is the fact that we 2480 do need to address new regulations on the back of these Regulations to get some sort of clearing bank, maybe working in conjunction with the Channel Islands because we are too small to have our own clearing bank. But we really need to be operating this, because I fear that all our Regulations that we are agreeing here, if we do not end up with some sort of clearing bank outside the United Kingdom, we are going to end up in a situation where our finance industry ______2200 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

2485 will be starved from the lack of infrastructure, particularly with the big clearing banks being partially or wholly or virtually owned by the United Kingdom. By all means, these proposals here today I have got no problem with, but I do think that this needs to be seen as work in progress, because we do need to find that flexibility. It is a real issue out there, Hon. Members, a real issue, and the Treasury needs to address it, just like the issue 2490 over the bank compensation scheme. We cannot allow the situation with Item 37, where we have got more banks going out, more exposure, fewer banks to operate, and it will actually, if we are not careful, create toxicity where people will not want to have a banking licence here because they will be frightened of the liability of other banks. So, whilst I am not objecting to this, I do wish that the Minister and CoMin will be addressing 2495 these core issues, because I think there needs to be some more flexibility to create that infrastructure if we are to have that freedom to flourish.

The President: Hon. Member, Mr Malarkey.

2500 Mr Malarkey: Thank you, Mr President. Just to congratulate Treasury on getting these Regulations through today before the dissolve of parliament. I think these are extremely important for the future for the Isle of Man, and let’s hope that, moving forward, some of these new banks will actually start lending money and allowing people to open bank accounts on the Island, which will actually help us to progress our 2505 economy. Can I ask the Treasury Minister: has he had any response on what is likely to happen with the big banks over here that we have at present with the introduction of these Regulations? At the moment, these banks almost refuse to allow anybody they do not know the inside-leg measurement of to even open an account on the Island or lend any money to any of them. So 2510 maybe it will be a wake-up call for them as well if we can get some fresh banks into the Island which will actually help us to develop the economy, rather than hold it back like some of our big banks are doing at the moment, Mr President.

The President: Hon. Member for Douglas South, Mrs Beecroft. 2515 Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Mr President. Again, I have got no problem with any of them, but I do have a related query to Item 37. Obviously, it does not cover credit unions, but at some point they are going to need similar regulation and protection, and I am just wondering when this type of regulation is going to be 2520 extended to them.

The President: I call on the Minister to reply. Mr Teare.

The Minister: Thank you, sir. 2525 Could I thank all Hon. Members who contributed for their support. There is a recurring theme here, and that is really the difficulty in opening bank accounts and also support for local businesses. The suggestion was made by the Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran, that there is an offshore bank – I think that is what we were getting at – which would, in effect, concentrate on 2530 the Crown Dependencies. That is fine as far as it goes, but unfortunately a bank needs a bank to clear its transmission activity, and we have got to the stage now where a bank looks at its customers’ customers – it goes down the line. We have seen that with the … ‘travails’ is the best way of putting it, that some of the big international banks have had with the regulators in America, and they have been slapped with very eye-watering fines and penalties for activities 2535 which were conducted by their clients, but which used their banks to facilitate it. That is the allegation, anyway. So, really, it is very difficult. I acknowledge the risk and it does give me ______2201 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

concern, with the shrinking number of banking licences that we have on the Island, but we feel the proposals we have here will hopefully give a shot of adrenaline into the banking industry on the Island and enable us to move forward. 2540 The Hon. Member for Onchan did mention Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander as well. He said we were fortunate that it worked out well. I would say that it demonstrates that effective regulation works well and that the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and it is hard work. It has been hard work on the part of the regulators. I would just like to thank everybody for their problems … For their problems ? For their support! 2545 Mrs Beecroft asked the question about credit unions. We are currently looking at the issue of credit unions. I have mentioned that before in an answer to a question from the Hon. Member for Peel, Mr Harmer. That legislation is currently being worked up and it will go out to consultation, so we hope to be able to move forward fairly quickly with credit unions in the start of the next administration. 2550 With that, sir, I beg to move the four motions standing in my name.

The President: Hon. Members, I put to the Court Item 34: that the Regulated Activities (Amendment) (Class 1 – Deposit-Taking) Order be approved. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. I put Item 35: that the Financial Services (Exemptions) (Amendment) (Class 1 – Deposit- Taking) Regulations 2016 be approved. Those in favour, say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. I put Item 36 that the Financial Services (Fees) (Amendment) (Class 1 – Deposit-Taking) Order 2016 be approved. Those in favour, say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Item 37: that the Depositors’ Compensation Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2016 be 2555 approved. Those in favour, say aye; against, no. The ayes have it.

A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:

In the Keys – Ayes 21, Noes 0

FOR AGAINST Mrs Beecroft None Mr Bell Mr Boot Mr Cannan Mr Cregeen Mr Gawne Mr Harmer Mr Joughin Mr Karran Mr Malarkey Mr Peake Mr Quayle Mr Quirk Mr Robertshaw Mr Ronan Mr Shimmin Mr Skelly Mr Teare The Deputy Speaker Mr Thomas Mr Watterson

The Deputy Speaker: Mr President, in the Keys there are 21 votes for and none against.

In the Council – Ayes 7, Noes 0

______2202 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

FOR AGAINST Mr Anderson None Mr Coleman Mr Corkish Mr Crookall Mr Henderson The Lord Bishop Mr Turner

The President: In the Council, 7 for, none against. The motion carries unanimously.

38. Fees and Duties Act 1989 – Register of Fines Etc. (Miscellaneous Fees) Order 2016 approved

The Treasury Minister to move:

That the Register of Fines Etc. (Miscellaneous Fees) Order 2016 [SD No 2016/0160] be approved.

The President: Item 38: Fees and Duties Act 1989. Treasury Minister.

The Minister for the Treasury (Mr Teare): Thank you, sir. 2560 By amendments made by the Summary Jurisdiction and Miscellaneous Amendments Act 2013, which came into effect from 1st August 2014, section 101A of the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1989 (‘the 1989 Act’) requires the Chief Registrar to maintain a register, in accordance with Rules of Court, of sums to be paid to the Chief Registrar under section 1 of the Collection of Fines etc. Act 1985 and the names and addresses of persons who have defaulted in payment. 2565 The Register of Fines Etc. Rules 2014 (‘the 2014 Rules), being the Rules of Court which have been made by the Clerk of the Rolls for the purposes of section 101A of the 1989 Act, prescribe the procedure for implementing the provisions of section 101A of the 1989 Act. Rule 10 of the 2014 Rules provides for a person whose details have been entered in the register in respect of a fine to apply for and obtain a certificate of satisfaction from the Chief 2570 Registrar as to the satisfaction of the fine, upon payment of the prescribed fee, if any. This Order, which is made by the Treasury under section 1(1) of the Fees and Duties Act 1989, prescribes the fee payable for the purposes of rule 10 of the 2014 Rules. The fee for an application to the Chief Registrar under rule 10 of the 2014 Rules is separate from, and additional to, the other fees and/or charges which may be fixed by the Treasury 2575 pursuant to section 101A of the 1989 Act and/or which are the subject of arrangements made by the Treasury with Registry Trust Ltd. It should be noted that in accordance with rule 5 of the 2014 Rules, it has been determined by the Chief Registrar that the register shall be kept by the Registry Trust Ltd. The Registry Trust Ltd, incorporated in 1985, is a non-profit company providing public service by private means. 2580 The Registry Trust Ltd receives and distributes court data from various jurisdictions within the British Isles. The Treasury, on behalf of the Chief Registrar, has a written agreement with the Registry Trust Ltd for it to provide the necessary facilities to enable the creation and maintenance of the publicly available register, which may be searched by the public website, subject to any applicable fees or charges therefor, via the Registry Trust. 2585 The fee for an application is a new service provision and at this time there is no historic or indicative data to allow an estimate to be made of the additional income collected in the remainder of financial year 2016-17. Mr President, I beg to move the motion standing in my name.

______2203 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

The President: The Hon. Member of Council, Mr Anderson. 2590 Mr Anderson: Thank you, Mr President. I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

The President: Mr Karran. 2595 Mr Karran: I would just like to ask the Shirveishagh Tashtee to explain … There seems to be a list here of fees on the back of this … Oh, no, that is the following one. What I am concerned about is the access to justice, and I have complaints made to me regularly, from advocates who do the underdog and the likes of legal aid, on the issue of ever 2600 greater fees being inflicted on this. I understand we are in hard times and I understand we have got to find our money. Some of us might argue that we should be more effective as far as how we do things in a different way in order to save that money, but this is something that is particularly important about the access to justice. Like we were talking before about being able to feed our nation, we need to be able to have a fair and just accessible court system, 2605 independent of executive Government – and the parliament, if it comes to that – as far as the court system. I am concerned that we are ever increasing more and more fees and it is getting more and more dear to actually do what our citizens should be able to do, and that is to be able to go through the judicial system in order to get justice. In this case, this seems to be a new service, but I do think the issue needs to be seriously 2610 looked at and some markers need to be put down for the future Court. Otherwise, we are going to end up with a situation where people cannot afford to use the judiciary, to use the court system, and they take the law into their own hands. I think it is important … we need to be starting to think about that now.

2615 The President: Mr Teare to reply.

The Minister: Thank you, sir. I think we have got two separate issues conflated here. This has got nothing to do with access to justice, with respect. This is, in effect, imposing a fee, which is good news – not the imposition 2620 of a fee, but the fact that a person has discharged the debt, it is paid and they have moved on. So it gives people the opportunity to clear their credit record and put the fines etc. behind them. With that, I move the motion standing in my name, sir.

The President: Hon. Members, I put the motion set out at Item 38: that the Register of Fines 2625 Etc. (Miscellaneous Fees) Order 2016 be approved. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

39.-42. Civil Registration Act 1984 – Registration of Births and Deaths (Fees) Regulations 2016 approved; Civil Partnership Act 2011 – Civil Partnership (Fees) Order 2016 approved; Marriage Act 1984 – Registration of Marriages (Fees) Regulations 2016 approved; Fees and Duties Act 1989 – Marriage and Civil Partnership (Venues, Etc.) (Fees) Order 2016 approved

The Treasury Minister to move:

39. That the Registration of Births and Deaths (Fees) Regulations 2016 [SD No 2016/0203] be approved. ______2204 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

40. That the Civil Partnership (Fees) Order 2016 [SD No 2016/0204] be approved. 41. That the Registration of Marriages (Fees) Regulations 2016 [SD No 2016/0205] be approved. 42. That the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Venues, Etc.) (Fees) Order 2016 [SD No 2016/0206] be approved.

The President: Item 39: Civil Registration Act. Treasury Minister.

The Minister for the Treasury (Mr Teare): Thank you, sir. With your kind permission, I am moving the Regulations and Orders set out in the motion at 2630 the same time. These are Items numbered 39 to 42, sir.

The President: Which Items?

The Minister: Item 39 to 42, sir. 2635 The President: Items 39 to 42 together, yes, if the Court is content. (Members: Agreed.) Agreed, thank you. Minister.

2640 The Minister: Thank you, and could I thank Hon. Members for that as well – it is only two pages I have got here. With your kind permission I am moving the Regulations and Orders set out in the motion at the same time, although Hon. Members will be required to vote separately on each set of Regulations and each Order. I believe that this approach will help Hon. Members, bearing in 2645 mind the commonality and the relationship between all of the prescribed fees. The fees set out in the Regulations and Orders have been reviewed by the Treasury to ensure they keep pace with inflation. The increase in inflation, as measured by the retail price index, since the fees were last reviewed in 2013 has been 8.72%. In reviewing the fees, the opportunity has been taken to omit a fee for correcting an error in a register. The current fee of £15 is 2650 prescribed in both the Registration of Births and Deaths (Fees) Regulations 2013 and the Civil Partnership (Fees) Order 2013, but not the Registration of Marriage (Fees) Regulations 2013. Aside from addressing the inconsistency that currently enables a marriage register to be corrected for no fee but sees a charge applied in respect of other registers, this move aligns with the Department’s aim to have information recorded accurately in the registers. Any charge, no 2655 matter how small, acts as a deterrent to persons seeking to correct an error made in a register. Omitting this fee is only expected to have a very small, minimal impact on income. To assist customers and staff alike, an element of rounding has been applied to all fees so that they are set at a round figure. Based on levels experienced in 2015-16, it is estimated that additional income of £7,000 per 2660 annum will be collected in revenue should the proposed Regulations and Orders be approved. Approximately £4,500 additional income would be anticipated during the remainder of the 2016-17 financial year. If approved by this Hon. Court today, the Regulations and Orders will come into operation on 22nd July 2016. 2665 Mr President, I beg to move that Items 39, 40, 41 and 42 standing in my name be moved.

The President: Hon. Member of Council, Mr Anderson.

Mr Anderson: Thank you, Mr President. 2670 I beg to second Items 39, 40, 41 and 42 and reserve my remarks.

______2205 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

The President: Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, can the Shirveishagh Tashtee … Obviously there is inflation, nobody is 2675 arguing about inflation, but could he explain whether the costs have gone up to the same amount of what the money is coming in? Again, it is important that we recognise that it is getting more and more expensive to use our Registry, and that is obviously something that we have got to be conscious of. Fair enough, there is an 8.75% increase since they were last put up, but has there been an 8.75% of costs as far as these sections are concerned? I would just be 2680 interested.

The President: Minister to reply.

The Minister: I cannot answer that in detail, but what I can say is that the costs exceed the 2685 fees because there is a substantial claim on the general revenue to support the General Registry. Thank you, sir.

The President: Hon. Members, I put Item 39: that the Registration of Births and Deaths (Fees) Regulations 2016 be approved. Those in favour, say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes 2690 have it. Item 40: that the Civil Partnership (Fees) Order 2016 be approved. Those in favour, say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Item 41: that the Registration of Marriages (Fees) Regulations 2016 be approved. Those in favour, say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. 2695 Item 42: that the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Venues, Etc.) (Fees) Order 2016 be approved. Those in favour, say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

43. Social Security Act 2000 – Social Security Legislation (Benefits) (Application) (No.3) Order 2016 approved

A Member of the Treasury (Mr Henderson) to move:

That the Social Security Legislation (Benefits) (Application) (No.3) Order 2016 [SD No 2016/0194] be approved.

The President: We turn now to Item 43: Social Security Act 2000. I call on the Member of the Treasury, Mr Henderson.

2700 A Member of the Treasury (Mr Henderson): Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. This Order applies to the Island two statutory instruments of the UK Parliament. The changes made by the first instrument being applied will allow a very small number of employees who start work partway through the first week of the prescribed 26-week period of continuous employment to qualify also for Paternity Allowance, when they would otherwise not 2705 do so. The changes made by the second instrument being applied will enable persons under the age of 18, when they go into hospital, to continue to receive Disability Living Allowance throughout the period they are in hospital, regardless of the length of time they are in hospital. Currently, there is a prescribed length of time. 2710 Clearly, both of these measures will have positive effects. Further information is provided in the memorandum which has been circulated to Hon. Members. Eaghtyrane, I beg to move. ______2206 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

The President: Mr Anderson.

2715 Mr Anderson: Thank you, Mr President. I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

The President: Hon. Members, I put the motion set out at Item 43. Those in favour, say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

44. Social Security Act 2000 – Social Security Legislation (Benefits) (Application) (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2016 approved

A Member of the Treasury (Mr Henderson) to move:

That the Social Security Legislation (Benefits) (Application) (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2016 [SD No 2016/0195] be approved.

2720 The President: Item 44. Mr Henderson.

A Member of the Treasury (Mr Henderson): Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. This Order will enable persons found capable of work following a personal capability assessment to be treated as incapable of work for the following four weeks and therefore 2725 eligible to receive their Incapacity Benefits for those four weeks, provided they had been receiving Incapacity Benefits for at least 28 weeks before being found capable of work and do not work during the four-week run-on period. This will enable persons who are leaving incapacity benefits after a prolonged period … a further four weeks of benefit to allow them to challenge the decision they are capable of work, 2730 should they wish to do so; prepare themselves to claim an alternative benefit, such as Jobseeker's Allowance; or prepare themselves for a return to the labour market, as appropriate in the individual case. Eaghtyrane, this is a positive measure as a result of representations and observations made to Treasury and I hope it can be approved. 2735 I beg to move, sir.

The President: Mr Anderson.

Mr Anderson: Thank you, Mr President. 2740 I am very pleased to second this motion.

The President: Hon. Member, Mrs Beecroft.

Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Mr President. 2745 I will obviously be supporting it because it is an improvement on what was there before. However, I do have some reservations on it because it says that you are allowed the four weeks so that you can challenge your decision – that is one of the options – and yet it can take longer than that and the actual timeframe is outwith the person’s control because it is with the Department and then with the tribunal to set the dates. So I really think that it should be 2750 revisited and it should be up until the point where they are able to have finalised challenging their claim, (Mr Henderson: Next Order.) because some people clearly are not capable of work and it takes some time to challenge the decision.

______2207 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

The President: Mr Henderson to respond. 2755 Mr Henderson: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. I understand the Hon. Members concerns; however, the following Orders … If the Hon. Member Mrs Beecroft has been through them, you will notice that exactly what you are asking for is exactly what I am going to be asking you to vote for next. We have taken – (Interjection by 2760 Mrs Beecroft) The next agenda Items, Eaghtyrane, predominantly do exactly what the Hon. Member is asking for, and I hope she will be able to support them when I move them in a minute. We have been listening to people. This particular Item adjusts the legislation that the Hon. Member, Mr Cretney, had outlined whereby there is a two-week period in statutory legislation 2765 for somebody to move forward from if they have been found capable of work. We have been operating that flexibly, rightly or wrongly, to extend it. However, this puts it beyond doubt and into legal terminology correctly for four weeks for that person to continue to convert on to Jobseeker’s Allowance, if they so wish. That is just for that particular scenario. The additional scenarios, which I hope to put before the Hon. Court shortly, will address the concerns that have 2770 been raised. Eaghtyrane, I hope everyone can support this positive move.

The President: Hon. Members, I put the Item as set out as Item 44. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

45. Social Security Act 2000 – Social Security Legislation (Benefits) (Application) (Amendment) (No.4) Order 2016 approved

A Member of the Treasury (Mr Henderson) to move:

That the Social Security Legislation (Benefits) (Application) (Amendment) (No.4) Order 2016 [SD No 2016/0196] be approved.

2775 The President: Item 45, Mr Henderson.

A Member of the Treasury (Mr Henderson): Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. Can I just make sure I have my notes in order here. Eaghtyrane, thank you for your patience. This Order provides that persons who have been on Incapacity Benefits for at least 28 weeks, 2780 who then leave benefit after having been found capable of work following a personal capability assessment, and who claim income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) in the following 28 days will not have their income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance reduced for the first 12 months of their claim. Ordinarily, income-based JSA personal allowances start to be reduced once a person has been receiving JSA for six months. 2785 This Order also provides that persons with a severe learning disability or a personal characteristic which is out of their control, and as a result of that learning disability or characteristic they may have no reasonable prospect of getting work, will not have their personal allowance reduced regardless of the duration of their JSA claim. These measures will clearly have positive effects for certain persons whose entry – I hate that 2790 word, Eaghtyrane, ‘persons’, but anyway we have to use it – or return to the labour market is likely to be more difficult than for others. Further information is provided in the memorandum which has been circulated to Hon. Members. Eaghtyrane, I beg to move the Item standing in my name. ______2208 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

2795 The President: Mr Anderson.

Mr Anderson: Thank you, Mr President. I beg to second Item 45 and reserve my remarks.

2800 The President: Mrs Beecroft.

Mrs Beecroft: Yes, thank you, Mr President. Again, I will be supporting it because it is an improvement on what we have already, but I do have some comments that I hope will be taken on board and maybe reflected in future 2805 regulations. For example, the severe learning disability definition, I feel, is too narrow because it only deals with arrested brain development and physical brain damage. A person with a fully developed brain and no physical damage to that person’s brain may still be suffering from a disabling mental illness – for example, deficit hyperactivity disorder, and there are others that 2810 would come under that. Again, the reference to addiction, I think, is too narrow, because it says ‘unless subject to medical supervision or professional counselling’, but people do not choose to become addicted, so why are we actively stopping them from being able to have Social Security to the levels that they actually need? It is almost like a punishment, and it should not be viewed in that way; we 2815 should be helping people as best we can to overcome their addictions, not punishing them. Thank you.

The President: Mover to reply.

2820 Mr Henderson: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. Again, I would say to the Hon. Court and to the Hon. Member, Mrs Beecroft, in the main these are … well, they are 100% positive, not just in the main, and certainly we have done this in recognising concerns raised to us by Hon. Members, and we have adjusted the legislation and orders accordingly to recognise those concerns and put fairness into the personal capability 2825 assessments and so on, and the process, recognising people who may have been on long-term benefits and so on, and it is not fair to treat them, coming back into the labour market, just the same as everyone else, because it is going to be more difficult for them. With regard to Mrs Beecroft’s issue in relation to addiction issues, yes, there are criteria prescribed in the regulations – that is fair comment; however, I would draw the Hon. Member’s 2830 attention to the fact that in other regulations and systems that Social Security operate, there is an allowance made and I would argue back that, far from punishing folks suffering an addiction problem, there are allowances made for anyone who is receiving treatment under a rehabilitation programme or receiving medical or healthcare treatment as part of an ongoing rehab programme. That is in our regulations already to recognise that aspect of an addiction 2835 problem. If somebody is classed as leaving that rehabilitation programme or whatever … how can you describe it … medical situation or whatever treatment they were on, and leaving it – discharged off the list, if you like, from that healthcare professional – then that is outwith what we can do, so that person would be deemed presumably healthy under those circumstances, as far as that 2840 goes, or fit to apply for work going forward. But we do recognise … and there are allowances made in the regulations in any case for folk who can demonstrate or, via healthcare, evidence that they are receiving treatment in a rehabilitation programme and so on – we do cater for that. Eaghtyrane, I beg to move. 2845

______2209 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

The President: Hon. Members, I put the motion as set out at Item 45. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it.

A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:

In the Keys – Ayes 19, Noes 0

FOR AGAINST Mrs Beecroft None Mr Bell Mr Boot Mr Gawne Mr Hall Mr Harmer Mr Joughin Mr Karran Mr Malarkey Mr Peake Mr Quayle Mr Quirk Mr Robertshaw Mr Shimmin Mr Skelly Mr Teare The Deputy Speaker Mr Thomas Mr Watterson

The Deputy Speaker: Mr President, in the Keys, there are 19 for and none against.

In the Council – Ayes 8, Noes 0

FOR AGAINST Mr Anderson None Mr Coleman Mr Corkish Mr Cretney Mr Crookall Mr Henderson The Lord Bishop Mr Turner

The President: In the Council, 8 for, none against. The motion carries unanimously.

46. Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 – Income Support (General) (Isle of Man) (Amendment) Regulations 2016 approved

A Member of the Treasury (Mr Henderson) to move:

That the Income Support (General) (Isle of Man) (Amendment) Regulations 2016 [SD No 2016/0197] be approved.

2850 The President: Item 46. Mr Henderson.

A Member of the Treasury (Mr Henderson): Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane.

______2210 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

These Regulations will enable persons who fall into three new groups to qualify for Income Support, who cannot do so now. These groups are: persons who have applied for revision of a 2855 decision that they are not incapable of work; persons who have applied for suppression of a decision that they are not incapable of work; and persons who have a personal characteristic – which will answer the Hon. Member for South Douglas’s query a little bit more from the earlier Order, whereby other conditions are now being recognised by the Social Security regulations – or a severe learning disability, as a result of which they have no reasonable prospects of securing 2860 work. Further information is provided in the memorandum which has been circulated to Hon. Members. Eaghtyrane, I beg to move.

2865 The President: Mr Anderson.

Mr Anderson: Thank you, Mr President. I beg to second Item 46 and reserve my remarks.

2870 The President: Hon. Members, I put the motion set out at Item 46. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

47. Referrals to Committees by members of the public – Motion lost

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to move:

That Tynwald is of the opinion that members of the public should be able to refer matters of concern directly to the Public Accounts Committee, the Policy Review Committees and the Standards and Members Interests Committee; that these Committees, when they receive any such referral, should be expected either to investigate the matter concerned or to report to Tynwald on why they have decided not to investigate it; and that the Standing Orders Committee should consider and report on any changes which would be needed to Standing Orders to enforce this expectation.

The President: We move on now to Item 47. I call on the Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran, to move.

2875 Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, Hon. Members, I make this motion: that Tynwald is of the opinion that members of the public should be able to refer matters of concern directly to the Public Accounts Committee, the Policy Review Committees and the Standards and Members’ Interests Committee; that these Committees, when they receive any such referral, should be expected either to investigate the matter concerned or to report to Tynwald on why they have decided 2880 not to investigate it; and that the Standing Orders Committee should consider and report on any changes which would be needed to Standing Orders to enforce this expectation. I have watched in horror over the years, the way in which Members of the House of Keys who are not part of CoMin … It has been appalling to have to wait months or even years for issues to be addressed by the Public Accounts Committee. That is the way it is, but I really do hope that 2885 Members will rise above this for the sake of the general public. It is not only sad to me but many outside this Court. We have a wealth of ability outside this Court which is not tapped into, and I believe it should enhance the decision making for better future administrations. I can remember well as a young constituency MHK, in my constituency ______2211 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

when I was the Member for Middle, we had one of the biggest building firms of the United 2890 Kingdom … actually living in Santon. At the time, we had a horrendous problem – that is not new and we still have problems with it – regarding young people who were born in this area not being able to live in this area. The wealth of knowledge was ignored and I remember well speaking to this person, this individual, on the subject, so there is nothing new. The only difference is I believe in the next administration they are going to need as much 2895 help as they can get, because of the results of the way we have dealt with the biggest economic boom; and whilst there have been some great things done, there have been some awful amounts of waste that have outweighed it. The future administrations will not have the luxury of being able to afford to have little or no audit for the reality of what is happening and seen happening as far as too many outside this Court. 2900 This motion will be an aide-memoire not just to Tynwald but it will be an asset to help Government, where it can be much more effective and efficient. I hope Hon. Members today will see this as an improvement to help Public Accounts, the Policy Review Committees and the Standards and Members’ Interests Committee to be much more effective; enabling a direct approach to these Committees by members of the public who seek to highlight matters which 2905 are detrimental to the Island or are of great advantage to the Island; and the Public Accounts Committee will be in a position to take appropriate and effective action without delay. Direct representation to the Public Accounts Committees and other Scrutiny Committees will reduce the workload of MHKs – the Public Accounts Committees that have been inquorate for numerous occasions over the last few years. Therefore it is ineffective and unacceptable and 2910 would be an affront to the public outside to be treated on the same basis as we have. Whilst we have made complaints about this, I believe the public would not tolerate what some of us have had to put up with – the way we have watched in horror, the way it has been allowed to go on, the total incompetence and worse. Obviously one of the most important factors is that the Standing Orders Committee should 2915 consider a report on how to change, which will be needed to enforce the expectations of what I call common courtesy and basic common sense, that anything referred will be investigated or reported to Tynwald on why not, or to the individual. Hon. Members, my job in this Court is not to cosy up or look after my career prospects as far as the added benefits as far as being part of executive Government, but this proposal today is a 2920 help to gain better information, to get more informed Members of Tynwald and then the chances of getting a better and proud legacy that will protect the vulnerable in our society, and to help protect that record that I think we can all be happy with in this Court. The inefficiency and the lack of effective parliamentary audit and holding the executive to account have been turned into an art form. This motion is not a panacea, this motion will not 2925 solve all the problems, but what it will do is open up the process into the actions of Government. We are small enough that everybody counts – when I came into this Court my majority was six, and 11 between me and the third candidate for the one seat – and yet big enough to be a nation and big enough to keep the pride as far as this parliamentary process going. This should help. Whilst this motion is not that panacea, what it will do is it will help to inform Hon. Members 2930 and help the actions of the Government and parliament to give the services and to give the decision making that the people of the Isle of Man need. I hope Hon. Members will support this proposal as there is a great wealth of knowledge out there which could be put to good use. One of the reasons why I think some of us may be more effective about exposing the truth over the years is the fact that a good MHK talks and works with the general public, particularly 2935 when facing difficult times. We need more inclusion, less exclusivity and more effective parliamentary audit and accountability, and coming up with ways to help executive Government to be more effective, which I believe have far too often been woefully lacking. It is a two-way street, Hon. Members. We need to put alternatives forward, but then they need to have the decency to actually look and fairly assess the issues and not wait two or three 2940 years later down the line to then claim it as their own situation. ______2212 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

This motion will give clarity to the point that you pick people’s brains. We need to make sure that what we do to serve the nation is make sure that we actually do help to improve that situation. Many may not like me in this Court, but many respect the role that I have done and many 2945 people outside particularly respect that. This will make it easier for you and will become of great assistance to you if we follow this motion or at least explore it. I hope Hon. Members will take the opportunity to support this motion. If we believe in openness and inclusivity as far as our people are concerned, let’s use the wealth that is outside in order to protect the future well-being and the proud record of many of the achievements … 2950 that I have sat side-by-side with your Chief Minister. I move the motion standing in my name, Eaghtyrane.

The President: Hon. Member for Douglas South, Mrs Beecroft.

2955 Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Mr President. I have no hesitation in seconding this motion, because I think it has a lot of advantages if it is adopted. It will improve transparency and accountability – things that we all say that we want. I think it will also help engage people in politics a bit more, because they will not feel it is so distant; they can refer things directly, rather than having to go through their MHK if they have 2960 got any concerns or any suggestions. I think that will help, as they involve the wider public in what really is their system of government. I think at the moment an awful lot of the public are disengaged and I think anything that will help with that has got to be welcomed. Plus, as the mover of the motion Mr Karran said, there is a wealth of expertise out there. People would be very willing to give their knowledge for nothing 2965 and we are not taking advantage of that, and I do feel that we would be privy to an awful lot of good suggestions and good ideas if this was adopted and they were able to make those suggestions directly and receive answers about them. So I beg to second. Thank you very much.

2970 The President: Hon. Member for Douglas East, Mr Robertshaw.

Mr Robertshaw: Thank you, Mr President. I would ask Hon. Members to hesitate from supporting this motion. The next Court is going to have an awful lot on its plate – a huge amount on its plate – to contend with, and I think one of 2975 the changes that might very well emerge is the further development of the Review Committees. I think yourself, Mr President, myself, Mr Watterson, Mr Gawne and the previous President were on the Committee that actually assembled the original Review Committee concept, which then came before the Court, but at that stage we did hesitate from having the Review Committees look at live policy. 2980 Now we have before us the Lisvane Review, which I think rightly suggests that we need to take the next step forward to give more authority, more inclusion, more engagement for the Review Committees, so the Review Committees themselves have got an important step-up process to achieve in the next Court. I, therefore, would say that this is not a bridge too far, this is two bridges too far at this stage, and it may well sometime in the future be something that the 2985 Court wants to look at, but not now. The other point that I want to raise, which really does concern me, is that in the body of the motion it says:

when they receive any such referral, should be expected either to investigate the matter concerned or report to Tynwald as to why they are not.

______2213 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

Well, that could open an absolute can of worms and cause great embarrassment and difficulty for the House. 2990 With that, Mr President, I strongly recommend that we do not vote for this motion.

The President: Hon. Member for Michael.

Mr Cannan: Thank you, Mr President. 2995 Clearly, as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee for the last four years, I have got a lot of experience in this matter. I think the problem with the motion is that the Hon. Member moves that members of the public should be able to refer matters of concern directly to the Public Accounts Committee. There is absolutely nothing preventing a member of the public referring a matter of concern to 3000 the Public Accounts Committee and, indeed, there is clear evidence that we will look at such matters. You only need to ask the Minister for Infrastructure, who had a fairly (Interjection) robust encounter with the Public Accounts Committee a mere year or so ago, and that did involve various members of the public providing evidence to us. So that facility is there. I would just perhaps support and endorse the comments by the Member for Douglas East, in 3005 that reporting back to Tynwald if we did not investigate could potentially be hugely embarrassing for somebody and they may not wish their name, at that precise time, to be brought forward. It may be embarrassing – the reasons why we chose not to investigate. The other point, as the Member well knows, is that when we do receive letters quite often we get a very wide-ranging accusation with very little detail to back it up, and we often have to 3010 write back to those individuals to say, ‘Please give us some evidence of your claim,’ (Mr Corkish: Absolutely!) and that can be quite a time-consuming process. The final point, very briefly, Mr President, is of course the Lord Lisvane Report, recommendation 6, gives us a number of points that we have to consider. I think they are very serious points about the level of scrutiny taking place. It is something the next Court is going to 3015 give full weight and consideration to, because I think the Lisvane Report brings forward a number of very important points and will help improve the process if some of these issues are brought forward, but in the very least we are going to have a guaranteed debate about the level of scrutiny that is taking place, and of course whether or not further legislation that exists is actually brought into force. 3020 At this precise moment, Mr President, I would suggest that we wait until the Lisvane Report is debated.

Mr Corkish and another Member: Hear, hear.

3025 The President: I call on the mover to reply. Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I thank my seconder. I am glad that the Hon. Member for East Douglas and the Member for Michael did input to this debate, because I believe that fundamentally there will always be a problem about trying to 3030 include people that we cannot control. That is the problem we have got in this Court – it is about control. Some of us came into this Court in a totally different environment; they made their money out of their sidelines or their directorships or they were retired. The point is many of the things that Lord Lisvane … are now doing, and many of the things that we are now looking at are things that we were talking about 20 years ago, but they were 3035 not acceptable to the club. That is the problem we have got, Eaghtyrane: we are still too much like a club. The difference, as far as the new members of the club after the next Election, will be the issue that they will not have the luxury of still going through the biggest economic boom. The difference will be, in the next administration, that people will have aspirations. The likes of your Chief Minister, we know what the aspirations were: basically there were no aspirations. If ______2214 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

3040 you could get any sort of job that lasted 52 weeks a year you were quite grateful. You were quite grateful if you could get a job like that, that was on an average income of 45% of the Brits’, unless you were fortunate enough to either have a UK firm that had put in UK wages or you had UK parity through being a teacher, doctor or policeman at the time. This generation of people will have aspirations that were not there 30 years ago. If you are a bit of a rebel, the ‘boat in the 3045 morning’ was not just for comeovers, it was for people who did not toe the line. We have got to find a way to help show the general public the hard decisions that have been dodged in this administration, that we are on their side; and I believe that this is a way forward. We hear people say we need to get stuff out into the private sector, or we should have a situation where we had a Member talking about how the old system of pre-school would be far 3050 better when there was no money, and the fact that they want their cake and eat it. If you think that is a hard decision, the next administration is going to have harder decisions and I believe that we need to have more inclusivity to involve the people outside this Court. It is all right, the nice talk about – and funnily enough from the Hon. Member for Michael … in that particular case it was a friend that raised the issue and, fortunately the situation … who 3055 has family connections with Michael. But not everyone has that opportunity, to be able to have that direct resource into somebody they know in this Court. We had this argument, Eaghtyrane, in 1988 or 1987, when I was proposing the issue of getting a proper ombudsman. I can remember the former Member for Glenfaba, the Hon. Member, Mr Gilbey, saying, ‘We have got a petition of redress at Tynwald. We do not need an 3060 Ombudsman. We are all Ombudsmen!’ Delusional, as far as that is concerned! I am sorry, I forgot to bring the numbers of petitions that never see the light of day, never get picked up and are completely ignored. That was the reason why I believed that the Standing Orders should consider and report on how to change so there was an enforcement expectation, because one of the reasons why people do not get involved and do not help in the political 3065 system … because, as you unfortunately said – which was very good of you, Eaghtyrane – about the club, ‘What is the point? You are a hero, Peter. Why do you keep doing it after 30 years?’

The President: Different club! (Laughter)

3070 A Member: Tick tock!

A Member: Delusional! (Interjection)

Mr Karran: What we want to see in this Court today is a way forward, and I am offering you a 3075 lifeline to try and help bring that inclusivity, because if we do not take on board the general public on some of the very difficult decisions we are going to make, I can see the whole systems of government being put in very big jeopardy. The Hon. Member for East Douglas, I thank him for his input into this. I believe that this would be a catalyst. I believe that what he is doing is putting the decision off. The decision needs 3080 to be taken now that this is a declaratory resolution, that Tynwald would come back with maybe some flexibility, and so long as people get some sort of fair … and the courtesy of putting their time in, that is what we want. Hon. Members, if people like me, as a Member of Tynwald, feel that there is little point under the present system of sometimes putting things forward – and I know more Members than I 3085 have had that issue – there is a serious issue there. I believe the general public will actually help enforce your position, because their input … they will then recognise the problems that the minority in this Court have had to put up with for the past 15 years. Hon. Members, I can see that this Court is not going to support this proposal, but the point is I hope that those of you who feel that you are fair and you are there to represent the general 3090 public, not the career situation of being part of the executive Government, will actually support this motion standing in my name, because I believe it is important that for inclusion … We talk ______2215 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

about Freedom of Information, we want more, we have got the Digital Strategy, we want people getting more involved with Government. This is a way of helping those people to do so. I hope Hon. Members will support this proposal, will see what they come back with, the 3095 Standing Orders Committee, because I believe we cannot afford … With what decisions need to be made and what we need to maintain, we need that input, we need to try and broaden out, so this club is seen as more fair, more equal of opportunities and will actually do the job that it should do as a parliament and make sure it gets effective decision-making by the best information from other people. 3100 I leave it to this Court to decide, and I move the motion standing in my name. I hope that this will not end up being yet another issue that has to be addressed … [Inaudible] the maximum ability and opportunity for improvement is lost because it is kicked down the road for another five or 10 years. I hope that is not the case. I hope that this will be seen as a way forward, as a senior parliamentarian in this Court, of that aide-memoire, that way of helping create that 3105 opportunity for Members in this Court. I so move.

The President: Hon. Members, I put the motion as set out at Item 47 in the name of the Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran. Those in favour of the motion, please say aye; against, no. The 3110 noes have it.

A division was called for.

Mr Malarkey: Sorry, Mr President, I inadvertently pressed the wrong button. (Interjections and laughter) It probably does not make a lot of difference. (Interjections)

The President: You can override, but I do not think you can just now; but if you are in the 3115 process of –

Mr Malarkey: I have actually pressed the wrong button.

Electronic voting resulted as follows:

In the Keys – Ayes 4, Noes 18

FOR AGAINST Mrs Beecroft Mr Bell Mr Karran Mr Boot Mr Malarkey Mr Cannan Mr Ronan Mr Cregeen Mr Gawne Mr Hall Mr Harmer Mr Joughin Mr Peake Mr Quayle Mr Quirk Mr Robertshaw Mr Shimmin Mr Skelly Mr Teare The Deputy Speaker Mr Thomas Mr Watterson

______2216 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

The Deputy Speaker: Mr President, the voting on the screen (Laughter) is 20 votes for and 18 against. 3120 Members: No, 4 votes for!

Mr Corkish: Try again!

3125 The President: There are 4 votes for in the Keys and 18 against.

In the Council – Ayes 0, Noes 8

FOR AGAINST None Mr Anderson Mr Coleman Mr Corkish Mr Cretney Mr Crookall Mr Henderson The Lord Bishop Mr Turner

The President: And in the Council, none for and 8 against. The motion therefore fails to carry.

48. Fitness to work – Motion not moved

The Hon. Member for Douglas South (Mrs Beecroft) to move:

That Tynwald is of the opinion that fitness to work assessments should be the responsibility of the Department of Health and Social Care.

The President: Hon. Members, Item 48 has been withdrawn, as indicated by Mrs Beecroft.

49. Compulsory teaching of Manx political system and politics in schools – Amended motion carried

The Hon. Member for Douglas South (Mrs Beecroft) to move:

That Tynwald is of the opinion that the Manx political system and Manx politics should be a compulsory subject in schools from the age of 14.

The President: We move to the last Item, Item 49. I call on the Hon. Member for Douglas South, Mrs Beecroft. 3130 Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Mr President. Hon. Members, I am really delighted to bring this motion to you today for debate, because I think it is an excellent and well thought out motion. I cannot take the credit for it, as it was suggested by one of our students, Patrick Vernon, who is currently studying International

______2217 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

3135 Relations and Political Science at the University of Birmingham, and he has also carried out all the research for this. We have all, at one time or another, commented on the general disengagement with politics on the Island, and the turnout for the General Election in 2011 was in total only 34,000. That is nowhere near the number of adults eligible to vote. And with younger people voting in much 3140 lower numbers than the older generation, it shows that they feel that they are not being heard so there is no point in engaging. It also means that our young people are completely underrepresented, and this does not bode well for the future. Many of our young people, particularly those attending university, were able to vote in the EU Referendum, and they voted overwhelmingly to remain within the EU, whereas it was the opposite with the older generation, 3145 and this has only served to increase their feeling that their voices are not being heard. People often say that they are not interested in politics and they refer to it as if it exists somewhere else, somewhere that does not touch their everyday lives; it is simply some vague concept that people talk about and do not want to get involved with. This is particularly true with young people. It is felt by them that it is not something that affects them directly. I know 3150 that Members will agree with me that this is far from the truth. Politics refers to the exercise of power within society and structures our whole existence: everything, from the speed limits that we adhere to when driving to work, to our education and health systems. Politics defines the entire social terrain and moral compass of a country, making it the beating heart of any society. We have recently had the momentous decision to legalise same-sex marriage, ensuring that all 3155 couples can achieve the formal recognition that they should have been entitled to years ago. So politics is, in reality, everywhere; yet the perception, as I said before, is some vague concept that does not affect us, that does not affect everyday life. The problem we have is how we are going to correct it. How are we going to engage? How are we going to make sure that people feel engaged and people feel that politics actually matters? I do hope that you will agree 3160 that a good start would be to educate our young people from 14 years old about our unique political system and politics on the Isle of Man. Politics is the study of power. Bertrand Russell argued that ‘the fundamental concept in social science is power, in the same sense in which energy is the fundamental concept in physics’ – and surely power itself is the most fundamental and important concept in existence, as it operates in 3165 every sphere from the household to national politics. Given its importance, should it not be taught as a compulsory subject in schools? Moreover, if citizens are disengaged from the exercise of power in society, they risk having their interests erased from legislation. The teaching of politics in a comprehensive manner in schools will ensure that future generations are able to articulate their interests and understand the system through which these interests must be 3170 understood. Another common criticism that we hear is that it makes no difference, but maybe if there was a greater awareness of the democratic process, people would be more understanding of the speed of change. Teaching politics will actively encourage students to contribute to the body of knowledge by conceiving of a better society and showing them the processes through which 3175 such a society could be achieved. Our young people are able to vote from the age of 16, yet we have not done very much at all to prepare them for this. They do not understand our parliamentary system and they really do not have much chance of gaining the knowledge necessary to cast their vote in a meaningful way. We owe it to our youth to give them every opportunity to be the very best that they can 3180 be. If they have no say in the future because they feel isolated from the decision-making process, I believe we are failing them. Let us give them the tools that they need to understand how politics affect each and every one of us on a daily basis and how to have their voices heard so that they are in charge of shaping the future that they want. Hon. Members, I really do hope that you can support this motion today. I think it is eminently 3185 sensible, and it has to be to the betterment of the Isle of Man and to all of our futures. Thank you, Mr President. I beg to move. ______2218 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

The President: Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: I beg to second and reserve my remarks. 3190 The President: Hon. Member of Council, Mr Crookall.

The Minister for Education and Children (Mr Crookall): Thank you, Mr President. I am a bit concerned: I didn’t even move then and you called me – must be a sixth sense, sir! 3195 Mr President, Hon. Members will be shortly receiving an amendment, which I have here. I do this only because I feel I have to, and the reasons for that will become apparent shortly. As the Members get their copies of the amendment, they will see that it reads to remove all the words after ‘That Tynwald’ and will then read:

That Tynwald continues to support the work undertaken by the Department of Education and Children and the Clerk of Tynwald’s office in educating and engaging young people in the Manx political system.

That said, Mr President, can I thank the Hon. Member for this motion. It is always worthy of 3200 discussion and debate, and I am always happy to take on board comments from Hon. Members. The Hon. Member is coming down to the Department to talk about something else on Monday afternoon, so whatever happens here this afternoon I will be more than happy to take it on with my officers and Mrs Beecroft and further this conversation. Mr President, currently there exists no statutory instruction to include teaching of the Manx 3205 political system in our post-14 curriculum. The Curriculum Order 2011 states that, where appropriate, the content of all subjects that include references to Manx culture and history … and that citizenship should feature either as a specific subject or taught within other subjects between the ages and five and 14. Hon. Members, I would think most Members in this Hon. Court either go to visit primary 3210 schools and secondary schools or invite them in here. They are either invited to those schools or they invite themselves to those schools to go and talk to the students and teach them about politics. We do an awful lot from the age of five, and certainly at Clothworkers in Peel – I know Mr Harmer is probably following on from where I was before – they have their own Tynwald Day, and so they get involved in politics at a very early age in copying Tynwald Day. There is 3215 sufficient scope within these arrangements for schools, if they wish, to deliver learning on the Manx system. The Department would not seek to prescribe or direct schools in terms of their curriculum beyond the 2011 Order, which has and will continue to offer a level of freedom and autonomy that our schools enjoy. Currently, there is a comprehensive education package offered by 3220 Tynwald Chambers, ranging from question and answer tours for primary schools to scripted tutorials for history and political students. MHKs, as I have said, regularly visit schools on request to talk to young people about what they do and how Government works. This year, the Department of Education and Children has produced comprehensive youth-friendly guides to Manx politics as part of raising interest and participation in the forthcoming General Election, 3225 whilst also giving assemblies to all secondary schools, encouraging young people to vote – and there is a link from the Government’s website for those young people, which I will happily pass on to Members later. I was asked this morning by the Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Hall, with regard to a GCSE in politics. One does not exist. We have checked through all the UK GCSE boards and there is not 3230 one in government and politics, or politics. The nearest you can get is an AS or an A-level, just to clarify that for you. Specific attention to political systems is only required should students embark on an A-level in government and politics, where comparisons can be drawn between the Manx tricameral system and other bicameral or unicameral systems.

______2219 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

3235 As I said, Mr President, I am very happy that the Hon. Member has raised this. I shall look forward to hearing other Members’ views on this. I believe Mrs Beecroft has had an intern working with her, as she described, and I believe Patrick has been down to visit Mr Joel Smith, one of my senior officers in the Department, and they had a very good and interesting conversation, and that has been relayed back to me. 3240 There were a few comments made earlier by Mrs Beecroft about greater awareness. That, I would suggest, is probably down to us to try and do that. Since voting for 16-year-olds was brought in, the percentage of those voting has not gone up an awful lot. That I would suggest, although we are doing our bit in schools, is down to us to help encourage that. She did say politics exists elsewhere. I would suggest that certainly in our lifestyle at the 3245 moment it exists everywhere, and certainly –

Mrs Beecroft: I did say other people.

Mr Crookall: Sorry, I missed that bit, but it certainly exists everywhere at the moment, and I 3250 would think for a lot of Members over the next few months it will be their life. Just to pick up on a comment that the Hon. Member, Mrs Beecroft … I picked up on the radio the other day … while talking about this subject, I believe she said that Members were out of touch with the public. I do refute that. I would suggest that every Member in here, everywhere they go and in everything they do, has something to do with the public. Not many of us can go 3255 anywhere, and it is part of the job to accept it. It is part and parcel of our life, and if you do not accept it, do not come back for another term. That said, Mr President, I do take on board what the Hon. Member for Douglas South has said this afternoon. I look forward to hearing the Members’ comments during the debate and, as I said, I will happily take it up again with her on Monday. But please, Hon. Members, I would ask 3260 you to support the amendment in my name and do not go with Mrs Beecroft. Thank you, Mr President. I beg to move:

That all the words after ‘That Tynwald’ be removed and replaced with ‘continues to support the work undertaken by the Department of Education and Children and the Clerk of Tynwald’s office in educating and engaging young people in the Manx political system’.

The President: Mrs Beecroft.

Mrs Beecroft: Mr President, if I may, a point of clarification. Could you just confirm that 3265 actually the amendment does comply with Standing Orders, because my understanding is that this completely alters the meaning of the original. I cannot remember which number it is, but there is a Standing Order that says it can be amended but it cannot change the complete meaning, which this amendment does.

3270 The President: You are quite right, there is such a Standing Order, but I would be very surprised if this does not comply with it. I ask the Clerk for guidance on this matter.

The Clerk: It is on the same subject as the original motion, which is the key idea, but it is not 3275 changing the subject behind the original motion … [Inaudible] (Interjection by Mr Quirk) Otherwise you would not bother to do amendments.

Mrs Beecroft: Okay, I just recalled a previous –

3280 The President: The amendment is in order.

______2220 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

Mrs Beecroft: Thank you.

The President: Mr Watterson. 3285 Mr Watterson: Thank you, Mr President. I have to say it has amused me, in the Hon. Member’s otherwise passionate and persuasive speech, to hear that politics is the exercise of power, and I will not be the only person to have been sitting in this Chamber feeling utterly powerless and helpless at various stages over the last 3290 three days and over the last 10 years. I then was thinking about the comments that were made about politics as a compulsory subject. I actually have come across quite a lot of politics graduates and I have to say that the academic study of politics is quite possibly one of the most disconnected and detached degrees from reality that I have ever seen. There is an awful lot in there about Plato, there is an awful lot 3295 in there about Machiavelli, and you can then go through the Renaissance theorists, but actually in terms of what we do on a day-to-day basis and how it connects with the individuals in society and how it connects with the systems of government … Apart from that being at a very theoretical level, I found it a complete waste of time – and that is why I went off to do a management degree and spent all my time talking about politics! I do not doubt for a minute 3300 that the contribution that Mrs Beecroft has made in opening this debate speaks from her experiences. I am just going to say that they are very different to the experiences that I have had. For the last 10 years I, very often accompanied by my constituency colleagues, have taken every single year 6 class from our constituency round Tynwald, and we have put them through a 3305 scripted Keys session after the tour – some of it was originally written by Quintin Gill, and you can see the Everton bias when you go through it – dealing with a Question Time and then a Second Reading of the Abolition of Homework Bill, along with setting up a select committee as to whether the Isle of Man should have its own international football team. So, whilst it is only a very sideways look at trying to get young people involved in politics – and these are people who 3310 are 10 and 11 – it does, in fact, make them think about what a law is, what happens in this building month in month-out, week in week out, and starts that process; and by the time we are finishing up and are doing the quiz, some of the questions that we have are really insightful and so the process is not wasted. And it is great to see the Island’s children out and taking part on Tynwald Day. 3315 For me, one of the real game-changers, in terms of getting young people active and involved in politics, is something that I have been through: Junior Tynwald. I have been clocking it back: 19 years ago I was actually sitting in the Lord Bishop’s chair between Donald Gelling, as the new Chief Minister, and Sir Charles Kerruish, and feeling more fired up than I had done for quite some time, trying to ask difficult questions and get under the skin of politics and the policies of 3320 that Government and getting answers about a wide range of policies. That was what spurred me – like it or not, Hon. Members – to set my career path and end up here. I looked in the Gallery earlier and I thought the gentleman who is in the Distinguished Strangers’ Gallery … his faced looked familiar and I think he might be a graduate of Junior Tynwald as well. I thought the face looked familiar, and so I wish him all the best and hope that it has had the same effect on him as 3325 it had on me. (A Member: Hear, hear.) (A Member: Oh, dear!) (Laughter) In the right ways, obviously! I think we have also missed out on things such as the Commonwealth Day observance and the opportunities offered through the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and again, the other thing I was very fortunate to do was take part in the Commonwealth Youth Parliament. 3330 The Commonwealth represents 54 nations and a huge proportion of the world’s population – so, of course, I went to the Commonwealth Youth Parliament in Manchester! But it was still a very worthwhile experience and good eye-opener into the political systems and the political worlds

______2221 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

of a lot of other young people, and I was very grateful to this branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association for affording me that privilege, again something like 16 years ago. 3335 In terms of the motion and the amendment, I think these are absolutely fine motives that have prompted the Hon. Member to move this motion. More could be done. I encourage Members to take up the challenge with the young people of their constituencies and ensure that more is done, and I support the amendment as moved by my hon. friend and colleague in Council. 3340 The President: Hon. Member for Rushen, Mr Gawne.

Mr Gawne: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. I am rising in support of the previous two speakers – and, actually, I am not that far off the 3345 original motion either. I think this is an important issue. Sadly, though, for us, we are probably the 33 people on the Isle of Man who are interested in politics; the rest of the people are interested in issues, and issues are often quite different. And teaching people about the mess which is the political system that the Isle of Man has I am not absolutely convinced is going to do us any favours. 3350 Echoing the points particularly of my hon. friend for Rushen, Mr Watterson, there is a huge amount already going on in terms of providing information to young people and children about the political systems on the Isle of Man. We refer in the amendment to the Department of Education and Children and the Clerk of Tynwald’s Office and the valuable work they are doing. We also have, of course, Culture Vannin, which provides huge amounts of resources to the 3355 Department of Education. We have the rather excellent Manx history app, which was being promoted again today, designed specifically for secondary school children; it again covers topics relating to Manx politics. Manx National Heritage obviously has the Old House of Keys building down in Castletown; again, children’s parties are taken there. So there is an awful lot going on across Government at the moment. 3360 The question, I suppose then, is whether we ought to make the teaching of politics compulsory. Certainly back in 1992, when the Manx language was brought into the education system, it was at that stage decided that that should not be compulsory, and as a result of it not being compulsory the students who attended non-compulsory Manx language were incredibly enthusiastic for the topic, unlike most of the other subjects that they were compulsorily taught 3365 in school. So there is a question about whether it should be a compulsory part of the curriculum, particularly, I suppose as well, for people who have no particular interest in politics but are interested in issues. I think there are some interesting elements to the hon. mover’s original motion. I think, though, I would need a lot more information to be convinced that we should automatically, 3370 based on the Hon. Member’s speech, introduce compulsory politics to young people over the age of 14. I think I would need some more evidence to demonstrate that that would not just put people off from politics. I do not think that the Hon. Member for Douglas South should just allow this issue to be dropped if the amendment is successful. I think if she and her good friend Patrick can work up 3375 some more ideas on this and maybe present a more detailed case, then perhaps that should be considered in the future. I do not think there is sufficient information being given yet to convince me that this is definitely the right way to go, but quite clearly we do need to do more. I think the sort of work that Culture Vannin and other Departments of Government are undertaking – I know the Department of Education does a lot of this, particularly looking at 3380 social media, which is where young people tend to be these days – there is an awful lot we can do there to draw people into Manx politics. And actually, producing apps and producing regular things on social media is much more likely to gain young people’s attention and get them interested in politics than any compulsory lesson in secondary school.

______2222 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

3385 The President: Hon. Member of Council, Mr Turner.

Mr Turner: Thank you, Mr President. I just have a few points to make. I am probably going to upset my good friend the Minister for Education. I am going to support the motion as written. The reason for that is because it is 3390 expressing an opinion that the Manx political system and Manx politics should be a compulsory subject. It does not tie the Department or the schools down as to what the level of that is or any of the detail; it just says it could be compulsory. It could be as little as one session in a school year. It is very wide open and it is expressing a desire of this Court to have the subject taught, and that is why I feel that I am going to support the motion as written. 3395 I think it goes far wider, in my view, and this would be a great start to start educating our residents, our citizens in exactly what the constitution is. A lot of people of all ages do not know the Isle of Man’s relationship with the Crown, for example. The number of people who do not even know that they are British citizens is quite astonishing, for example. They do not know the difference between the Government, the House of Keys, Tynwald, the Legislative Council: ‘Isn’t 3400 it all the same?’ All sorts of things. And yet everybody knows we have Tynwald Day and we have MHKs. So there are so many things that in such a place … We are the oldest parliament in the world. The amount of knowledge that people generally do not realise is quite astonishing. One of my hobbyhorses is the number of people who do not actually even know which way up to fly the Manx flag. It is quite astonishing. There is even a picture in the paper with it upside down, 3405 and you see them all around the Island flying upside down on flagpoles. What other country would not know which way up to fly their national flag? There are so many things to do with our system, our constitution and our overall set-up that should be taught in the schools from an early age. I remember being on a tour of this place when I was at primary school, but of course at primary school … And the work that goes on, which the 3410 Hon. Member Mr Watterson mentioned, is vital and should obviously continue, but of course it is a great day out and it is great fun coming in here and looking at it, but they are not fully starting to understand the more serious issues. That is why I think the age the Hon. Member has put on it, 14, is probably a good age to start teaching the youngsters as they head towards that age where they are going to be entitled to vote. 3415 The one thing I will just mention is the point she made about Brexit and that all young people voted to remain in the European Union. It was a secret ballot, no figures were released; that is sheer rhetoric put out by the anti-Brexit media and I would disagree strongly with that. I think I would just like to make that point. I do not think I have made it a secret that I am glad they voted to leave the European Union; I see it will create opportunities. 3420 But, anyway, getting back to the point, Mr President, (The President: Please.) I would like to support the motion as written, as I feel it does not tie the Department or the schools. They will still have the freedom to do it, but I think there should be a compulsory element in there and I will be voting for the motion as written.

3425 The President: Hon. Member of Council, Mr Corkish.

Mr Corkish: Thank you, Mr President. In this final debate, in the final throes of the administration, I am very happy to second the amendment standing in the name of Mr Crookall. (Interjections) 3430 The President: It has been seconded. In fact, Mr Watterson –

Mr Corkish: He did it? Well he shouldn’t have done! (Interjections and laughter)

3435 The President: Well, I’m sorry!

______2223 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

Mr Corkish: He is very forthright like that! End of term.

The President: He is quite entitled to! 3440 Mr Corkish: I was glad to have my say, anyway.

The President: You may carry on, if you wish. Hon. Member for Malew and Santon, Mr Cregeen. 3445 Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr President. I am going to upset my friend and colleague, Mr Crookall, because I am going to support the motion as it is. (Interjection) The reason I am going to do that is because when has it been on the syllabus for 3450 schoolchildren to have an enrichment week which sends them off to the Wildlife Park and sends them off for a cycle ride, and yet we cannot bring them into this Hon. Court to find out about the Isle of Man and its politics?

Mr Crookall: We do bring them in. 3455 Mr Cregeen: What is the difference between sending them off to the Wildlife Park and here?

A Member: Hear, hear. (Laughter and interjections)

3460 Mr Corkish: They are better behaved at the Wildlife Park! (Interjections and laughter)

The President: Settle down, Hon. Members.

Mr Cregeen: Mr President, anybody who knows anything about education will know that a 3465 subject does not have to cover the whole year. It can be a part of any sort of syllabus for a small period of time; you do not have to do it every week. I think the Department has probably gone a bit overboard by saying, ‘No, we don't want to touch it,’ I really do. (Interjections) I think the areas that we have to do are similar to what we have in the primary schools. Even 3470 if you just bring them in for one day during this enrichment week, you could put down Manx politics as part of your enrichment week – it is a day out. I do have parents wondering at times – when they have got a week before the end of term and the schools are sending them off all round the Island on coach trips and whatever – how the Department could actually say that they could not come here. It is just another venue and I would support that being part of that 3475 enrichment week that the schools have to give that part of the education. I know from the children I have bought here from Ballasalla School that later on they have probably forgotten some of the stuff that you have done, further down. And when I have spoken to people who are in secondary school, yes, it is a distant memory, but they would like to know. Sometimes, maybe we should bring the newspapers in here, so they can learn a bit about it 3480 (A Member: Hear, hear.) because we are often misrepresented about the amount of work. I think there was somebody on the radio saying that they should give MHKs more work, and I think many Members in here (Interjections) would actually disagree, in that they forget how much work goes in and it is not just a Tuesday morning. Mr President, I would ask Members to support this, because it does not have to be full time; 3485 it can be just one day that will give the children in secondary school the benefit of Manx politics.

The President: Hon. Member for Ramsey, Mr Deputy Speaker.

______2224 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Mr President. 3490 I also will be supporting the motion as printed on the paper. This parliament recognised that young people at 16 years old were mature enough to vote. That was only the halfway house, because the second half was actually inspiring them to use their vote, and that message has not been fully delivered. That is why I welcome this proposal. The only political activity that most young people will see is on the television and it is the 3495 unedifying spectacle of the yah-boo politics in the UK – and that is more likely to put them off than make them interested. This motion is commendable. Our work here is to prepare the Island for their future, ready for them to take over from us. So, first of all, before anything else, we have to inspire their future. At 14 years of age young people are open to learning and they are also very idealistic. This 3500 proposal will teach them our political history and how politics works here; and this will hopefully prepare them to realise, first of all, why they should be voting at elections. What we are looking at here, teaching in schools, is not, as Mr Watterson says, anything to do with academic teaching of politics; this is just to inspire their interest and encourage them to take part. I was a bit disappointed with what the Minister for Education said because the weak point, 3505 quite clearly, is when he said that the schools can teach them politics if they wish, they have a choice. I do not think that is correct, because the present arrangements we have been hearing about today are very ad hoc. They will have a visit to Tynwald probably once or twice per child, they may go to the Manx Museum, or they may meet a politician occasionally in their schools. And that is very good for them and it is exciting for them, but what has got to be added to that is 3510 to teach them maybe a lesson a week, a lesson a month, but in the schoolroom atmosphere so that it is an actual lesson. I believe that is very important, so that these children realise they are the ones who are going to have to shoulder responsibility for the future of their Island. I do not see any negatives to this proposal that would make the teaching of Manx politics unworkable in our secondary schools. 3515 I also was at Junior Tynwald last Monday, and the interest from those young people there … they were clearly wishing their views to be heard, but they are the minority, those young people who were there in Junior Tynwald. Our job now is to inspire more young people to also be taking part and deciding their own future. I believe that we have to action this and we have to go ahead with this. We have to be 3520 positive, make it compulsory in whatever terms you want to make it compulsory, but young people should be taught the history of their Island and the politics of their Island, so that they can decide the future of their Island.

The President: Hon. Member of Council, Mr Henderson. 3525 Mr Henderson: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. It may come as a bit of a shock, but I am quite supportive of this motion from the Hon. Member for South Douglas. It is something that is very dear to my heart since I was elected, and it is emblazoned all over my manifestos on my way through various elections in the House of 3530 Keys. So to say I have a pre-declared position on this is an understatement. However, moving forward, what I have discovered over the years is that, despite all the good things we have heard about which do happen with the schools, and that the schools come and visit here, predominantly primary schools, and they have a great, fun morning or afternoon out, seeing our building here and so on, and they get to see the Manx Museum and Tynwald Hill at 3535 some point ... What has always astonished me, despite all the good things – and Members go into schools and visit, and that is a great afternoon’s entertainment; I have done it lots myself – it is kind of an honorary thing, almost, and I think we need to put, as has been said by Mr Deputy Speaker and the Hon. Member of Council, Mr Turner, a deeper level in there so that we are moving ... and I would not just say politics, I would say our history, culture, geography and a 3540 whole range of items onto a deeper level for the older students and enrich their learning by ______2225 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

using the Isle of Man and Manx mediums that are all around us – as I say, such things as geography and so on. I was astonished to see what my son was learning the other year with regard to geography, when we have all the great examples here. I am not disrespecting the school, but the curriculum 3545 is pitched around what workbooks and manuals are able to be accessed from across. I would love it for Culture Vannin and others to have input into the materials and packs that are required to boost that learning, so that teachers cannot give an excuse that ‘we can only get the packs from the UK’, which I have had quoted at me. As I said, I am not disrespecting the work that is going on; I just want to make a point. And I think we can do more and we can do better. 3550 When I have gone to give talks in schools, I ask the children sometimes – not recently, but I have asked the children sometimes, ‘Where is the most important country in the world?’ and the answer is invariably America, Russia, England, France or Germany. I say, ‘Are you sure about that? Where were you born? Where is your home? Where do your parents live and work? Where do you live? Where is the real most important country?’ Because the curriculum 3555 generally, up until recently, has taught them to be outward looking across our shores and learning about everything else outside of here to a higher degree, they lose sight of their homeland, almost, in some ways. It is always something that has puzzled me as to why we are not more energised in what is around us and ensuring that our children and young people, when they are growing up, are learning in the first instance about their homeland and all the things 3560 that make this place great. Hats off to Patrick for bringing this to Tynwald, really. It’s your fault it’s here, sir! (Laughter) And long may you continue to bring more of it to Tynwald, because I think it is a salutary lesson for everyone here. As much as the good work that is going on, I think we could do more and we could do better, Eaghtyrane, and take great pride in that. 3565 The President: Hon. Member for Douglas West, Mr Thomas.

Mr Thomas: Thank you very much, Mr President. Just very briefly, a couple of practical questions for the mover of this motion. 3570 The first one is that on Monday at Junior Tynwald we managed to get many of the teachers and head teachers talking about the practical arrangements for actually having requisition meetings for all the 16- and 17-year-olds for the General Election, and it was causing them apoplexy. So the idea that this is a simple thing, I think, has to be knocked on the head, in the sense that getting 3,000 people who can vote in schools to know all about it and to have the 3575 requisition meetings … So I just wanted to have an answer from the Member moving this about whether there are any practical suggestions to head teachers about how this could practically be organised. The second one is: does the mover of this motion have any views on the hierarchy of extra things that could be added into education? For instance, this year I was briefed by Junior 3580 Achievement, who are of the view that business skills and financial skills should be compulsory in the curriculum; and earlier this year I had discussions with the One World Centre about the fact that international values and development values should be compulsory in education. So I just wanted the Member’s views on where this comes into the hierarchy. In closing, I just wanted to say two things about this motion, which is leading me to believe 3585 that, subject to the answers, I might be minded to support the Government amendment. The first one is that I am all for giving teachers and head teachers their own ability to decide what is taught, because I am all into delegated authority and I am not into big government telling people what they should be doing in their classrooms. Teachers are professional, wonderful people and they should be in charge in that sphere. 3590 The second point is that political choice is down to our young people. It is wonderful that Patrick – Mr Vernon – is here and has done this work. There are lots and lots of other individuals who are involved, and I think part of the political process is finding out things for yourselves and ______2226 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

actually thinking what you believe. At 16 and 17, you do … When we were young, we did sing songs like We Don't Need No Education and that sort of stuff, (Interjections and laughter) and 3595 politics is all about discovering things yourselves. So I am hesitant in that sense because politics is about choice and choosing to get involved.

The President: Hon. Member, Mr Karran.

3600 Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I just think we need to have some reality in this situation. If it is a compulsory subject, then at least there will be some sort of core curriculum. I have to say that I was quite horrified by the Shirveishagh Ynsee – he just comes over as completely clueless on what this motion is about. I think it is about trying to get some sort of definition of what really needs to be done. 3605 As a person who was about 14 when we decided we wanted to get involved in politics – and I can remember the Minister’s son looking at us at 15 as if we had absolutely lost the plot wanting to become an MHK, but being too polite to say what he thought, coming from Spring Valley, which was part of Pulrose – I have a great deal of sympathy with this proposal. I find it quite amusing, really, when I listen to the Member for Rushen when he talks about 3610 how sad he is about the effectiveness as far as a Minister and the waste of time issue –

Mr Watterson: No, the academic.

Mr Karran: – in this system of government. 3615 The situation is that when we came into this House, Eaghtyrane … as I am one of the few … because I was very keen on getting the kids in here; in fact I more than likely had Mr Turner’s age group, if not himself, in the Chambers when we had to fight to allow them to walk on the carpets in the Chamber; and they had the policy then that they should not let them sit on the seats, because that is what they did in Westminster. So one used to, particularly in the interests 3620 of putting the best spin, as the old Manxies say, into the seat of the Speaker’s chair, on that issue … and how things have improved out of all recognition by people being prepared to push at the boundaries of what was acceptable by the establishment in here. I hope Hon. Members will support the motion as far as the Hon. Member for South Douglas is concerned, because it has actually put some clarity down now. The problem is that I do not even 3625 think some of the Ministers, never mind some of the Members, know how politics work in this Court – never mind the people outside this Court. I must say that I applaud the Deputy Speaker as far as his input is concerned. And, as somebody who was against giving votes at 16 – I thought it was nonsense it giving votes at 16 – and being the youngest ever Member of this House, being elected here at the age of 24; being 3630 the youngest person, I think, ever standing for the House of Keys and getting elected to the Board of Education, which never, ever got recognised because we were not part of the establishment when we talk about Tynwald Day and that … The situation is that he is so right, and he is one who has really clarified the point of the Hon. Member for South Douglas. We want these people to be elected at 16. I was against that proposal, I thought it was crazy, but the 3635 point is that many have voted in this House at 16, so the least you can do is make it a compulsory subject for people at 14 to mature – because there is a big difference. As the one who was the first to let them sit in the seats in the Chambers, here and down below, 30-odd years ago, it can be a very worrying time with six, seven, eight and nine-year-old kids – what is the next thing they are going to come out with – but I have to say that is a 3640 different issue than 14-year-old youngsters developing their minds, like the Hon. Member for Ramsey, the Deputy Speaker, said. I hope that Hon. Members will have the maturity to see that, really, the amendment and the input is quite farcical on this. We talk about our oath of office and you talk about being independents: people need to be educated to the true reality in here. Some of us in here were ______2227 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

3645 fortunate, we were taught by people in the Labour Party of all the social injustice and all the things that happened. People I met, as a 16- or 17-year-old young person, who would actually have gone to jail for being a member of a trade union. For being a member of a trade union! They were very old men, back from the 20s. The fact is I believe there is a responsibility that we are not doing to our citizens, and that is 3650 the responsibility of educating them on what has happened in the past, why we sit here today and how important democracy is. That is why I hope Hon. Members will support the motion in front of us. We deserve that responsibility to better inform the 14-year-olds about what is going on. I hope, Hon. Members, we will not be voting on party lines, on what we do not describe as 3655 party politics, although we do have party politics, and we will actually vote on this issue; and particularly on what the Hon. Member, the Deputy Speaker, said – that we want these children to vote at 16. We have a duty to these people and a duty to these kids to make sure they are better informed and able to put their cross in the right position. My argument at 16 was I was worried that we would end up with the situation that it would 3660 be done on a totally immature basis. I am still concerned about that issue, leaving this Chamber, but what this does is at least it will better inform these children to make such a vitally important decision. Six people … four people could have changed the position in 1985. Everyone is important as far as our citizens are concerned, and isn’t it important to give them the best opportunity, the best knowledge, to know what they are doing by supporting this 3665 motion? I hope Hon. Members will be supporting this motion as it stands.

The President: Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Hall.

Mr Hall: Thank you, Mr President. 3670 There are just a few brief comments that I would like to make. I do appreciate the spirit of this motion but I do feel that I will support the Minister for Education in his amendment; and, like some of the views from the Member for West Douglas, I do think on this particular issue I am more in favour of free choice as opposed to forcing the young students to actually engage in it. (Mr Quirk: The teachers.) And also the teachers. 3675 But at some point, if you are going to introduce a new subject into the school’s curriculum, there would have to be a training element to it for teachers. So, for the Minister, how exactly would that work, because there is going to have to be some framework of what exactly will be taught. It will have to be universal, right across the board in every single school, be it primary, secondary or whatever it happens to be, so that it is going to be fair and balanced. 3680 Then also there is the issue with regard to teachers, because it is fair to say politics is a controversial subject and it could be the view of the teaching fraternity of a reluctance to want to teach politics. I believe there was a report by Ofsted around 2010, and one of the conclusions that they drew attention to was that there was a reluctance from teachers to go and teach politics for fear of being biased. 3685 So it is how far do we go in terms of teaching Manx politics in general and the political system – we have, obviously, two political parties in the Isle of Man and things like this. I think there is a lot more to it than just the headline of what we are actually seeing on the Order Paper – it does go a bit deeper than that. So just a few things there that I think we need to think about if we are going to even consider 3690 attempting to make this compulsory. I would take the position that absolutely we need to engage the young people – and obviously they have got the vote at 16 – but I do not think this is the vehicle, in my view, to try and engage them by making it a compulsory subject in the schools. So on that basis I think that, yes, if it was more by free choice, or something like that was going around it, that might be a consideration. But on this occasion I will support the Minister 3695 for Education and I would encourage the Court to do so.

______2228 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

The President: Hon. Member for Douglas North, Mr Peake.

Mr Peake: Mr President, thank you very much. 3700 I will be supporting the original motion and I think it is a great opportunity to listen to students who actually come here and to listen to a young person with some ideas. I think it is a great idea to do that. I think we can all learn from the workforce and from people who are doing their jobs. So I do think the Department of Children and Education could try harder. 3705 Thank you very much. (Laughter and interjections)

The President: I call on the mover to reply. Mrs Beecroft.

Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Mr President. 3710 I hope Members will forgive me if I do not respond to everything, but I tend to get carried away listening to what people are saying and forget to make notes some of the time. One thing, before I start answering the various comments that have been made, is that actually I would like to point out that this was not a motion that I thought was a good idea and asked Patrick to research for me; I said to him, ‘What should we be doing as a parliament to 3715 engage with young people? How can we get young people to engage in politics?’ So it was all his idea and I give him all the credit for it. It is hardly likely that somebody of my age would actually dream of being so conceited as to think that I would know what is going through a young person’s head, which is why I asked the question. First of all, I would like to say to Mr Crookall that, as you said, there is no statutory provision, 3720 and I think this is the whole point – that we want everybody to have the same level of basic information on the system. And I think you said it went from 5 to 14 – well, it is very different to what we are asking for today. We are asking for from 14 onwards, because that is the age that they can take in the information, ready to cast their vote at whatever happens to be the next election after that date 3725 I am not being dismissive of any of the good work that the Department of Education and Children do, but 14 to 16, particularly if there is going to be an election just when that person turns 16, is the age when we need them to be informed about how it works. We are not saying that they should be informed of how to vote, or anything else; we are saying teach them the system. 3730 Mr Watterson said that he was powerless, so he is not quite sure where the power of politics comes. Well, Mr Watterson, at the end of the very last motion of this parliament I am sorry that you feel so powerless, but that is not really the young people’s fault. And academic politics, I would agree with him, can disengage young people, and I do not think anybody is suggesting that they should be discussing Plato or Machiavelli – it certainly was 3735 not included in the motion or in the idea. It is basic Manx politics, the basic system that we are all operating under. There are opportunities, I will agree with Mr Watterson and others, for our young people to engage, but it is a fact that only a small minority do so. And it is the bigger majority out there who are disengaged. They do not understand what we are about and they do not understand 3740 what politics has to offer them. I really feel that that is a sad state of affairs. Minister Gawne referred to the mess that is the political system on the Isle of Man and maybe they would be better off knowing how it worked. Well, I would suggest that maybe they need to know how it works, because they are the ones who are going to be in charge of it in the future. Maybe we should teach them how it works, and then they will push to have the changes 3745 made that will make it not a mess and will make it a better system – that is, of course, if we do not listen to them. And don’t we owe it to everybody to know how the system works? It is not just the favoured few or the few who take an interest or have parents who will engender that interest; it is ______2229 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

everybody; everybody should know. There is nowhere else in the world that operates the way 3750 we do. If we do not teach it to them, who is going to do that? Mr Turner, I would like to thank you for your support. You are absolutely right, it does not tie the Department of Education into anything specific. That is why it was left in the format that it is. This is a principle. We are not saying that it should be taught from nine to 12 every Wednesday or anything like that; we would not be so presumptuous. This is a principle that it 3755 should be taught to everybody. I do think that 14 is the right age, and I agree with Mr Turner on that; it absolutely is. At the minimum it gives our young people two years to absorb how the system works. Hopefully, when they are armed with that knowledge they will start watching what we are doing – which I do think they need to do, because the decisions we make are going to affect them for an awful lot 3760 longer than they will affect us. If it just engenders that interest, so that when we go knocking on their doors asking for their votes they will be encouraged to question us and challenge us and say, ‘What are you going to do about this?’ or ‘I believe in this – what are your thoughts on it?’ … I am delighted whenever a young person challenges me like that at their door, I really am, because we should be answerable to them, we should acknowledge what they are saying. 3765 Mr Cregeen, I thank you for your support as well, very much so, but I am going to resist the temptation to comment on the difference between a trip to the Wildlife Park and Tynwald. (Several Members: Go on!) Shall I? (Laughter and interjection) Mr Singer, I do thank you so much for your support. As Mr Karran said, you summed it up really excellently. Our job is to prepare the Island for their future, and they need to be informed 3770 about how we are doing so as well – and the only way they are going to be informed about how we are shaping things is if we engage with them, if they stop feeling that politics is something that adults do maybe somewhere over there, that it affects every single thing. People who go to Junior Tynwald … I think it is wonderful. All these different initiatives are wonderful, but it is touching only the minority of our young people, and that is not good enough. 3775 It is great for the ones who do so, but there are just so many more who do not even have the opportunity, who are not encouraged, whatever the reasons, and it is them that we really do need to be reaching out to and arming them with the information that they can take into the future and hopefully shape the Island – and do a better job, actually, than we are doing ourselves. That is what you want for future generations. You teach your children how to do 3780 things so they can go on and do better than you. You always want them to do better than you, (A Member: Hear, hear.) and that is what we should be doing. Mr Henderson, I thank you for your support as well, and you are right, it is not just about having fun in primary school and it does need to be at a deeper level. You are also right as well when you say ‘What is the most important country in the world?’ That really resonated with me 3785 when you said that, that the first thing you should say is ‘the Isle of Man’, and you should say it with pride and you should say it with knowledge and understanding of exactly what we have. Mr Thomas predictably asked me some end-of-term questions: requisition meetings for 16- and 17-year-olds, the practicality. I do not think I ever mentioned requisition meetings, actually. I was talking about teaching it in schools, in classes, with about 30 in each class, not 3,000 at a 3790 time. I think it would be wonderful if the hustings could be organised for our youth, I really do. One of the best requisition meetings – hustings, whatever you want to call it, question time – I have ever been to was at Ballakermeen at the last election. I will tell you what: those kids are so sharp and their thinking has not been tunnelled. As our thinking tends to shrink, they have no restrictions on their thinking. They think outside the box, and my God, they hit you with the 3795 ideas and questions as well, and I thought it was absolutely brilliant. Mr Thomas also asked me about the hierarchy. Well, I am not sure that that would be for me to say in what hierarchy other things should be added, because I am just arguing for the Manx political system and Manx politics to be added. That is my hierarchy today. That is my most important mission today. I am quite happy to listen to suggestions of other things, if other

______2230 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

3800 Members want to bring motions on other things that they would like adding to the curriculum, but that is not what I am here for today. Mr Karran: I thank him for his support and for seconding me. He is absolutely right: we have a responsibility to the next generation and we are not fulfilling it at the moment, we really are not, as evidence is showing. If we were fulfilling our obligation to the next generation, they would 3805 understand what we are doing, they would know what we are doing, and I am not saying they would be interested in everything but they would certainly be interested in an awful lot more than they are and they would be very much interested in voting, because they would understand that by casting their votes they are shaping their futures. I think Mr Hall misunderstood it, because he started talking about teaching it in primary and 3810 secondary, and that was not even what was in the motion. He talked about teachers being reluctant to teach politics and there being a bias. Well, I do not think that is an issue, because we are not asking them to teach our young people how to vote or who to vote for, we are asking them to teach the facts: what is the Legislative Council; what is the House of Keys; what is Tynwald? That is what we are asking them: to teach the basic stuff that every child should leave 3815 school knowing. I thank Mr Peake for his support. If I have missed anybody out or any questions or any comments, I do apologise. I got carried away listening a bit too much and did not make enough notes, so forgive me. I beg to move. 3820 The President: Hon. Members, the motion is that set out at Item 49 in the name of Mrs Beecroft: that Tynwald is of the opinion that the Manx political system and Manx politics should be a compulsory subject in schools from the age of 14. To that, we have an amendment in the name of Mr Crookall. I put the amendment first. 3825 Those in favour of the amendment, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it.

A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:

In the Keys – Ayes 15, Noes 7

FOR AGAINST Mr Bell Mrs Beecroft Mr Boot Mr Cregeen Mr Cannan Mr Joughin Mr Gawne Mr Karran Mr Hall Mr Peake Mr Harmer Mr Ronan Mr Malarkey The Deputy Speaker Mr Quayle Mr Quirk Mr Robertshaw Mr Shimmin Mr Skelly Mr Teare Mr Thomas Mr Watterson

The Speaker: Mr President, voting in the Keys is 15 votes for and 7 against.

In the Council – Ayes 5, Noes 3

______2231 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

FOR AGAINST Mr Anderson Mr Henderson Mr Coleman The Lord Bishop Mr Corkish Mr Turner Mr Cretney Mr Crookall

The President: In the Council, 5 votes for and 3 against. The amendment therefore carries. I put the motion as amended. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. 3830 A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:

In the Keys – Ayes 22, Noes 0

FOR AGAINST Mrs Beecroft None Mr Bell Mr Boot Mr Cannan Mr Cregeen Mr Gawne Mr Hall Mr Harmer Mr Joughin Mr Karran Mr Malarkey Mr Peake Mr Quayle Mr Quirk Mr Robertshaw Mr Ronan Mr Shimmin Mr Skelly Mr Teare The Deputy Speaker Mr Thomas Mr Watterson

The Speaker: Mr President, the voting in the Keys is 22 votes for and none against.

In the Council – Ayes 8, Noes 0

FOR AGAINST Mr Anderson None Mr Coleman Mr Corkish Mr Cretney Mr Crookall Mr Henderson The Lord Bishop Mr Turner

The President: In the Council, 8 for and none against. The motion therefore carries.

______2232 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

Thanks to Members for their parliamentary conduct

The President: Hon. Members, astonishingly, we have reached the end of our Order Paper – 3835 Mr Malarkey: Through your management, Mr President.

Mr Henderson: Hear, hear.

3840 The President: – a very heavy Order Paper, thanks in main to your good selves. Your co- operation and an element of self-discipline in length of contributions has certainly helped and has made my baptism of fire somewhat easier. We have carried out our parliamentary duties with diligence and vigour, not just at this sitting but, I believe, over the last five years’ sittings – a very challenging five years, and usually all of us 3845 bearing the heavy weight of expectation of what can actually be achieved. We are here, of course, to debate differences of opinion; that is our role, to do so robustly in different ways – most of the time, in the main, with mutual respect, which is as it should be. But ultimately we are here not for ourselves but for the people of –

3850 [From the Clerk’s mobile phone: ‘Hello, darling.’] (Laughter)

Mr Robertshaw: Priceless! Absolutely priceless!

The President: Not forgetting our wives and families, (Members: Hooray!) (Laughter and 3855 applause) who often bear the brunt (Laughter) (Mr Quirk: Hear, hear.) of our political enthusiasm and commitment. (Interjection by Mr Corkish)

Tribute to Mr P Karran MHK and thanks for parliamentary service

The President: Hon. Members, this is the last sitting of this Court before the General Election and it is not long now until the dissolution of the House of Keys on 11th August. Four Members 3860 have indicated their intention to stand down at that election. Peter Karran, Hon. Member for Onchan, perhaps defies conventional description, but as a parliamentarian for more than 30 years he has been a fighter and a champion of causes he sincerely believes in, and he has exploited with skill every opportunity open to him to speak out fearlessly in pursuit of his political objectives, whether that be the use of Questions, motions or 3865 the promotion of legislation. Peter was elected first as Member in a by-election for the old Middle constituency in 1985, and since then, consistently topping the polls, his constituents have returned him a further six times. He came here when he was 24 and would appear to have lost none of his youthful energy with the passing of the years, or in fact to have aged at all, unlike the rest of us, who have, from 3870 time to time, been subject of his verbal onslaughts. He has served constituents and people who have not been constituents; he has served in Government as Member for Health and Chairman of the Water Authority; he has been a Minister for a short period; he has started a political party. Often, he has gone charging over the cliff, leaving behind who might have been his sympathisers, and I have told him this to his face in the past, and he has put his – 3875 Mr Karran: It’s putting your head above the kerb.

______2233 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

The President: Unfortunately, when you say you have put your head above the kerb it implies you are in the gutter! (Laughter) I know that is not what you meant. 3880 And now his white elephants have come home to roost, (Laughter) (Two Members: Hear, hear.) because he is leaving us. He has made a remarkable contribution to political life and to the Isle of Man. Peter, we thank you and we wish you well in the future. [Members applauded]

3885 Several Members: Hear, hear.

Tribute to Hon. J P Shimmin MHK and thanks for parliamentary service

The President: John Philip Shimmin was elected to West Douglas in 1996 out of the classroom and as a union official. He has successfully contested four elections and has spent, aside from being Chairman of the Post Office, 14 years’ as a Minister – wide experience: Minister for Transport, Home Affairs, DoLGE, DEFA and Economic Development. 3890 He, I think, will be particularly remembered for the fact that while you can take John Shimmin out of the school room, you cannot take the schoolmaster out of John Shimmin. I do not just say that flippantly, because there are many people walking the streets of the Isle of Man today as adults and middle-aged people – (Laughter) if I can put it that way – who acknowledge John Shimmin as having been a major inspiration to them early in life. Certainly his gift of 3895 oratory, seen in action so often in this Chamber, and his command of the room and the respect in which he is held by many people outside … Without question, you have chosen to go at a time when you have an awful lot more to give (Mr Quirk and Mr Corkish: Hear, hear.) to this place, but it has been your decision, and a lot more you will give in different directions, no doubt. So, to you and Mo, our very best wishes for 3900 the future, and thank you. [Members applauded]

Tribute to Hon. W E Teare MHK and thanks for parliamentary service

The President: William Edward Teare – and it sounds a bit like I am about to pass a sentence (Laughter) – better known as Eddie, came here having had almost a full working lifetime in banking. He came here in 2004, at a by-election in Ayre, in succession to Edgar Quine, and despite the initial disadvantage of sitting next to me and next to David Cannan on the back 3905 bench, went on, despite early attempts at indoctrination, to greater things. I think it was in DHSS, when I was Minister, you joined and it was your first Government post, in charge of Social Security – and, my word, your financial acumen became very apparent then. You went on to fight successfully elections in 2006 and 2011, serving during all your time here variously as DHSS Minister until 2010, as Education Minister from then until 2011, and of course 3910 since then as Treasury Minister. You were also Chairman of the MEA at a very critical time, when you put in, unpaid, very long hours and helped turn that body around. You have been known, I think, as a prodigious worker of long hours, and Steady Eddie has been your nickname, but certainly within the business community you have earned terrific respect, as you have done internationally in the way you have presented the Isle of Man, not 3915 least to finance ministers at very important gatherings. You have also, sadly, paid somewhat of a price for being in public life, with Irene your wife, with the appalling anonymous threats that were made. Justice at least has been done on that ______2234 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

score, but we must always remember, Hon. Members, all of us are subject too often to anonymous comment and misplaced comment 24/7 by the modern phenomenon that is social 3920 media. Freedom of speech is a very special privilege and is not something that should be abused in a way that makes people suffer, particularly personally, and those of us who venture into public life and politics would make a plea for greater understanding by those who would resort to anonymous comment, and particularly when it leads to distressing threats. So, Eddie, as you leave for retirement with Irene, our best wishes and thanks for all you have 3925 done. [Members applauded]

Tribute to Mr Z Hall MHK and thanks for parliamentary service

The President: Lastly, Zac Hall, you have been the shortest serving of the four Members I am mentioning, and you have chosen to leave us after a mere five years. We will never know what you might have gone on to do and achieve in this place, but you have taken, I know, particular pride in your constituency work and your help to individuals. I served with you on the Select 3930 Committee on Broadcasting, which was your first parliamentary work, and noticed the way you really got enthusiastically into the subject. And there we are. You are going to resume your career as an airline pilot. With Emma you have a young family and you have a long number of years, we trust, ahead of you – and who knows, you might come back older and wiser at some point, but we do wish you 3935 and your family all the very best. [Members applauded]

Good wishes to Members seeking re-election and thanks to Tynwald staff

The President: To those seeking re-election, my very best wishes for whatever the future may hold. There is no doubt that what motivates you is public service to the Manx nation and the people. That is what motivates you to stand for office. What else could it be? It is not the easy 3940 hours; it is not the pay, despite what is perceived; it is not an easy life; it is not for the admiration of the general public or the media. What motivates you is public service and to do your best for people, and I think that is true of the great majority of candidates who will be standing this September. As I said in the House of Keys, this country requires men and women, and especially women, 3945 of vision and passion to give public service, and especially now in the … Every period of five years is said to be a challenging period of five years – the next five will certainly be a challenge. Do not be afraid to come forward as candidates and to serve and have the thrill of serving and representing the people in the highest Court of the land. Lastly, Hon. Members, it would be remiss if I were not to thank the staff of Tynwald: the 3950 Clerks; the Seneschal, the messengers and the guards who look after us so well; and the staff in the general office for their administrative support and all the service that we often take for granted but which they give to us; and, of course, our retiring Chaplain, Bill Martin, to whom tribute has been paid in the Keys but I do so also from the Court of Tynwald. Most of us are in for a very busy time in the weeks ahead, but please take the opportunity to 3955 have at least some rest and recreation and quality time with your families. Thank you, Hon. Members.

______2235 T133 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 21st JULY 2016

The Council will now withdraw and leave the House of Keys to transact such business as Mr Deputy Speaker may place before it.

The Council withdrew.

House of Keys

Good wishes to Members of the House

The Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, that brings us to the end of the last session of Tynwald. 3960 The next session will be, obviously, after the election at the beginning of the new session, so may I also wish those who are leaving here for the last time very best wishes for whichever way you travel; and for those now going out on the hustings, I do not think I can really wish you good luck, but I can say follow your dreams.

The House adjourned at 5.56 p.m.

______2236 T133