Printed (by Authority) by CORRIE Ltd., 48 Bucks Road, Douglas, Isle of Man. REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF HOUSE OF KEYS Douglas, Tuesday, 5th March 1996 at 10.00 a.m. Present: the same as allowing a free vote as in the great majority of The Speaker (the Hon J C Cain) (Douglas West); cases Council decisions are arrived at by consensus and in Mr A R Bell and Hon T R A Groves (Ramsey); Mr R E fact are unanimous. Quine OBE (Ayre); Mr J D Q Cannan (Michael); Hon H The wording of this particular question is both general Hannan (Peel); Mr WA Gilbey (Glenfaba); Mr S C Rodan and hypothetical, general in the sense that every member (Garff); Mr P Karran, Hon R K Corkill and Mr J R of the Council of Ministers and every Member of the House Kniveton (Onchan); Hon B May and Mr E A Crowe of Keys has constituents who are vitally affected by the (Douglas North); Messrs A C Duggan and D C Cretney siting of the incinerator and the implementation of an (Douglas South); Messrs P W Kermode and R P Braidwood efficient waste disposal strategy, hypothetical in the sense (Douglas East); Mr A F Downie (Douglas West); Hon J A that no site is referred to in this particular question. If and Brown (Castletown); Hon D J Gelling (Malew and Santon); when we get to any resolution concerning the siting of an Hon M R Walker CBE LLD (hc), Mr J Corrin and Hon N incinerator we will, all of us, members of the Council of Q Cringle (Rushen); with Prof T StJ N Bates, Secretary of the House. Ministers or not, need to look carefully at the specifics of the site in order to form a view on the proposal. However, it may be helpful to the hon. member if I confirm that collective responsibility as applied to the Council of The Chaplain took the prayers. Ministers has always allowed a minister with an overriding constituency interest to dissent in a responsible way from LEAVE OF ABSENCE a Council decision. The Speaker: Now, hon. members, leave of absence Mr Gilbey: Mr Speaker, can we therefore be quite clear has been granted today to the hon. member for Middle, that a member of the Council of Ministers would be able Mr North. to vote freely to represent his constituents regarding the motion which is set down later on this order paper? Mr Walker: Mr Speaker, I do not think I have anything INCINERATOR SITING — FREE VOTE to add to the statement I have just made. — QUESTION BY MR GILBEY The Speaker: Thank you. The hon. member for The Speaker: We have eight questions for oral answer Glenfaba. on our agenda and I call upon the hon. member for Glenfaba to ask the first of these question. Mr Gilbey: Mr Speaker, it does seem that we should get a straight answer to a straight question. Would a Mr Gilbey: Mr Speaker, I beg to ask the Chief Minister: member of the Council of Ministers be entitled to have a free vote in respect of the resolution in the name of the Would members of the Council of Ministers whose hon. member for Onchan which is coming later on this constituents are vitally affected be allowed a free vote on order paper? any resolution concerning the siting of an incinerator? Mr Walker: Mr Speaker, what I said was it may be The Speaker: The Chief Minister to reply. helpful to the hon. member if I confirm that collective responsibility as applied by the Council of Ministers has Mr Walker: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The normal always, nothing new, allowed a minister with an overriding practice is for the Council of Ministers to determine its constituency interest to dissent in a responsible way from attitude to particular issues collectively and to abide by a Council decision. (Mr Cretney interjecting) If there then and support collectively the democratic decision taken. The is a member who feels he has an overriding constituency Council is supported in that approach by the Tynwald interest, of course he is allowed a free vote. I have said resolution of 22nd February 1989. In practice this is usually that on a number of occasions. Leave of Absence Incinerator Siting — Free Vote — Question by Mr Gilbey K312 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 5th MARCH 1996 INCINERATOR AT STONEY MOUNTAIN SITE - Mr Groves: Mr Speaker, it has never been my habit to ROCK EXCAVATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE reply on broad-brush figures when spending any money, WORKS — QUESTION BY MR GILBEY least of all taxpayers' money. I prefer detailed investigations that produce meaningful costs and facts. The Speaker: We move on to question number 2 which, again, is in the name of the hon. member for Glenfaba. INCINERATOR AT STONEY MOUNTAIN SITE - Mr Gilbey: Mr Speaker, I beg to ask the Minister for PROXIMITY PRINCIPLE AND SUSTAINABLE Local Government and the Environment: DEVELOPMENT — QUESTION BY MR GILBEY (1) How much rock will have to be excavated at Stoney Mountain to provide a suitable site for the proposed The Speaker: We move on to question number 3 which incinerator and associated facilities, and what is again is in the name of the hon. member for Glenfaba. the budget cost for this work; and Mr Gilbey: Mr Speaker, I beg to ask the Minister for (2) what are the budget costs for the improvement and Local Government and the Environment: introduction of the following infrastructure works: Do you accept that the proposal to site an (a) upgrading of the existing B35 and B36 country incinerator at Stoney Mountain is not in accordance with roads and the construction of a new access road the current best practice in terms of the accepted proximity from the A3; principle and sustainable development which state that incinerators should be near to the source of waste and (b) the necessary improved water supply; where energy can be efficiently recovered and that all developments should conserve resources during the life of (c) the necessary improved electricity supply; their operation? (d) the construction of a suitable sewerage system? The Speaker: The Minister for Local Government and the Environment to reply. The Speaker: I call upon the Minister for Local Government and the Environment to reply. Mr Groves: Mr Speaker, my understanding of the proximity principle is that as far as practicable each nation Mr Groves: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The amount of state should deal with all of its wastes and not seek to rock to be excavated at Stoney Mountain to provide for dispose of it into or to other nation states. A further the proposed waste treatment facilities has clearly not yet requirement of the principle is that the nearest suitable been fully assessed. This and other technical details will facility to the source of the waste is used in order to avoid be addressed and would be addressed prior to a detailed unnecessary transportation. planning inquiry. When seeking to build a new waste treatment facility Costs of all the elements associated with the proposed many principles have to be considered including the development will be known following receipt of tenders. proximity principle and sustainability. The best technical Full cost implications of the scheme would then be brought solution, however, is not necessarily always the best first to the Treasury for concurrence and subsequently to practical solution. Many other factors have to be regarded this hon. House and to Tynwald Court for approval. Thank in the selection and choice of a site. you, Mr Speaker. I would point out, for example, that Stoney Mountain Mr Gilbey: Mr Speaker, doesn't the hon. minister have is in a fairly central location, slightly favouring the south, any idea of these various costs and if he has not, is it and therefore a good balance for the north, south and west responsible to involve the government and objectors in of the Island. Although in some minds Stoney Mountain costs of well over £200,000 in an inquiry before obtaining might seem extremely remote from Douglas in terms of these costs and being able to assess the economic viability the proximity principle, it is within easy reach. of the site? The proposed waste treatment facilities represent a huge improvement upon the present waste transportation costs Mr Groves: Mr Speaker, I regret that today it is not and impacts overall and will for the first time seek to possible to determine meaningful costs on any major produce significant quantities of energy. The proposal scheme without detailed investigation of the site or sites therefore does take us towards sustainability and improves upon which one thinks one could sit such a scheme. It is our self-reliance, thereby complying with the spirit of these 41t absolutely proper to make detailed investigations in order fundamental principles. Thank you, Mr Speaker. to arrive at costs which are meaningful. Thank you, Mr 4. Speaker. Mr Gilbey: Would not the hon. minister, Mr Speaker, agree that although he may be going a tiny way towards Mr Gilbey: Mr Speaker, would the hon. minister accept meeting the principles, he is not going very far and that that undoubtedly, taking a broad-brush picture, these costs the sustainability principle as set out by the Royal must run into many millions of pounds? Commission on Environmental Improvements stated that Incinerator at Stoney Mountain Site — Rock Excavation and Infrastructure Works — Question by Mr Gilbey Incinerator at Stoney Mountain Site — Proximity Principle and Sustainable Development — Question by Mr Gilbey HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 5th MARCH 1996 K313 it was desirable to recover as much energy as possible from (2) where is the residue disposed of; and incineration? • (3) how long is the proposed lifespan of the plant? Mr Groves: Yes, Mr Speaker, I am mindful of the words of Mao Tse Tung who said, 'A journey of a thousand miles The Speaker: I call again upon the Minister for Local begins with a single step.' We will, if we go to Stoney Government and the Environment to reply.