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. Mountain, be taking steps towards improving on the position we currently enjoy in terms of the two principles Mr Groves: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the that I refer to. Certainly, as I said in an earlier answer, the hon. member for this particular question which tends to best technical solution may not always be the most be lost sight of in the current argument and is a very practicable and it is the most practical and efficient and important issue also. economic and realistic that we should strive for as well. My department does not monitor the temperature of the incinerator or the content of the feedstock at Noble's Mr Kermode: A supplementary, Mr Speaker. Can I Hospital, however they are monitored by the operator as a remind the minister of another Mao Tse Tung, that is, his part of normal operating procedures. Chief Minister, who in a debate in 1988 in the hon. Tynwald My officers are currently in discussion with officers and Court said that an incinerator should be placed in an area representatives of the DHSS to provide for monitoring of where its vital resources could be utilised by the temperature, gaseous indicators of efficient combustion community? and proper working practices to include the control of feedstock as part of the proposed refurbishment and The Speaker: That does not require any form of answer upgrading of the facility programme. because it is a statement rather than a question that standing The inert residue is disposed of currently to the orders require. Ballacallow landfill site. Monitoring of the effects of the landfill operation at Ballacallow on groundwater have not Members: Hear, hear. indicated that this practice results in any unsatisfactory Mr Kermode: Mr Speaker, the question I asked was environmental impact at all. `Is he aware?' and that is not a statement, it is a question My department is currently in negotiation with the in my mind. Department of Health and Social Security to provide for this plant to be able to operate more satisfactorily than at The Speaker: Minister. present until such time as it is replaced by the proposed all-Island integrated incinerator. Its continuing operation, Mr Groves: If I was not aware of it before, Mr Speaker, although not entirely satisfactory, is in the long term I now am. unavoidable since there is no alternative route for the disposal of such clinical waste available on the Island. Mr Kermode: And you will he be aware of a lot more Export is not an option. Thank you, Mr Speaker. as time goes on. Mr Cretney: Is the minister aware that when the The Speaker: Hon. member, there is no need - incinerator plant adjacent to Noble's Hospital was upgraded (Laughter) it was on the basis that this would not be for the longer term and the longer we go on without making a decision Mr Groves: Do not spoil it, Phil. in respect of other facilities the more detrimental effects will come from this incinerator which is currently in place? The Speaker: I deprecate this business of calling across the chamber and would remind members that all remarks Mr Groves: Yes, Mr Speaker, the department and I are are to be made through the Chair. very well aware of this current problem at Noble's Hospital. The condition of the plant, the absolute urgency of the Members: Hear, hear. need to see that an incinerator facility is put in place which will also take clinical wastes that are currently burnt in Noble's Hospital and, I must say, other clinical wastes which currently are not incinerated but put to crude landfill NOBLE'S HOSPITAL— CLINICAL WASTE via domestic waste. It is very important. INCINERATOR — QUESTION BY MR CRETNEY

The Speaker: We move on to question number 4 and I call upon the hon. member for Douglas South, Mr Cretney. ISLE OF MAN POST OFFICE — HANDLING OF MAIL— QUESTION BY MR KNIVETON a Mr Cretney: Mr Speaker, I beg leave to ask the Minister a for Local Government and the Environment: The Speaker: We move on to question number 5 and I call upon the hon. member for Onchan, Mr Kniveton. (1) Does your department monitor the content, operating temperature and emission levels of the Mr Kniveton: Thank you, Mr Speaker, I beg leave to clinical waste incinerator at Noble's Hospital; ask the Chairman of the Isle of Man Post Office:

Noble's Hospital — Clinical Waste Incinerator — Question by Mr Cretney Isle of Man Post Office — Handling of Mail — Question by Mr Kniveton K314 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 5th MARCH 1996

(1) Do you have a five year plan for the future operation Office being a stronger organisation, committed to the of the Isle of Man Post Office and in particular the needs of the Island and the aspirations of its employees. handling of mail and, if so, what is it; The question of automated mail sorting is one which has been highlighted as an area for consideration. Without (2) are you considering automation- automatic sorting talking about the pros and cons of this potential - of all letter mail coming into the Island and going development it will remain up in the air and so once and off the Island; and, if so: for all we need to examine the experience elsewhere and see if this is one we would wish to follow or not. (3) what is the expected capital expenditure of new It has been suggested that for an investment of £1 million sorting machinery and when do you propose to ongoing savings of approximately £300,000 per annum introduce the system? could be possible. This view has yet to be evaluated and refined to the point where an objective assessment can be The Speaker: The Chairman of the Isle of Man Post made and this assessment, on my instruction, requires full Office Authority to reply. participation with staff and staff organisations and therefore it is not appropriate to fix a date for the introduction of an Mr Cretney: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Hon. members, as yet unspecified process. I take seriously the responsibilities which I have accepted The joint working parties being established are genuine on behalf of the people of the Isle of Man. (Mr Kermode: opportunities for employee input into the future of the Hear, hear.) One responsibility I have had since January business and who better than those on the ground, so many 1992 is that of Chairman of the Isle of Man Post Office of whom I personally regard as friends and colleagues, to and during that time a great deal of development has taken take advice from. place in the service provided and operational facilities. It has been suggested by one political mischief-maker On the mail side, at all parts of the Island, the staff have that the Post Office is in a mess or may be. Nothing could been relocated from Victorian conditions to decent work be further from the truth. The truth is that for the first time environments and in particular the sorting office at the a five-year business plan has been produced which Cooil resulted in a major saving of some 50 per cent on identifies real opportunities for business development original projected costs for the taxpayer. At the same time ahead. I intend, during my period of office, to face those the Post Office has returned substantial revenues every challenges with the co-operation of the staff so that the year to the Isle of Man exchequer and our staff have been business comes out in a stronger position with enhanced remunerated accordingly. long-term job security. No business operation can stand still and so the Post I would like to take the opportunity to say to our Office Board has required the preparation of a five-year employees that I understand concerns and uncertainty business plan to map out the future and ensure long-term following the chief executive's circulated letter to all staff job security. This is the first time such a plan has been of 15th February 1996. An important part of this process prepared and it is certainly timely, given a background of will be an open meeting for all staff on Thursday 14th increased challenges for the Post Office. These obviously March 1996 where there will be a presentation and an include, on the mail side, the developments in fax, E-mail, overview of the business followed by questions. After that private couriers and so on. there will be an opportunity for individual presentations During the preparation of the plan and in conjunction and discussion with each part of the business. When these with advice recently received from our chief accountant it have taken place the joint working parties will be has become apparent that the previously buoyant financial established to take matters forward. returns of the past several years are set to be more I would once again wish to emphasise the point in the challenged in the five years ahead. Indeed the current letter from the chief executive, that it is the Post Office financial projections for the five years forward, in the view Board's policy that there will be no compulsory of the board, require the Post Office organisation, from redundancies. With goodwill and mature consideration top to bottom, to examine our cost base if we are to avoid the longer term prospects of declining service standards, from all involved the Post Office will emerge as a stronger, increased prices, reduced profits and, most important, the fitter organisation capable of meeting the challenges of job security in the longer term of those many young people the 21st century. who have embarked on a career with the Post Office and who have taken on mortgage commitments and so on Mr Kniveton: Mr Speaker, a supplementary question, accordingly. please. Just to confirm, I do thank the chairman for that Nothing would have been easier for me in 1996 than to very full statement and I think at this stage, just to confirm have avoided this issue, buried my head in the sand and what I think we have actually heard this morning, I would left the next administration to consider the future with a ask him can he give a categorical assurance that there will substantially reduced time scale for joint discussion. I definitely be no compulsory redundancies in the workforce believe it to be very important that the joint working parties and all members of the CWU can be assured that their which are to be established to examine the issues for all jobs are secure even if perhaps overtime payments are sections of the business h'ave sufficient time to give proper reduced? I believe in so doing, Mr Chairman, you will go consideration of the challenges and the way both sides will a long way to quell the possible problems which will lie together face the future with a joint objective of the Post ahead of you.

Isle of Man Post Office — Handling of Mail — Question by Mr Kniveton HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 5th MARCH 1996 K315

The Speaker: The Chairman of the Post Office the time scale to it but I am hopeful that there will be a Authority to reply. very clear way forward following the departmental • conference and my department's subsequent discussions Mr Cretney: Mr Speaker, I have on a number of upon it. occasions, both today and before today in correspondence with the staff organisations and the staff individually, made Mr Cretney: I would like to, first of all, if I could, Mr • my pledge and promise that there will be no compulsory Speaker, thank the minister for his helpful response. I redundancies in anything that comes out of the examination would like to also ask him when the further consideration which is going to be undertaken to strengthen the business which he speaks about has been given, will he, given the for the future. importance of the subject, be prepared to make a statement to the House?

Mr Cringle: Yes, sir. SECONDARY EDUCATION IN EASTERN DISTRICT — QUESTION BY MR CRETNEY The Speaker: Thank you. The Speaker: We move on to question number 6 and I call upon the hon. member for Douglas South, Mr Cretney. SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS — QUIGGIN'S Mr Cretney: A ham sandwich today! Mr Speaker, I YARD — QUESTION BY MR KARRAN beg leave to ask the Minister for Education: The Speaker: We move on to question number 7 and I Given that the department will have up to an call upon the hon. member for Onchan, Mr Karran. additional 900 secondary school pupils by the year 2001 and that the capacity of the eastern district secondary Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, I beg to ask a schools is already over or past its optimum, when will your member of the Department of Transport, Mr Kniveton: department decide the future form of secondary education in this area? In view of the fact that your department's policy has changed from an all-Island single sewage treatment The Speaker: And I in my turn call upon the Minister plant to one for Onchan and Douglas and other plants for for Education to reply. different areas of the Island, will your department investigate the area known as Quiggin's Yard and the Mr Cringle: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am grateful and surrounding area for such facilities? indeed thank the hon. member for placing this question on the Keys question agenda paper because it does give me The Speaker: I call upon the member of the Department the opportunity not only to explain to the hon. member of Transport, the hon. member for Onchan, Mr Kniveton, but also to other members that the Department of Education to reply. has been considering the future form of secondary education in the eastern sector and the whole of the Isle of Mr Kniveton: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am pleased to Man for some time. I say this because the hon. member have the opportunity of answering the question tabled by refers to a figure of 900 secondary school pupils by the the hon. member for Onchan. It cannot be overemphasised year 2001 and that is a figure which has been put forward that the Department of Transport's policy has not changed by the department since the early 1990s in relation to 2001 from that which was approved by Tynwald at the April as a projected figure and it is a projected figure which is 1995 sitting. At that sitting Tynwald reconfirmed the IRIS across the whole of the Isle of Man and not just within the master plan as a whole Island strategy and endorsed the eastern sector. objectives of that strategy. The department is not only The department has arranged before the end of April, progressing with Douglas and Onchan but is also in fact it will take place on 24th and 25th April, a two-day committed to all of the Island. Hon. members will be aware that contract 1 of the conference which will involve the department, the board, Douglas and Onchan stage commenced construction during senior managers in schools and representatives from the last summer. I am pleased to report that this contract is teaching associations and the business community. This currently on programme and within budget and will be conference is and will be addressed by eminent speakers completed by the end of the year. In the meantime, Mr representing the whole range of secondary education and Speaker, I am sure that you and hon. members and indeed it will lead, I am satisfied, to a positive indication of the many people associated with the tourist industry will be way forward for secondary education on the Island and happy to learn that whilst my department cannot be held again I stress that it is on the Island, not just within the to it, we are reasonably optimistic that the public walkway eastern sector. on the Loch Promenade between the War Memorial and Now, the hon. member also asks me, in the final part of opposite Regent Street will be reinstated and resurfaced his question, to put a time scale to the position because he in readiness for the arrival, at the beginning of the TT races says, 'when will your department decide the future form practice week, of all those motor cycles and vehicles which of secondary education in this area?' It is difficult to put are parked on that area each year.

Secondary Education in Eastern District — Question by Mr Cretney Sewage Treatment Plants — Quiggin's Yard — Question by Mr Karran K316 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 5th MARCH 1996

I have to acknowledge the great team spirit displayed the Douglas to Santon transmission main and to determine by everybody associated with contract 1 in their efforts to the most cost-effective option. There was no objective assist the tourist industry for 1996. regarding the question posed by the hon. member. What hon. members may not be aware of is that in line with the approved objectives of the strategy and the The Speaker: A number of members have caught my available finance the following works have been completed eye. I will call upon the hon. member for Ramsey, Mr Bell. within the current financial year: (1) Douglas and Onchan, the 1995-96 sewerage refurbishing programme at a value Mr Bell: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Could the hon. of 11 million, a continuation of the ongoing rehabilitation member for the department confirm what I understand him programme; (2) at Castletown the claddaghs pumping to have said in his answer, that the department is still station and storage tank which incorporates capacity for considering more than one treatment plant on the Island IRIS and also the Farrant's Way foul sewer; (3) at Foxdale outside of the Douglas area and if this is the case, can he to St John's sewerage scheme, completed; in addition tell us when the decision will be made as to whether two schemes are under way at Peel where sewage refurbishment treatment plants will be brought on stream or not, whether in Stanley Road is taking place; Port Erin, sewer the second treatment plant will be in Kirk Michael, as has refurbishment phase 4; Balthane, pumping station and been considered for quite some time, and following on gravity sewer - from that, when the remedial work will be done in the Ramsey area to link into IRIS? The Speaker: Hon. member, I wonder if you would resume your seat just for one moment. The question that Mr Kniveton: Mr Speaker, at the present moment talks is on the agenda is reasonably specific and it says, 'will are taking place with Ramsey Commissioners who are the your department investigate the area known as Quiggin's sewerage authority for that town. At the present moment Yard and the surrounding area for such facilities?' and I they are ongoing and I am not in a position to disclose at would just say that it would appear to me, whilst it is up to this stage how far they have reached. department's to determine as to how they answer questions, As far as the north of the Island is concerned, again I that you may be going outside the general area of the have indicated that at this stage there is only one site for a question that is on the agenda paper. Please continue, sir. treatment plant, although consideration is being given to a further site. Mr Kniveton: Right, sir, thank you. I will continue by saying that the problems associated with the treatment of The Speaker: Thank you. The hon. member for Rushen, sewage and its discharge are not peculiar to Douglas and Mr Corrin. Onchan. It is an all-Island problem but nevertheless, in accordance with the approved strategy approved by Mr Corrin: Mr Speaker, the hon. member has referred Tynwald and course of action to be pursued the Department to a single site and one trunk mains system serving the of Transport has to address whether there should be one or whole Island. Can he tell this House what is the estimated two treatment sites. The land at Meary Veg already has cost of this project, please? been designated for use as a sewage treatment site. My department believes there is no necessity to consider any Mr Kniveton: I regret, sir, I am not in a position to do other sites in Douglas. so in my capacity as a member.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. The hon. The Speaker: Thank you. The hon. member for member for Onchan, Mr Karran. Michael.

Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, would the hon. Mr Cannan: Will the member of the department member not agree with me that even allowing for the cost confirm that a sewage disposal plant for the north of the of the site at something like £3'/4 million at the present Island is not to be sited in Kirk Michael as it bears no time, if it can cut back 80 per cent of the £1,500 that is relevance to the north of the Island? proposed that it will cost to run the IRIS scheme by pumping the sewage out to Meary Veg it makes economic Mr Cretney: Jurby! (Laughter) sense for his department to be looking for a more realistic place where the majority of the sewage can be treated Mr Kniveton: I can confirm, sir, I believe it is not Kirk without the massive costs that have been already identified Michael. for the pumping implications that are something in the region of £1'14 million and that was at a couple of years Mr Cannan: Thank you. ago's estimation? Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, would the member Mr Kniveton: Mr Speaker, in April 1995 the IRIS not agree with me that it is a missed opportunity to reduce project review and update was presented to Tynwald. In the pumping costs by something like 60 or 80 per cent by that project the objectives to progress the design and relocating the sewage treatment plant from Meary Veg to planning application for an Island treatment plant at Meary a more suitable site the likes of Quiggin's Yard or Veg was agreed, also to investigate the route options for somewhere on that level? And allowing for the fact that it

Sewage Treatment Plants — Quiggin's Yard — Question by Mr Karran HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 5th MARCH 1996 K317

has already been recognised some time ago that the annual The Speaker: Thank you. Does any member wish to 4Ip running costs for pumping alone of the present system are speak to the motion? If not, I will put the motion as read something in the region of £11/4 million per annum in out by the hon. member for Garff to the House. Will all energy requirement costs alone, surely his department those in favour please say aye; to the contrary say no. The should be looking at this site as a way of cutting down the ayes have it. The ayes have it. I call upon the hon. member horrendous legacy of energy required in order to pursue for Garff. an IRIS project if it is to go ahead? Mr Rodan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg leave to ask Mr Kniveton: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I can only again a member of the Department of Transport: confirm that the subject brought about by my colleague from Onchan, Mr Karran, was not included in the What consultation has your department had with objectives of the IRIS project review and update presented the UK Department of the Environment regarding its to Tynwald in April 1995. adopted strategy of discharging preliminary or primary treated effluent through long sea outfalls in specified Mr Quine: Given that it is less than 12 months since coastal areas of England and Wales? your department came forward and obtained approval for IRIS on the basis of a single treatment plant, what The Speaker: Again I turn to Mr Kniveton, a member extraordinary events have taken place in the last 12 months of the Department of Transport, to reply. to cause you now to reconsider your decision? Isn't that rather inconsistent of the department? Mr Kniveton: Yes. Thank you, Mr Speaker. The setting of environmental and other standards is not a matter for Mr Kniveton: At this stage, sir, I would prefer to leave my department, the Department of Transport. Quite rightly, this question raised by the member for Ayre to my in my view, this is a matter for the Department of Local department and I undertake that it will be submitted in Government and the Environment of which the hon. writing not only to Mr Quine but to other members of this member for Garff is a member. (Laughter) hon. House and also to the press. Mr Cannan: Does he know what is going on in his The Speaker: Finally I call upon the hon. member for own department? Garff. Mr Kniveton: With regard to the standards which apply Mr Rodan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Will the hon. to the IRIS master plan, these were promoted by DoLGE member convey to his minister that all possible sites in the and subsequently adopted by Tynwald resolution in March Douglas harbour area should be considered for a future 1990. Whether the Department of Local Government and primary treatment plant in case the same strategy that has the Environment had consultations with their counterparts been adopted by the UK Department of the Environment in the UK when determining standards before being in order to comply with European urban waste water submitted to Tynwald would need to be addressed to directives is eventually adopted by Tynwald as well? DoLGE. Whilst my department, the Department of Transport, Mr Kniveton: Yes, sir, I undertake to convey that and the seven local drainage authorities in the Island are message to my minister. in effect the polluters and could have a vested financial interest in promoting the lowest possible standards, the The Speaker: Thank you. department and the local drainage authorities have adopted a responsible attitude towards environmental standards for the discharge of untreated sewage or treated effluent to EFFLUENT — CONSULTATION WITH UK our coastal waters. The standards promoted by DoLGE in DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT 1990 have therefore been fully endorsed. — QUESTION BY MR RODAN In evidence to the public inquiry regarding the rezoning of Meary Veg farm the Director of Public Health, Dr The Speaker: Now, hon. members, we have passed the Wright, stated that in the longer term the sewage treatment witching hour of half past ten. Do you wish to move a should be instituted which would hopefully allow all the motion, sir? Island's beaches to obtain European blue flag standards. He further concluded that it would be a sad day if the Mr Rodan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to move: benefits of swimming in the sea were outweighed by the risk of becoming ill. Research is still growing but the links That standing order 43(2) be suspended to enable between gastrointestinal and upper respiratory symptoms the remaining question tabled for oral answer at this sitting and swimming in sea water contaminated by sewage are to be put. irrefutable. There were many remarks made in that evidence but The Speaker: Thank you. the remarks are consistent with the environmental strategy and approach adopted by officials from within the Mr Cretney: I beg to second, Mr Speaker. Department of Local Government and the Environment in

Effluent — Consultation with UK Department of the Environment — Question by Mr Rodan K318 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 5th MARCH 1996 their contacts with their counterparts in my department, rules which do not state you have one, two or three votes the Department of Transport. but it does refer to voting for more candidates than there are vacancies to be filled. This applies to a rejected ballot Mr Rodan: Mr Speaker, I do thank the hon. member paper. However, the election rules are clear: differential for his reply and for highlighting the need for a corporate voting depending on where you live, which means two approach in these matters. However, will the hon. member votes for some of the electorate, three votes for others and nonetheless convey to his minister the fact that since 1990 one for the electorate living in eight of our 24 the UK's Department of the Environment and the European constituencies. In other words, approximately 16,000 Union urban waste water directive both clearly state that persons would have one vote, approximately 20,000 primary treatment is sufficient for towns like Douglas and persons would have two votes and approximately 12,000 Onchan and that no further environmental benefit will persons would have three votes. So for approximately accrue from the provision of more costly additional 48,000 voters 92,000 votes could be cast by them but some treatment levels such as are proposed at Santon Head? would have more voting power than others. This cannot be equitable, fair or just. Mr Kniveton: Thank you, sir. I do undertake to convey I am not suggesting bringing back STV or changing that message to my minister, Mr North. constituencies at this time. I suggest this simple solution to a very important constitutional issue of representation The Speaker: Thank you. of the people, of democracy and government and the governed. I beg leave of this House to introduce a simple Mr Cretney: Don't shoot the messenger! Bill to amend section 22, schedule 2 to clarify that this hon. House's intention is that one person, one vote with The Speaker: That brings the eight questions for oral first-past-the-post is the voting system that should be used answer to a close. in the next House of Keys election. I beg to move.

The Speaker: Thank you. Do I have a seconder to the REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE motion, please? (AMENDMENT) BILL — LEAVE TO INTRODUCE — MOTION LOST Mr Cannan: Yes, Mr Speaker, I will second the motion and in doing so I have always consistently for the last 10 The Speaker: We turn to item 9 on the agenda and I years been of the principle that there should be one man, call upon the hon. member for Peel. one vote and one constituency.

Mrs Hannan: Thank you, Vainstyr Loayreyder. I rise Mr Cretney: One person, one vote. to seek leave of this hon. House to introduce a Bill to amend the Representation of the People Act 1995 and in doing so Mr Cannan: One person, I beg your pardon. One I invite this hon. House to confirm that in supporting the person, one vote and one constituency. And I have first-past-the-post voting system during the passage of this endeavoured over 10 years to bring in 24 single-seat Bill through this hon. House first-past-the-post also meant constituencies. I will not go through the arguments for that. one person, one vote. Should I be granted leave today only They are self-evident. This House debated them first in a small amendment is necessary to clarify section 22, 1987 when there was a 12-12 split, more recently in March schedule 2 of the Representation of the People Act 1995. 1994 when I noticed the hon. lady declined to support that In November this year the people of Man elect the next clause, and again in January 1995. However, in supporting House of Keys out of which will come the executive in her right to bring in this Bill I will indicate that in bringing the form of the Council of Ministers which will, with the Bill I will then seek to introduce a new clause for 24 Tynwald's consent, govern for the next five years, and in single seats. seeking leave to introduce I believe that the next House of Keys should be democratically elected, especially if we The Speaker: Now, does any member wish to speak? claim to be a democracy. A democracy is a system of The hon. member for Garff. government by the whole population usually through elected representatives. A democracy is also any Mr Rodan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wish to rise to organisation governed on democratic principles, that is, support the motion of the hon. member for Peel to introduce equality, which I contend can be achieved by one person, this Bill. Any Bill which restores to the Isle of Man one vote - equal voting for all: one person, one vote. I electorate a fair voting system and restores the democratic would go so far as to suggest that we are a democracy, and principle of one person, one vote, however many seats there in proposing an amendment to that Act, that we should be are in a constituency, instead of the present dog's breakfast governed by democratic principles of one person, one vote, of people having one, two or three votes, depending on an equitable, fair and just voting system for all to elect the where they live, is to be supported. next House of Keys which will sit in this House and in While the rest of the democratic world progresses to Tynwald into the next century, the 21st century. more democratic systems of proportional voting this House Let me clarify the position of the Representation of the recently made the inexplicable decision to revert to an People Act 1995. Section 22, schedule 2 contains voting outdated, although comfortably familiar, voting system,

Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill — Leave to Introduce — Motion Lost HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 5th MARCH 1996 K319

first past the post, which although well tried and well loved, single-seat and multi-seat constituencies. In multi-seat has the somewhat unfortunate feature of being often quite constituencies I believe it right that each voter should have unrepresentative of the people's actual wishes. the right to vote for the number of members in each If Mrs Hannan's Bill can again bring us the opportunity constituency. I will not therefore be voting for Mrs of selecting a system which makes most voters into actual Hannan's motion. electors and replace a system that is little better than betting on the horses, it will be to this House's credit to enable her Mr May: Mr Speaker, we have earlier in the life of this to do so. Thank you, Mr Speaker. House spent considerable time, as the hon. member for Douglas West has said, discussing the Representation of The Speaker: Hon. members, before we continue with the People Act. Indeed only recently in another place this debate I would remind you that the motion that is before regulations pertaining to that Act have been passed. you is seeking leave to introduce the Bill. Now, having Now, the hon. member suggests that this is a small Bill. said that I would also remind you that standing order It has already been suggested by the hon. member for 150(1)(b) clearly states, and I quote, that in moving the Michael that he would seek to further extend the provisions motion the member can specify the objects of the Bill and of that Bill, so it becomes quite apparent what will happen. it therefore must follow that those people who wish to I would question first and foremost the actual practicality participate in the debate must also be able to comment on of bringing into effect a Bill and actually implementing it the objects of the Bill but the primary purpose is to consider in time for the election which I personally do not feel is whether or not leave to introduce should be given and I possible, and secondly, if that is the case, then this issue just make that point to the House. The hon. member for should be left until the next House of Keys. It should not Douglas West, Mr Downie. be discussed this time. Considerable time has been spent by the House in discussing representation of the people. Mr Downie: Yes, Mr Speaker, hon. members, I support For better or for worse this House and another place have the mover's leave to introduce but I am a little concerned made their decision on that particular Bill and the that the member, when seeking leave, indicated that she provisions that are contained therein and I believe that they was going to introduce this simple Bill. I would just like should be left in situ for the forthcoming general election to remind hon. members of the way the Representation of and I will not be supporting the move to introduce. the People Bill was dealt with in such a simple form: it was with this House for some months. Mr Corkill: Just briefly, I will not duplicate what other Now, hon. members, the mover is a minister of this government and I know that there are a lot of Bills in the members have said but I will be opposing leave to legislative programme which I think are important for the introduce, Mr Speaker. The House before this House, I Isle of Man and in supporting the mover I would just like believe, was criticised by the public for spending too much to warn hon. members that we saw another simple Bill time on debating on how it was to re-elect itself five years come before this House only recently with regard to the hence. I do not believe this House should go down the Council of Ministers and when you see the amount of same route. We have had two Representation of the People amendments that came forward for that particular Bill I Bills, one successful, the one which has changed the voting honestly feel that this Representation of the People system but which was done in a democratic way. I accept (Amendment) Bill could finish having a similar sort of that decision. I would ask other hon. members to live by fate and have so many amendments added to it that I am that decision as well. afraid it would just be a waste of time. Thank you. If the Bill does get success and reaches the floor of this House I will be moving amendments to it in the same way Mr Corrin: Mr Speaker, whatever the merits of the as other members may wish to because I have strong proposal in terms of fairness or anything else I would feelings on boundary changes and that is another issue that question the ability of this House to give deliberation to has not been discussed as an element of representation of such an important issue with just 12 sittings left. (Mr the people. So it is a Bill which, if it surfaces, will be a Gilbey: Hear, hear.) Now, in between that time of course vehicle for numerous amendments, in the same way as a we have the Easter and the TT periods and so on and so previous Bill, and there is no possibility that this House forth and I would say - and there is an indication from the could in any way resolve the issue in the time left to it. It is hon. member Mr Cannan that he would put forward an down to the next group of elected representatives, if they amendment too for another matter - I would question that so wish, to take this issue on board. there is another constituency who are entitled to express views on such an important matter and that is the public Mr Kermode: Mr Speaker, I will be opposing the move outside. They are entitled to be consulted and not us do a today. We have, as hon. members have said, debated at • knee-jerk action in here during this short period of time to some length the Representation of the People Bill on a change what I have referred to in past attempts as the number of occasions. If it had been single-seat foundation of democracy, the representation of the people, constituencies then I could go along with her rationale and and it should not be done in this haste and that is the area thinking but having said that, hon. members have • that concerns me and I shall not be supporting it. mentioned there are other important Bills that we are trying to get through in time before the next election from this Mr Crowe: Mr Speaker, the flaw in the hon. member House and you can imagine, hon. members, that if we go for Peel, Mrs Hannan's argument is that the Island has down the road that the member is proposing we would be • Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill — Leave to Introduce — Motion Lost K320 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 5th MARCH 1996 hours and hours here debating this Bill because we have mover the right to have this Bill proceed and get it debated already heard that one member is going to be moving an at the different stages. amendment. And just in case hon. members say they may feel obliged Mr Quine: Very briefly, Mr Speaker, I wish really to to support the member's leave to introduce, I have actually associate myself with the views of the hon. member for had two Bills in this hon. House with leave to introduce North Douglas, Mr May. I see this as an entirely pointless and have been turned down. So a precedent has already exercise. There are many more important things that we been set, so members should not feel obliged to do that. should be addressing and outside there the public will view And for the very reason that he has outlined himself I this simply as once again this House fiddling while Rome hope the member for West Douglas will change his mind burns and we have got better things to do than waste our and not vote for this resolution here today. time on this.

Mr Walker: Mr Speaker, I would just like to make it Mr Bell: Mr Speaker, I too will be brief. I know it is clear that I do not feel obliged to support the hon. member tradition and it has been argued here many times that all in any way at all. I am, though, going to support her because members have the right to introduce a Private Member's I think she has made a fair case. I am not convinced that Bill in principle and then the issue is discussed after that what she is suggesting as the contents of a Bill are the way but I do think in issues such as this and with the time scale forward. I align my views very much to those of the hon. we are working within hon. members should be absolutely member for Garff, Mr Rodan. I think he put into words honest on this occasion. If they know full well they are not my sentiments exactly. going to support the Bill once it reaches the floor of the This is obviously a fundamental subject that should be House I can see no purpose at all in prolonging the work debated by politicians. I do not believe we can debate it that is involved in this. The Bill has to be printed, we have too often if we come out with the right answer. So I make to get the legal draftsman involved in it. There is a lot of no apology for debating this subject once again. I am sure time involved in preparing this Bill. It is not simply a debate there will be a number of amendments. We have to find on the floor of this House. our way through those. I rather doubt that it will be We know full well, as several members have said, there successful before the election but if it provokes debate at is no real possibility of this, given the possible amendments election time, then I do not think it is a job badly done. in particular that are coming along with it, being enacted in time. Why do we prolong the agony by voting in favour Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, my concern is that I of a debate now which we know, when the debate actually think that members are losing the point and the point is reaches the floor of this House, we are going to vote against that it is not the contents of the Bill as much as it would anyway? We are wasting everyone's time. As previous absolutely alarm me to think of 24 single seats and us members have said, there are far and away more urgent ending up with a situation of being estate representatives, issues. We have a backlog of legislation which we have to making this House even more into a glorified county get finished by June. I would urge hon. members to council. I would be wanting to cut it down to 16 members. concentrate on the urgent matters in hand and not be I personally think it would be a retrograde step. distracted by this ploy that is before us now. But I believe that one has to support the hon. member. It is a matter of right. She has made a case, in my opinion. The Speaker: Does any other member wish to speak? I believe that it would be quite wrong of us to go against I call upon the hon. member for Peel to reply. the hon. member. She did make a case and there is a case there that needs to be debated. I think the hon. member for Mrs Hannan: Thank you, Vainstyr Loayreyder. I would Garff is quite right, that unfortunately now that the STV like to thank members for their comments on what I has gone out the justice and fairness as far as having single, consider to be a very important constitutional issue. I thank twin and multi-seat constituencies are now unjust because Mr Cannan and Mr Rodan for their support. the fact is you have got one, two or three votes in these I agree with Mr Downie that this Bill was given a lot of different areas and it should be one man, one vote. I hope discussion when it came before this House but if I could hon. members will support that. also remind members that clause 11 was dealt with before I appreciate my hon. colleague when he says about the clause 22. Clause 11 dealt with constituencies. Clause 22 fact that we do not want the epitaph of being known as the dealt with the method of voting. Once the method of voting House that debated more about one's navel as far as the was removed to first past the post I believe that this House election of ourselves than anything else. did not clarify what it meant by first past the post and But at the end of the day, to answer the question of the therefore what I am suggesting is the introduction of a hon. member for Rushen about the time thing, if we run simple Bill and I call it a simple Bill because it means one out of sittings, then we could always have extra sittings. or two changes to clause 22, schedule 2, minor changes to Has anybody ever thought of that? clarify that a person would vote for one member. And at the end of the day it is not the contents of the This is a parliamentary issue. I might be a minister of Bill I have great concern about, and I believe it would be a this government and the member might not but this is a retrograde step, but it is the principle. The hon. mover has parliamentary issue. There are important Bills coming made the case and I think there is a case there worthy of before this House but parliamentary issues should, I debate and I hope that hon. members will give the hon. believe, be of interest to all members and all the

Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill — Leave to Introduce — Motion Lost HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 5th MARCH 1996 K321

constituents or the electorate when they go to vote in A division was called for and voting resulted as follows: November 1996. It is an extremely fundamental issue to • the majority of the people in the Isle of Man and how they In the Keys - are represented and I hope that members will not play down the important issue that this relates to. This is not a local For: Messrs Cannan, Rodan, Walker, Cringle, Brown, authority that we are electing, as I think the member for Cretney, Downie, Mrs Hannan, Messrs Karran, Gelling Onchan suggested, that 24 single seats might bring, but it and the Speaker -11 is an issue electing the parliament for the next five years. Mr Corrin suggested that the people have not been Against: Messrs Gilbey, Quine, Corrin, May, Crowe, consulted. The people were not consulted over STV. They Duggan, Braidwood, Kermode, Bell, Groves, Corkin, were not consulted over change of constituencies. I and Kniveton - 12 consulted my constituents about a two-seat constituency, as did the member for Glenfaba when it was mentioned by The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion fails to carry the boundary commission that there should be changes in with 11 votes in favour and 12 against. our constituencies. My constituents did not feel that strongly about a two-seat constituency, but I at least spoke to my people about the issue. CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL - Mr Crowe believes that his constituents should have THIRD READING APPROVED two votes. Well, I would expect that. Mr May suggested that it should be left to the next House The Speaker: We move on to give consideration to the of Keys. The next House of Keys will not be democratically third reading of the Criminal Justice Bill, and this Bill and elected unless we do make changes. the third reading thereof is in the hands of the hon. member I thank Mr Walker for his support and Mr Karran. I for Onchan, Mr Corkill. take note of the points that he makes with regard to the representation that there should be, but I am not suggesting Mr Corkill: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Criminal a change of representation, I am concerned with 24 Justice Bill of 1995 has been well received at previous members being returned to this House. readings. The provisions within the Bill are miscellaneous I cannot agree with the comments of Mr Quine saying but nonetheless very important. that this is fiddling while Rome burns. This is about The ability for local authorities to contribute towards democracy, democratic representation of the people of the and pay for CCTV is included and this will help policy Isle of Man. decisions in the area of crime prevention. Mr Bell suggests that this does not have time to progress Clause 3 amends the 1947 Firearms Act and to this was through the House. I would suggest that in the past this the amendment in the name of the member for West House has sat on two days a week to get legislation through. Douglas, Mr Downie. This clause extends the list of I am not suggesting that. I believe with the small weapons for which special permission is required. Initially amendment to this Bill, and it is only a small amendment there was a certain lack of clarity but I now consider that that I am suggesting, the Bill should proceed quickly the gun clubs and the shooting fraternity will not be through the House. I am well aware of the legislation that disadvantaged in this part of the legislation and now that is before this House, as my department has two Bills the amendment has successfully been adopted I believe coming up shortly, so I do not need to be reminded of the that that issue has been resolved. responsibilities of this House with regard to legislation. Clause 4 changed the law on trespass and during the If I could just return to one or two comments, a comment clauses reading this did attract some attention. However, I was made that there are two members in a constituency consider it a fair determination and it is purely directed at and therefore people should have two votes in that those who choose to commit aggravated trespass. constituency for that person to be returned. In other Clause 5, as amended by Mr Braidwood's amendment, constituencies there are three. Why should the whole of is a welcome inclusion from the police's point of view the Isle of Man not say, 'Well, there are 24 seats to be with regard to outlawing most blades in public places filled within this place and they should all have 24 seats to unless there is a good reason. fill members in this place', if we are getting down to I will not mention every clause, as they were dealt with, equality or whatever? What I am suggesting is a simple I believe, in detail at the clauses stage, but the Bill does amendment to the Representation of the People Act 1995 cover other issues such as video link evidence, child to clarify what 'first past the post' means and it means one abduction and corrections due to an unfortunate outcome person, one vote. I beg to move. of the Custody Act. Clause 9 allowed for the Attorney-General in The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. The motion appropriate cases to appeal against unduly lenient or that is before the House reads as follows, 'That leave be incorrect sentences imposed by the criminal courts. given to introduce a Representation of the People Clause 11 is an enabling measure which allows the costs (Amendment) Bill to amend the Representation of the of a successful defence to be paid for by government in People Act 1995.' Will all those in favour of the motion accordance with court rules and as the member for Rushen, please say aye; to the contrary say no. The noes have it. Mr Corrin, stated at the clauses reading, it is purely

Criminal Justice Bill — Third Reading Approved K322 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 5th MARCH 1996 enabling. The court is not compelled in all cases to award there, like I said with the amendment on clause 5, and you these costs but makes a judgment on each case. must be very careful that it is not used for the issues, like I thank hon. members for their support with this Bill the hon. member for Ayre said, where you use things for a and I beg to move, Mr Speaker. catch-all. A catch-all can sometimes catch the innocent and that is the danger when you are talking about these The Speaker: Thank you. things. But I will support the Bill.

Mr Gelling: I beg to second, Mr Speaker, and reserve The Speaker: Does any other member wish to speak my remarks. to the third reading? Reply, sir?

The Speaker: Thank you. The hon. member for Mr Corkill: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This Bill does Onchan, Mr Karran. have a number of provisions in it and as such with being of a diverse nature, some of these ingredients, then Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, my only concern obviously members are going to agree with some parts of with this Bill is once again bringing in UK legislation and it more than others. not really having the thought process as far as its I thank the hon. member for his comments, because, as involvement for the Isle of Man is concerned. As I said at .was mentioned at the clauses stage, he does feel uneasy the second reading of the clauses stage, I am concerned about these aspects. I thank him for supporting the Bill about clause 9 because there you have a nation of 50-odd overall and the fact that he sees the Bill as useful in its million people and we have a nation of 80-odd thousand. entirety, but to answer the specific points with regard to We have a situation where we are going down the road of clause 9, which was discussed at the clauses stage, the seeing the Attorney-General become more under the very fact is that there are checks. Under the new section control of the executive and here we are giving more the powers are conferred on the Attorney-General, the control to the Attorney-General who is becoming more of power to apply to the High Court for the review of a an arm of the executive to be able to interfere in the judicial sentence imposed by a court of summary jurisdiction. The system of this Island, as we know that the basic Attorney-General may only apply for such a review if he fundamental principle of any democracy is the legislature considers that the sentence was unduly lenient or that the should be independent of the judiciary and the executive court of summary jurisdiction was mistaken as to its legal and vice versa, and here we are, bringing this in, which powers of sentencing. The Attorney-General has to make might be acceptable within the UK, with having such a that case to the High Court and therefore the safeguard, I large nation to deal with, but it is questionable in Isle of believe, is present and the argument of the Attorney- Man terms in the fact of being small. General being a mouthpiece of the executive of government The other thing which concerns me about this Bill is I believe is flawed in that respect, because the safeguard is clause 4. I believe it is completely over the top, whilst there. there is some merit within clause 4, as far as the laws on With regard to clause 4, this, I think, probably was the trespass are concerned, to do with the individual. This piece most contentious clause overall and several members did of legislation was brought in as a device to effect the wonder why we were importing UK law and there was a remedy of getting rid of New Age travellers. I am afraid criticism of that aspect, but the point I would like to make that we have many problems on this Island, but New Age is that in the United Kingdom the reason this legislation travellers do not seem to be one. became so sensational was in fact that the problem occurred I am disappointed that this clause was not amended in before the legislation was in place and therefore the order to veto any land owned by the government, because arguments were that much more intense. I believe that there is a great danger now that at a later date Mr Karran, with his amendment which failed, did wish we are going to see police being involved and having to to exempt government land from this aspect of the be brought into political issues as far as this clause is legislation, but I cannot see the rationale of, for instance, concerned. under the definition of 'premise' which means land or I will not be voting against this Bill at its third reading, buildings, why government should be different from private but I am putting this down as a marker, because I believe individuals in terms of being able to remove trespassers, that these points will come back to haunt this hon. House bearing in mind that those trespassers have to be at a later date, because I believe that it is an issue that we aggravating in some way, that they have to use abusive have to get away from trying to bring in UK legislation language or actually doing criminal damage. I believe that and just because it is a perceived issue and problem in the the clause is well struck in as much as it protects the UK it does not mean that we have got to bring it in word innocent trespasser, the accidental trespasser. It is purely for word, line for line, like the United Kingdom, and I am aimed at those people who set out deliberately to trespass concerned that my amendment in particular for clause 4 in a particular situation, and the point that we do not have was not supported, because I believe that it could be used New Age travellers may well be a point, but this is not by an unscrupulous executive in years to come, and I have legislation that is just aimed at that group of people, it is got no problems with the present Chief Minister. My aimed at anyone, any criminal person, for instance, who problem is that you might have somebody in there that wishes to flaunt the law and deliberately does so. believes that the ends justify the means and you win your That, I believe, mentions the points, Mr Speaker, and I point at any cost, and I believe you are putting powers in beg to move that this Bill receive its third reading.

Criminal Justice Bill — Third Reading Approved HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 5th MARCH 1996 K323

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. The motion Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder - that is before the House is that the Criminal Justice Bill be now read a third time. Will all those in favour please say The Speaker: Yes? aye; to the contrary say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Mr Karran: - I wish to move:

That the motion standing at item 15 on the agenda PURPOSE TRUSTS BILL— be considered after item 11. THIRD READING APPROVED The reason why I wish to move this is personally I would The Speaker: Item 11 is the third reading of the Purpose wait until the right time within the agenda in order to have Trusts Bill 1996 and this Bill is in the hands of the hon. this issue debated, but as the fact is that the hon. minister member for Garff and I call upon him to move the third will be away next week looking at some waste management reading. facilities that he wants to investigate, and the other department members will be away, I feel that it would be Mr Rodan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would firstly unjust of us to carry on with a debate next week when the thank the House for their clear support for this Bill at the minister will not be in this place in order to defend his second reading and clauses stage. corner and I feel that this hon. House would support that This legislation will keep the Isle of Man competitive item 15 on the agenda be considered now, after item 11, if in offshore financial markets and demonstrate that the only for fairness and justice for the minister having the Island is canny when it comes to putting in place structures ability to be able to defend this debate that I have here that will attract valuable international trust business which before you. I beg to move. will in turn help widen our economic base. By recognising non-charitable purpose trusts as valid Mr Duggan: I beg to second, Mr Speaker. trusts in Manx law we will be giving additional flexibility to those involved in offshore financial planning, especially The Speaker: Thank you. Before we proceed with the for the corporate financing of major asset transactions such debate, the remarks made by the mover of the motion as aircraft or ship acquisition. included the phrase, I believe, that the hon. minister will There has been considerable consultation with the be away. I think the preferred choice of phrase from my industry and there is widespread support for this legislation. point of view is 'may be away'. I call upon the hon. member Provision of an independent enforcer with legal for Douglas East, Mr Kermode. remedies to enforce the trust and the fact that there will be two trustees, one of whom must be a designated person in Mr Kermode: I rise to oppose the motion, Mr Speaker. the Isle of Man, provide adequate safeguards and make There are a number of important Bills on this agenda which this good legislation. the departments and especially the Board of Consumer The House's support at this third reading stage will give Affairs, and in my own case the Fair Trading Bill and the further confidence to our important finance industry and Supply of Goods Bill, have been working for some number assist our major banks, legal and accountancy firms in of years. The legislative programme, with the way it is at bringing to the Island more global business to the ultimate the moment, is already congested and in trying to get these benefit of us all. Bills in place, which are beneficial for consumers in the Mr Speaker, I beg to move that this Bill be read for a whole of the Isle of Man, I feel this would be a retrograde third time. step, in mind of the very issue on the agenda that that debate could take quite a considerable amount of time. Indeed The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. there is already an amendment to that particular resolution now and I feel that the time of the House would not be Mr Gelling: I beg to second, Mr Speaker, and reserve best served in dealing with that. I feel that we should stick my remarks. to the agenda and carry on with the Bills as proposed on the agenda. The Speaker: Thank you. Does any member wish to speak to the third reading of the Purpose Trusts Bill? I will Mr Cretney: Vote! put the motion to the House, that the Purpose Trusts Bill be now read a third time. Will all those in favour please The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Does any other say aye; to the contrary say no. The ayes have it. The ayes member wish to speak? Reply, sir? have it. Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, I do hope this hon. House will support the proposal here in front of you. I INCINERATOR ON STONEY MOUNTAIN SITE think it is a reasonable request. It is a request as far as — EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC MONEY making sure that we have an equitable debate on this issue. — DEBATE COMMENCED It is an important issue. I believe that it would be quite wrong of this House not to support this proposal. The Speaker: Now, the next item on our agenda is the I would hope the hon. member would reconsider his clauses stage of the Employment (Amendment) Bill which situation, even though it would affect any items that were is in the hands of the hon. member for - on an agenda in another place. I think this hon. House

Purpose Trusts Bill — Third Reading Approved Incinerator on Stoney Mountain Site — Expenditure of Public Money — Debate Commenced K324 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 5th MARCH 1996 would do a disservice, not so much to me, but to the hon. Last week Professor Bellamy OBE visited the site and minister to be able to defend his corner if we have a one- he told a large audience at the Villa Marina, and many of sided debate in next week's sitting as far as this is concerned you my hon. colleagues that were there, and he said that if and I do hope that people will support my proposal, we must have an incinerator the one place not to put it was Vainstyr Loayreyder. on Stoney Mountain. He was not only of the opinion because in his words Stoney Mountain was a beautiful The Speaker: Thank you. I remind members that the place and a very rare wet heath but also because he could motion that is before you is that the motion standing at see that the site was not economically viable. He could item 15 on the agenda be considered after item 11. Will all also see that it was not environmentally friendly. Stoney those in favour of that motion please say aye; to the contrary Mountain would involve a majority of the refuse wagons say no. The ayes have it. in unnecessary travelling, increasing the emission of harmful exhaust fumes, increasing wear and tear on country A division was called for and voting resulted as follows: lanes. My hon. colleague Terry Groves, the minister, knew in In the Keys - January of this year that the consultants Mott MacDonald had already stated, and I quote, 'The main concern would For: Messrs Gilbey, Cannan, Rodan, Walker, Corrin, be the economic viability of electrical generation in relation Cringle, May, Crowe, Cretney, Duggan, Downie, Mrs to the capital costs of providing a generating capacity and Hannan, Messrs Bell, Groves, Karran, Corkill, there must be some doubts about the costings of Kniveton, Gelling - 18 engineering the facility, the landfill, in this location.' The addendum dated January 1995 was referred to by Against: Mr Kermode and the Speaker - 2 the hon. member when he went to Foxdale on 10th January 1996. The experts in the addendum revisited the waste The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion carries with management strategy and they stated that the waste 18 votes in favour and two against. I therefore call upon management strategy calls for energy recovery from the hon. member for Onchan, Mr Karran, to move item 15 incineration and such aspirations are also implicit in any on the agenda. waste management hierarchy set out in the waste management strategy. Accordingly in the site selection Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, I beg to move: report a location within five kilometres of the Quarterbridge was proposed, because of the superior rate of energy That this House is of the opinion that no further recovery that could be achieved by the use of the heat in a public money should be expended on pursuing the policy form of district heating compared to steam-raising and of locating an incinerator on Stoney Mountain. electricity generation. That is why the expert consultants selected four preferred sites, all close to Douglas and I place this motion here today because I feel that this Onchan. House should express an opinion and try and stop any more The contents of the addendum convinced me the first wasting of taxpayer's money on a policy that is not only time that I read it that Stoney Mountain is the wrong site not realistic but is a non-starter and goes against basic for an incinerator and associated landfill, but despite having common sense, I sincerely believe. the addendum and the information contained therein the I ask three questions. Firstly, will it be acceptable to minister continues to press ahead with the investigation of see a chimney, and more likely a plant if the truth is known, a site at a cost which he has told us in another place will be from 50 per cent of the Island's land mass throughout the £185,000. Island? This, in planning terms, is a non-starter In response to my question number 27 I asked in the environmentally. Court on 20th February 1996 the minister referred to the Secondly, I have already raised the issue of the addendum and advised that the consultants Mott economics of incineration being very questionable and MacDonald would make much the same sort of comments without a policy for the use of the heat generated it is a about the site, Stoney Mountain, that they made about the other sites of the 26 in the original report, which after all complete non-starter. There is no suitable user in the area were only indicated sites that were suggested could have to use the energy economically, so making the economics further investigation. He went on to say, as to the reason of the location madness itself. why we are doing so, spending £185,000 investigating Thirdly, the transport costs. Dragging 60 per cent of the Stoney Mountain, 'we believe the site will be found to be Island's waste miles out into the middle of the Island on a suitable for these facilities.' Well, who is 'we'? The experts daily basis for the next 20 years, with the fuel requirements certainly have serious reservations as to the cost of such a proposal and associated costs of road widening implications of the site and in fact the recommendations and strengthening of roads, brings it all into question. in the conclusion: 'A decision to locate a landfill at Stoney This is not a debate about the government's waste Mountain should not be taken without careful cost-benefit management strategy, which despite my motion was analysis.' Yet the minister continues to investigate a site at reaffirmed by the hon. Court in November 1995, but purely a cost up to a point of the inquiry and that is where the big the fact that the selection of Stoney Mountain for an cost comes in of £185,000. This is an awful lot of money incinerator and associated landfill site is the wrong site. to spend and disregard the advice of the expert consultants,

Incinerator on Stoney Mountain Site — Expenditure of Public Money — Debate Commenced

HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 5th MARCH 1996 K325

expert consultants who identified four preferred sites for Mr Gilbey: I beg to second and reserve my remarks, an incinerator in their report dated March 1995, and those Mr Speaker. were Ballafletcher, Tromode; Strang, Ballaoates; Strang, Ballamillaghyn; and the White Hoe lands. Not one of these The Speaker: Thank you. The hon. member for sites was investigated. Instead the minister chose to Douglas South, Mr Cretney. investigate Stoney Mountain. Now, the waste management strategy calls for energy Mr Cretney: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Last week we recovery from incineration. Now, in November my hon. were visited on the Island by persons putting forward full- colleague the minister advised Tynwald that a mass- scale recycling alternatives with the remainder not capable burning incinerator produces 559 kilowatt hours of of being recycled being disposed of by either landfill or electricity per ton of refuse and a mass-burning incinerator incineration. Those of us who met the proponents of these produces 1,804 kilowatt hours of heat per ton of refuse. It schemes, which themselves were different in concept, were does not take a rocket scientist to understand which is the impressed by the enthusiasm of their promoters. One more efficient, yet the proposal to site an incinerator at promoter offered to put in place a recycling facility which Stoney Mountain does not provide an opportunity to utilise would save the taxpayer of the Isle of Man many millions the heat generated in the incineration process. It would be of pounds. We would be accused of being in dereliction of necessary to generate electricity to recycle the waste to our duty as guardians of the public purse not to fully and get energy from the waste and the expert consultants have properly consider such alternatives. questioned the economic viability of such a strategy. My support of incineration has always been based on There are additional costs to be considered, namely the the need to replace the current clinical waste facility being provision of suitable roads and services, that would add a operated at Noble's Hospital and which is not efficient or substantial additional cost over and above the current figure effective. We also need a means to dispose on our own of £26,100,000. Island of other waste such as fallen animals. The question which has always remained, therefore, is whether we need If we must have an incinerator, and this House well the size of facility being promoted by the department over knows I oppose the incinerator full stop, then we must many years if we are serious about recycling as a major ensure the development is viable both on environmental part of the strategy, which indeed in the hierarchy of things and economic grounds and I firmly believe that this comes above the so-called safety net of incineration. government would, in the words of Professor Bellamy, be I understand that the minister and department are to visit a laughing stock, and we are part of government, if this recycling facilities in the UK and further afield and I incinerator was to be built in the location of Stoney congratulate him on his open-mindedness in this respect Mountain. and believe that this House should not proceed to expend We must not expend any more finance on this ridiculous further sums of public money on potential incinerator sites proposal. We must seek to ensure that any moneys we do until a full and independent cost-benefit analysis has been spend are spent wisely and would be following the advice carried out into the recycling alternatives to dispose of the given to the Department of Local Government and the majority of our waste, to examine whether the evidence Environment by Mott MacDonald to investigate those sites put forward to us by the various experts in this respect which are closer to the source of the majority of the waste could save the taxpayers of the Isle of Man many millions that arises and not to spend any further money on a site of pounds, whilst disposing of our unwanted products in a which will not provide an economic or environmentally manner which contributes more effectively to the global viable option. use and reuse of materials, otherwise considered by some The location is madness because of the visual impact. to be waste. The future spending on fuel and road improvements is There will remain the need to find a disposal method madness because of the cost to future generations and the suitable to dispose of those items not capable of recycling lack of ability of an effective market for the use of the and reuse, and my view at the moment, as it has been for waste heat for such a facility in this location. some considerable time, is that incineration should provide When you examine an incinerator it is an extraordinarily the most effective means for this disposal, most particularly expensive way of dealing with waste management and this if the heat generated by the process is itself reused rather location makes the economics of the whole issue even more than the situation we have had for years with our power questionable if we cannot have an efficient way of using stations where the vast majority of heat generated has the waste heat. disappeared. Now, like the minister, I am open-minded I hope that hon. members will remember their oath of enough to consider alternatives for the disposal of these office and we should not be afraid to stop at least this remaining products but up until now nothing has proven minimum of £150,000 being wasted on a policy that more effective to me. anybody with a reasonable amount of common sense would The reason I have asked for an independent cost-benefit say is a non-starter. I do hope this hon. House will support analysis into this suggestion is that it is clearly human my motion today in order to safeguard the taxpayer and nature that the proposers of recycling elsewhere are putting get this money spent on a more realistic location, if not a forward their views based on their experience elsewhere more realistic policy. I beg to move. and the department has come out with a statement which is printed on page 5 of today's Isle of Man Examiner, and The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. I quote, 'Recycling cannot solve Island's waste problem'. s Incinerator on Stoney Mountain Site — Expenditure of Public Money — Debate Commenced K326 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 5th MARCH 1996

Now, I agree that whatever happens, recycling will not more acceptable, and as I say, instead of looking for holes provide all the solutions to all the problems and that there in the ground with leachate problems like at the Raggatt, 1:1 will require to be a culture shift with regard to refuse there were problems there, you want to look for a piece of disposal. However, I think it would be preferable, with land away from residential areas and have the bales covered every respect to the department's expertise, to have an every evening, like we saw in Leeds. So I am just asking external independent view of this issue and I believe a the minister, look at that, sir, when you go away and I time scale from today's date to be vital if we are not to be support the resolution. accused, as administrations have in the past, of simply running away from the problem or seeking short-term The Speaker: Thank you. Does any other member wish responses. Short-term responses to refuse disposal have to speak? The hon. member for Douglas East, Mr Kermode. in my opinion the effect of leaving long-term legacies, and we do not have to look very far to see the consequences of Mr Kermode: Mr Speaker, my views are well known on the Stoney Mountain site now and I do not think it is that, just prior to the last general election, and those we the right place for the incinerator to be placed. But I do represent and those who will follow on deserve better than have my reservations about this particular motion that is that. before us today because it was Tynwald that approved the Any member who met with the representatives in the incineration policy and it is the Tynwald policy that the field last week must vote in favour of my amendment on minister is carrying out. cost grounds alone. Wherever a refuse incinerator is I wonder, should this be successful today and it was proposed we will receive the same public reaction. If, only a minority vote that managed to make it successful, however, we have taken the time to conduct the analysis I should the minister still decide to proceed and go to suggest it may well be that we do not need an incinerator Tynwald with motions, then I would imagine that this facility the size of B & Q with its environmental impact in particular area would have problems. So I feel the right structural terms and it may be that those in favour of place for this resolution would have been in Tynwald where recycling who have made their views so clearly known to there are other members there who should also have a say us would have far less concern about the siting of a in the policy of the way we dispose of our refuse, whether recycling facility. Mr Speaker, I beg to move my it be incineration way or any other waste management amendment: scheme either way. I just feel that to support this today could have its pitfalls and I would rather see a full debate For the words after 'incinerator' substitute 'pending in Tynwald Court where all members of government will a full independent cost-benefit analysis to be carried out have a say, as it does effect other members in their into recycling alternatives and subsequent consideration constituencies that actually sit in Tynwald. of disposal methods of the reminder of waste, such evaluation to be completed and published within three Mr Walker: Mr Speaker, I have just got a short months'. contribution to make on this particular debate today. Firstly, as far as the amendment is concerned, the subject Mr Duggan: I rise to second, Mr Speaker, sir. I am of recycling is one that has been discussed and investigated glad to see my colleague is changing his attitude towards on a number of occasions and it is certainly part of the the strategy of the waste disposal and I know he was a strategy, very firm and clear strategy, that has been set by staunch incinerator man up to recently. the Department of Local Government, and supported by I think Stoney Mountain is the wrong site, like many Tynwald. There is no doubt at all that recycling has its part to play. other sites that have been chosen by the minister and ex- I was interested to meet Professor Green - ministers. I think it would have to have a very large chimney, like the one that was proposed at the White Hoe, Several Members: West. and I am totally opposed to Stoney Mountain. I am very pleased to hear this morning that the minister Mr Walker: - West, of green views, Professor West is to go away and look at other strategies because I think when he was over last week and I was very interested in the strategy of incineration is completely wrong. The costs what he had to say. I am not certain, on investigation, that are very high, it is environmentally wrong, you have got he produced anything new but he certainly had a point of toxin emissions, you have got opposition from members view to offer, and again, like the hon. member Mr Cretney, and I do not think, truly speaking, any site would be really I am pleased the department are going away to further acceptable on this Island. investigate it, as I had no doubt they would so do, and if in In 1984 Tynwald did accept baling, so I have asked the fact somebody can come up with a solution to the problem minister even last week when he does go away to go to the that this Island faces along the lines that are proposed by - site in Leeds which the Chief Minister and myself went and had a look at with other members of the Local Mr Duggan: You had it in here before. Government Board as it was then to see how that Leeds plant has functioned over the years because when we were Mr Cretney: That is no environmental solution. down there it seemed to be very successful and we were that impressed Mr Walker himself, who was very keen on Mr Walker: - by Mr West with the sort of costs that incineration, actually got Tynwald to pass a resolution have been suggested by that person, then obviously it is of adopting baling, which is a much cheaper option and much great interest and it would not be ignored. Incinerator on Stoney Mountain Site — Expenditure of Public Money — Debate Commenced 1 [ HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 5th MARCH 1996 K327

I think the problem with the amendment is that it disadvantages of Stoney Mountain; they have been very suggests we put everything on ice while this particular clearly identified. I know some of the advantages of the investigation is carried out, and I do not think that we have Stoney Mountain site and I believe there are some got that time. (A Member: Hear, hear.) I think we have to advantages and I do not believe that they should be leave it with the department to look closely at the minimised. And I think the time for us to come to a proper alternatives that have been suggested. If there is a solution and permanent decision on the siting of the proposed in them they will not go ahead and spend unnecessary incinerator plant is when we have the full set of advantages moneys. It is not in their interests, as it is not in the interests and disadvantages set out in front of us and I do not believe of any members of Tynwald. we can get to that position without the expenditure of Certainly some years ago, and it seems ages and ages appropriate amounts of money. and ages ago, I took a resolution to Tynwald suggesting So I believe as far as I am concerned I will continue to baling and that was carried, although there were still the support the department in its endeavours, I will continue protagonists for incineration. to support the minister and its members in finding a solution to this particularly difficult problem that faces the Island Mr Brown: Me! at at this time, and as far as becoming a laughing stock is concerned, I believe we would be even more of a laughing Mr Walker: Mr Brown amongst them. When we came stock if we could not find anywhere at all to empty our to try and find a disposal site that was acceptable for that bins. (A Member: Hear, hear.) baled refuse we came across exactly the same problem I know one of the disadvantages of Stoney Mountain is that is being faced by the department today as far as the that it is far away from perhaps a customer for the heat, incinerator goes and it was suggested, and the hon. member and I do not call it waste heat, the heat is a resource that it Mr Duggan says we had a solution, that we took it to is possible to get out of our refuse, and I know it is Foxdale, and the hon. members will remember it well and suggested that a more efficient way of using that heat could members who are present in this hon. House with us today be through a district heating scheme. It is suggested and and the hon. member Mr Gilbey will remember it well. figures of sort of 65 per cent efficient as compared to 15 or 16 per cent over whatever figures are quoted. I believe Mr Gilbey: We do: we got it stopped! (Laughter) the important consideration is what is the net value of the heat that is sold? Because you have to take into account in Mr Cretney: Can we have a recycling plant? all of these sums and all of these exercises the massive cost of a district heating network and the disruption, and Mr Walker: And the proposal was to reclaim a large people are complaining about the renewal of the sewerage area of the Foxdale deads which have been improved to a system. They have complained about Douglas promenade. certain extent since that time but to improve them over a They complained about Ballasalla when the sewerage longer period of time in a way that would be permanent. system was renewed in Ballasalla. I would suggest that is That was not acceptable, and I went to a meeting in nothing to the disruption that would be caused by laying a Foxdale, in fact a very enjoyable and interesting meeting, district heating scheme, certainly in a residential area, and although people were very clear in their point of view, and members should - that was expressed to us. There is nothing new in the situation we are facing today. Every time a site is suggested Mr Kermode: That is not what you said before. either for landfill or for incineration or for whatever there is, quite rightly, and I do not decry it at all, a public debate Mr Walker: What I said before, and I have not checked from the people in the area who have an alternative point it like the hon. member and my memory is perhaps not as of view. I think that is right and proper. And if I just may good as his, is that I do believe that the heat coming from take the opportunity of saying to those people who have an incinerator should be viewed as a resource. It should expressed those views which are different to mine a very not be viewed as waste heat. It is a resource. It will not be sincere thank you for the way that those views have been given away, it will go to the person who will pay the most expressed. I think the campaign, if the campaign it is, from for it and so it has to compete with the costs of energy, of the people in the area has been conducted quite properly. electricity, with oil heating and so on, and I believe as part (A Member: Hear, hear.) I think it is right that we mark of that equation you have to take into account the capital our appreciation of that. And the letters we have received cost of putting in a heating network, and if you do that in a and I have tried to respond to in a positive way, giving domestic situation I think it is tremendously disruptive, some reasons, have all, as far as I have been concerned, horrendously expensive and I am not certain in my mind been written in a realistic and reasonable way. I hope, I what the net benefit of that will be. really do hope, that that public debate continues in that Ballaoates is suggested: why not Ballaoates and the new vain because it is in that way that the correct solution will hospital? I would just remind hon. members that the new be achieved at the end of the day, by a good public debate hospital issue is not settled. So you should not come to the and exchange of views and a decision at the end of the day conclusion that we will put it at Ballaoates and we will by Tynwald Court. heat the new hospital. There are far more fundamental As far as the incinerator is concerned and coming back questions to be asked about that or answered about that or to the resolution that is on the agenda paper, again I find I whatever before we come to that decision. Perhaps that is cannot support that resolution. I know some of the the way it will pan out but I would suggest at this time,

Incinerator on Stoney Mountain Site — Expenditure of Public Money — Debate Commenced K328 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 5th MARCH 1996 this time at the beginning of March, we should be not just Stoney Mountain, although we touch on the reasons supporting the minister and his department in finding a at Stoney Mountain because they are typical and known suitable place for this incinerator and pursuing the to us but I only touch on them as an example of the general suggestion of Stoney Mountain. principle that applies to all countryside sites. Firstly, environmentally it has been and is a generally The Speaker: Does any other member wish to speak, accepted planning policy in this Island and in the adjacent either to the motion or the amendment? The hon. member islands, for that matter, that huge industrial buildings should for Glenfaba. not be put in the countryside but should be sited in areas zoned for industry. It is an extraordinary concept to put Mr Gilbey: Yes, Mr Speaker, I would first like to such a huge building with a towering chimney anywhere comment on some of the points that have been made, and in the countryside where it can be seen for miles and miles. the hon. member Mr Cretney has kindly pointed out that Next, industrial development is considered unsuitable the department said that recycling cannot solve all the in the countryside because of the flow of traffic which Island's problems, but it is interesting that despite that the results from it. Anywhere virtually in the countryside, as minister and his members are going to France, which I has been seen in the north of the Island, would result in commend, and therefore it does show, and I am sure they large refuse wagons using twisty country roads which are are not going on a holiday, that they think it is worth totally unsuitable for such traffic and which were not built pursuing this and if it is worth pursuing it, it seems to me for it in terms of either design or strength. quite illogical at the same time to be wasting money on Then again it has been talked of having the use of something that I am sure most of us know in our heart of electricity from an incinerator. Now, if an incinerator is hearts will never take place. placed in the country there have to be overhead lines from Now, the hon. member for East Douglas, Mr Kermode it to the main transmission points unless by chance it is - I am most grateful to him for his support but I am sorry right next door to one which actually it is not at Stoney he should decide that this should come before Tynwald. Mountain. Now, therefore you would have the Surely he would agree as a member of this House that the environmental impact of these electric transmission lines Keys' views should and I think always do prevail in that or if you undergrounded them, as I will mention in a minute, other place and therefore any decision that was made by you would have much greater expense. this hon. House today I am sure would not be reversed by Again this government has, in recent years, brought in another place provided we all kept to the same opinions as the Wildlife Acts of 1990 and 1992. It is therefore we expressed here. And also I can say that I have made astonishing to suggest that an incinerator should be placed enquiries and I understand that the majority of Members on government-owned land which is zoned as a nature of the Legislative Council's views are in line with those conservation zone and here I will touch on Stoney expressed by this resolution and the amendment to it. Mountain because of the particular points that have been Now, the hon. Chief Minister says it is natural that there made by Professor Bellamy. He has publicly stated that should be a campaign from the people of the area. I am the area in question comprises wet heathland which is sad that he does not realise that the objections to this extremely rare and valued throughout Europe. Indeed he ridiculous idea come from much further than the people in said, and I quote, 'Wet heath is amongst the rarest plant the area. They come from people throughout the Island. communities in the whole of Europe,' and he went on, and They come, as we have seen, through many members of I quote, 'European wet heath is much rarer than tropical this hon. House including hon. members in Douglas who rain forest and we should be looking after it.' Indeed he have little or no connection with that particular area. said, as has been quoted by other hon. members, that if we I am also interested that the hon. Chief Minister says went ahead with an incinerator in such a location the Island that there are disadvantages in Stoney Mountain which he would become an environmental laughing stock, which accepts, but he also says there are advantages, but does he surely we do not want. name one of them? Not one. He cannot even suggest one. Then we come to the energy side. The Department of Now, recently three experts in environmental and refuse Local Government and the Environment's waste disposal matters visited this Island. They were Professor management strategies which were approved by another John West, who is chairman of Environmental Reclamation place in 1990 and 1994 envisaged that in line with current International, Mrs Gill Knight, principal recycling officer best practice the energy available from an incinerator of Milton Keynes Borough Council and the well-known should be used to the best advantage. Now, what is the naturalist Professor David Bellamy. Now, all three of them best method of using energy from an incinerator? It is to expressed totally different views as to the best methods of provide heat through hot water generation. Indeed a refuse disposal. However, it is interesting that they were memorandum which Mr Ron Dobbie, the Department of unanimous on one point, and what was that one point? It Local Government's very experienced waste management was that any incinerator or any refuse recycling plant engineer, has produced and of which I have a copy states should be placed in or on the edge of an urban area clearly and I quote, 'efficiency of electricity generation producing the majority of the waste which was to be dealt 16%, efficiency of hot water generation 65%'. Accordingly with and not in a distant country location. And why did the department clearly accept that there is an infinitely they say this? There were three main reasons: greater energy recovery from the generation of hot water environmental, efficient use of energy and economic. And for heating systems than from the generation of electricity. these reasons apply to most sites in the countryside and Accordingly an incinerator should, indeed I would say

Incinerator on Stoney Mountain Site — Expenditure of Public Money — Debate Commenced HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 5th MARCH 1996 K329

must, be placed in order to meet modern criteria where the consideration and decision by the new Tynwald, and the heat can be used in an urban area and used not, as the argument that no Douglas or Onchan members would agree • Chief Minister has suggested in his remarks, through to an incinerator or a waste disposal plant on the edges of district heating with a lot of piping to a lot of different an urban area has been shown by this debate today to be houses, used to heat large buildings such as possibly the totally false and groundless. I need not repeat the words of new hospital, the creamery, the meat plant and factories, other hon. members to prove this. and these are only examples of large buildings that would I am convinced that a growing number of people use the heat. Not to be able to use energy in the most throughout the Island appreciate that for the reasons which efficient manner is to go totally against all modern thinking I have outlined, as Professor David Bellamy said, the Island regarding the conservation of energy and the world's will become a laughing stock if it proceeds with the natural resources and I had understood that this government proposal to place an incinerator in any country location, was committed to following these conservation policies. and that goes for a waste disposal plant too. Indeed a Finally, the reason why these experts were united in the growing number of commissioners are expressing their one point of opposition to placing any such plant in the opposition to such a countryside site. Already the following countryside was the economic one, firstly because if the 12 commissioners have done so: Malew, Marown, Patrick, heat cannot be used to the best advantage the economic Arbory, Castletown, Laxey, Maughold, Michael, Onchan, return would obviously not be so good, secondly because Ramsey, Port Erin and Santon. obviously there is a considerable cost in carting refuse Finally, I would just like to refer to the amendment through twisty country lanes on a long journey there and because I think that it is worthy of support because I, like then coming back empty compared to a short journey the hon. mover of the amendment, was very impressed by through the outskirts of the main conurbation which some of the arguments of those who were arguing for produces the rubbish. recycling. But as the amendment says, we need to look at how the remainder of any waste from recycling would be Mr Cannan: Dump it in Douglas. used because what was clear was that those suggesting recycling did not seem to have a real answer as to (1) what Mr Gilbey: Also there are additional costs in a country would be left over and (2) what would be done with that. area, as has been seen in the north, and I am glad to be Now, I personally have always been a supporter of reminded of that, of trying to keep unsuitable roads in a incineration in principle but I believe that we would be condition to take these heavy lorries or to improve the quite wrong not to look carefully at this recycling roads. There are extra costs in the country area of providing alternative, particularly for the following reason. I think a sewage system or linking in to an existing sewage system. there must be mounting doubts with the ever-increasing There are costs of bringing electricity to the incinerator, cost of incineration in terms of the plant, the building, the because it has to be brought there as well as any generated environmental work that would be required as to whether being taken away. So there are many reasons why an this Island can actually afford an incinerator and it is clear incinerator should be placed in an urban area or the edge that if this recycling would work, the capital cost would of an urban area rather than in the countryside and these be infinitely less and indeed the whole of the capital cost very same arguments apply to a recycling plant such as could well be met by one of the firms who favour recycling that covered by the hon. member for South Douglas' setting up a suitable plant and just taking in our refuse for amendment. a payment of so much a tonne. Now, I have been sent a transcript by the Chief Therefore I shall certainly support the amendment and Minister's Office of what he said in a press conference would urge all other members to do so because particularly last Friday. I am advised it was that the current it must be absurd to be spending more and more money on environmental planning process for the incinerator at other courses when the minister himself is going to France Stoney Mountain will continue but he conceded that any to look at this alternative, when this alternative would be, substantive motion for the construction of a plant will be it appears, less expensive. We would be totally irresponsible the responsibility of the new Tynwald after the election. not to look at it and I cannot accept the Chief Minister's The fact that the decision will be made by the new Tynwald argument that at the same time we should go on with the is indeed the case and I do not think there is any hon. existing policy. The existing policy will ultimately be member here who would gainsay that and I believe that decided, or any policy will, by the new Tynwald. Therefore for all the reasons I have mentioned and the fact that I am we should look at this new alternative, come up with certain the siting of any plant in the countryside would be proposals and leave it to the new Tynwald to decide and I a major election issue the new Tynwald will decide not to would urge hon. members to support the amendment or if accept a country siting for an incinerator or a recycling that should not pass, to support the substantive motion. plant. Therefore it is totally irresponsible to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds in pursuing proposals which are The Speaker: Does any other member wish to speak? almost certain to be rejected by the new Tynwald. Indeed The hon. member for Ramsey, Mr Groves. it is an outrageous waste of taxpayer's money to do so. The statesman-like course which I hope will yet be Mr Groves: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Of course the accepted is to stop wasting the taxpayer's money on Department of Local Government and the Environment is investigating sites in the countryside but to have plans ready pursuing the objectives that it seeks to reach because it for suitable sites on the edge of an urban area for has been directed to do so by Tynwald. Tynwald has

Incinerator on Stoney Mountain Site — Expenditure of Public Money — Debate Commenced

K330 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 5th MARCH 1996 decided what the strategy should be, it has debated it on present two applications for those short-term landfill sites numerous occasions, some outside would say ad nauseam, should be changed. That personally I would not accept. to reach the conclusion as to the correct way for us to Beginning in January this year it was estimated that the proceed and that is really why we are here. whole process of land use approval in principle, planning It seems to me that two facts are crystal clear, to me for a site, detailed planning and an inquiry, design and anyway, over this whole question of how to provide for tendering of the facility, build and commissioning would the disposal of our waste. The first is that the policy we take at least five years. That takes us to 2001 when the determine will not meet with the agreement of a hundred short-term facilities, if they have been approved, will be per cent of the people on the Isle of Man and the second is full. Already we have eaten into that time period and other that whatever decision we make will not be popular with a eventualities that are outside of our control may eat into hundred per cent of the people on the Isle of Man. I am this period further. Abandoning the current investigative certain that all of us in this hon. House are well aware of procedure into Stoney Mountain now will guarantee more this and that we do not seek a hundred per cent agreement expense, save little and incur further delays. or to court popularity. I am positive that if any of us were Perhaps 50 per cent of the estimated figure of £150,000 to act in that manner the electorate would soon see us for has already been spent or been committed to provide us what we were. with the facts upon which to base a decision. You cannot During my time in this hon. House we have debated decide without facts. A decision to go to Stoney Mountain other issues that have been of immense public interest, with these waste treatment facilities, no matter what the although I recognise these were perhaps more social issues; objectors to it may say, has not been made. That decision the sexual offences legislation and termination of would follow receipt of an environmental statement and pregnancy legislation spring to mind. Then we relied upon all the assessment, information-gathering, detail-gathering the gathering of as much fact and information as possible and investigative work that is currently under way. If the to help us make our decision by those who were leading decision were made to proceed, then there would be the that particular exercise. I believe that during one of those submission of a draft planning order which itself would debates one hon. member said that we should be clinically then go to a planning inquiry. It is quite proper that that objective when making the law, putting aside emotion or planning inquiry should be quite independent and it will rhetoric. This issue of waste disposal needs the same well- make a recommendation to the department and then to informed, carefully evaluated and costed, unemotional Tynwald for it to decide. objectivity in my opinion, thinking of it with the national In judging this issue generally and this resolution and interest of all the people of the Island firmly in mind. comments from some hon. members in particular I believe Some facts are inescapable. Waste disposal, the we should remind ourselves of two other points. Firstly, management in a proper accepted manner of the disposal consultants are to give opinion, a professional view and of our waste, is not an option, it is an essential requirement. guidance. They should not make the decisions. That rests It is a fact. The Department of Local Government and the properly with the elected representatives of the people in Environment has a statutory responsibility to dispose of this hon. House and in Tynwald Court. Secondly, we do waste. That is a fact. Tynwald directed the department in not live in a technocracy where the technically correct November 1995 to implement the strategy and the waste solution is the only answer. There are many other elements treatment facilities of incinerator and ash residuals landfill to the equation to balance and to make judgement on. If it without further delay. That is a fact. That waste were that simple, then the democratic process itself, I management strategy directs that these facilities should suggest, would be a very different animal if we simply be in place by December 31st in the year 2,000. That is a accepted a technical answer and left it at that. fact. The Council of Ministers agreed with the proposal to In making these points I suppose I am referring to the investigate Stoney Mountain as to its suitability or oft stated view of those opposed to the present investigation otherwise for the waste treatment facilities. That is a fact. of Stoney Mountain expressed on the radio and in the press The department faces today, as does the Island, a and I know in almost weekly correspondence to members situation whereby there will be no facility available with of Tynwald that we should do what the consultants have all the necessary approvals and engineering in place for recommended and that the only way to gain energy from the disposal of rubbish after September of this year. That the incinerator plant is via a district heating system. In the is a crisis in anyone's language and a short-term solution Mott MacDonald report - if I can find it, if you will bear has to be found pending a long-term determination. with me - under a sub-heading in the original Mott Currently the department has planning applications MacDonald report entitled 'The Way Forward', they submitted for two areas at the Point of Ayre which between said,'The search for new waste disposal facilities is never them have a capacity at the present rate of current fill that easy, whether the intention is to incinerate waste or to place will last from October this year to approximately July 2001. it in a landfill. Tynwald has, however, given detailed and These planning applications are for that short-term period careful consideration to this question and in the waste only. I have said that they are short-term only for the management strategy has endorsed a combination of obvious reason of capacity but particularly because this is incineration with landfill of residues. There will always the third once-only, short-term planning application we be debate about the merits of alternative sites and it will have asked the people in that part of our Island to accept be for the Island government to make the final choice. Mott and I think we, all of us, should mean what we say. If we MacDonald do not therefore expect to identify a definitive do not on this occasion, then the premise guiding the site or sites as a result of these studies, rather we expect to

Incinerator on Stoney Mountain Site — Expenditure of Public Money — Debate Commenced HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 5th MARCH 1996 K331

come up with a range of options which are, in their different alternator, a condenser, switch gear, protection and ways, acceptable in planning policy terms and which meet monitoring, cable connection to the grid. • the standard of BPEO, the best practical environmental I do think also hon. members should bear in mind when option. In our experience it is most unlikely that there will coming to their decision today or later that the supplier of be a best site for any of the uses. Each location will have electricity on this Island, the sole supplier, is considering its strengths and weaknesses, but it is a key objective of the efficacy or otherwise of connecting to the United our work to ensure that none are less than environmentally Kingdom with a cable. That cable will give them the facility acceptable.' to buy electricity at the best price on the spot markets from Clearly there is no simple easy answer. (Mr Kermode: England, Scotland, the Urals, Russia, France - Heathrow Hear, hear.) If only we could just export it, but we know is supplied by electricity direct from France - or wherever. that we cannot. I think in this hon. House I am sure What price then will energy from an incinerator have to members are also aware of objectors to any proposal, and be to compete with those electricity rates which are in this case referring to the objectors who quite properly undoubtedly cheaper than the ones we currently pay today? make their objections known I would just like to break off You have got to think a little further than the immediate to echo the words of the Chief Minister when I say quite future. We have to. bluntly that the approach and attitude of the objectors over We estimate at this stage because the definitive facility this issue I find quite different and acceptably different cannot be made and determined until we definitely know from the objectors to the previous site that the department where we are putting it, but extra capital costs for electricity was investigating and I thank them for that. Objectors, generation, we think, will be in the region of n1/2 million. however, despite what arguments they put forward for why The turbo-alternator I referred to might well be in operation you should go somewhere else, have one objective in for about 80 per cent of the time. So during some of the mind - operations of the incinerator itself we would have to import electricity to that element of it which requires electricity. Mr Brown: Ballig. Heat from incineration via a district heating system would certainly produce three times to four times as many kilowatt Mr Groves: Yes, I was referring to the north of the hours per tonne as one would obtain in kilowatt hours per Island, hon. member (Members: Hear, hear.) - to see that ton from generating electricity. Heat losses that would be the proposal leaves them. That is the truth of it. Of course incurred in the delivery of this would be about 15 per cent they may genuinely believe other points that they put and so the useful heat available per tonne would be about forward, but the real objective is not to have the facility 85,000 megawatt hours. A suitable network for such with themselves, and I can understand that. The galleries amounts of energy of heat would be extensive, it would of course in this hon. House and in the Court of Tynwald have to be. There is no point in saying it can just provide a are never full of the silent majority and there is a large couple of big buildings. That is the wrong way to approach majority of people also that we have to consider, the people it. It is short-term thinking. It is not making the best of the of the Island itself. opportunity, if that is the opportunity we want to make the I would like to touch on two issues, one particularly best of. It is deceiving people to say, 'Stick it next to a now of energy. We have heard that the site should be on couple of big government buildings and the problem is the outskirts of Douglas or in Douglas so that we can reuse over.' That is not the way to approach this issue. the energy to best effect and there is no doubt, no doubt at An extensive suitable network should be put in place, all, that using the energy from the burning of waste in an obviously phased over time, but the commitment to it incinerator is much more effective and more energy is should be there. If you decide to put the site somewhere produced if you go down the route of a district heating else because district heating is what you want, using very system than if you create electricity. There is no dispute broad-brush figures which I abhor, because inevitably they about that fact at all. Whether we can afford either of those are wrong - I have always found a short stiff brush brushes facilities or whether we can afford all of the costs associated properly, a broad brush misses bits and when you miss with it or whether indeed the electricity or the energy bits it is expensive later - but a broad-brush figure for such produced is acceptable to users is another matter. Do not a network, we think, is certainly £10 million, on top of all run away with the idea that you can simply stick a plant on the other costs that you are aware of. This is not free, it is the edge of Douglas and suddenly this cheap, free heat not cheap, it is not easy to install. There will be a lot of will be used by everybody in the area. That is not the case. practical difficulties in installing such a system. The first prerequisite of any heat in whatever form it is Obviously, therefore, the costs of district heating are produced from this plant will be that it undercuts the price largely financial and front end loaded, whereas the benefits of current energy, otherwise nobody will take it. That is are largely environmental and in the long term contribute absolutely a certainty. to the strategic importance of preserving fossil fuels. But Incinerator energy will be used, but please do not regard make no mistake about it: the costs are immediate, if you it as free or cheap. It is not and it will not be. The fuel are going to do it properly. These costs for district heating itself might well be readily available and reasonable, but would include the initial investment; maintenance and very costly systems are required to deliver the energy in pumping; upheaval of streets and pavements; disruption usable form to where it is needed or asked for. Electricity to vehicles and pedestrians and possibly existing services, generation requires, in addition to the basic incinerator, a and a small example of that was the DHSS and the steam boiler with economiser and superheater, a turbo- difficulties it faced in the early days trying to do small

Incinerator on Stoney Mountain Site — Expenditure of Public Money — Debate Commenced K332 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 5th MARCH 1996 jobs at Noble's hospital; possible redundancies in the oil was the correct one for an island of our size, type, ability supply industry; a certain loss of fuel duties to the Treasury and so on, and I have said time and time again that I believe on oil, for example Foxdale School spends about £7,000 we should do more and more to embrace, to learn and to per annum on oil. If we were to provide it with steam or practically put effect to the culture of reduction, reuse and hot water, that is £7,000 less oil. Imagine that multiplied recycling and I have said in debates before, perhaps even across the Island and you will see a loss of fuel duties to when asked questions by the hon. member for Onchan, the Treasury and an impact on the oil industry and all those the mover of the resolution, that I do not want to see a involved in that. There would have to be an establishment situation where because we have an incinerator all efforts of an organisation to design, build, operate and maintain towards reuse and reduction and recycling are reduced the system. It is a monumental exercise on its own. It is themselves and that we simply want to feed this machine. not easy. So if we decide in this hon. House or elsewhere Of course it is the case that the department and its that this is the way we want to go, it is no good deciding professionals are well aware, every day, of what changes that and fooling the people that we have made a positive there are in the world, if I can put it that way, of recycling, decision to do it, if you are not committed to do it properly what initiatives, what new technologies are coming and spend the money that is a consequence of that decision. forward. Over the past three years we have exported I also think that incinerator siting should have regard something like 1,751 tonnes of glass to the UK, admittedly not just to transport and energy considerations but also all at a substantial cost, and over the past five and a half years these other elements that we consider in the department. we have exported about 9,655 tonnes of papers and For example, we have heard figures that 60 per cent of the magazines. traffic comes from Douglas and the rest from the rest of I found the meeting with the other two experts who came the Island, in fact the figures we have got are it is to the Island a fortnight ago, when they met with me for approximately half and half, 50 per cent come from two hours or so, very interesting. It was in fact Miss Gill Douglas and Onchan including Braddan and the rest come King of the Milton Keynes MRF and not Miss Gill Knight, from the north, the south and the west, as I indicated in my as the hon. member referred to - answer to a question from the hon. member for Glenfaba this morning. Stoney Mountain is in fact very central to Mr Cretney: It is Dame Gill Knight. the other three geographic sectors of the Isle of Man. That is a great improvement for them. Mr Groves: - It is Dame Gill, you are are right - and If this site is located on the edge of Douglas, as the hon. we have arranged a visit with her, and also Professor West's member for Glenfaba refers to, it is by definition a rural facility, next week. location. It is either in the middle of this town or it is in the It was very clear that both those facilities, although they country outside it. There is nothing in between. I do not are both called materials recycling facilities, operate in a know that any location has been identified in the centre of very different way, not least the way in which they are Douglas to put such a facility, so we are just talking about funded, financed, owned, the MRF in Milton Keynes being putting it in a rural location. I know the hon. member for owned by the Milton Keynes Borough Council and the Glenfaba recognises that and I have a little difficulty with latter, wherever they might be, I am a little uncertain of as earlier advice that he gave to me some months ago where to the ownership at this stage. he suggested Archallagan plantation for the facilities. That Certainly it was very clear that at Milton Keynes, which is a rural location no matter what. is the best example of its kind in the country, until they get into composting and until it becomes successful they are Mr Cannan: Walter suggested that, did he? achieving a maximum of 25 per cent of recycling of domestic waste which leaves 75 per cent to be dealt with Mr Groves: Mr Speaker, if I could just come to the some other way and in Milton Keynes it goes to landfill, points raised by the hon. member Mr Cretney with regard crude landfill, because they have got plenty of land and to his amendment, the policy of the department, the policy plenty of big holes, I suppose. that the department is pursuing, is not incineration, it is a Professor West's operation - the MRF at Milton Keynes policy for the strategy to manage the disposal of our waste according to Gill King is known as a 'clean' MRF and which mirrors precisely that adopted by the European Professor West's operations, according to Gill King, are Union and which mirrors very closely that stated in the known as `dirty' MRFs - is a different system altogether latest document by the United Kingdom Government dated where basically we tip the crude waste that currently we December 1995, 'Waste Management Works', which is tip out of the back of the truck at Ballacallow in through that we concentrate primarily on what we might term the the doors of a Professor West-type facility, the doors are three Rs: reduction, reuse and recycling. We are discussing shut, he does a bit of sorting and so on to see what he can putting in place the facilities that are the safety net to that sell, cleaning any clean product, and the rest is put in a policy. I know I have said this before and forgive me if I huge great shed and composted in that crude form, and am repeating myself but our policy is not incineration. Our that is what we are going to see also. policy is to put in place now the safety nets of disposal, The markets that that system uses, I would think, are the final disposal route. more volatile still than the markets which Gill King's Professor Bellamy, when he came to talk to those who company uses because her products are all clean, whereas attended his presentation with others, made the point, I Professor West's is mostly a crude compost. Our advisers believe, that he thought by and large the policy we had have concerns about the pathogens and chemical content

Incinerator on Stoney Mountain Site — Expenditure of Public Money — Debate Commenced HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 5th MARCH 1996 K333

et cetera in that crude compost (A Member: Hear, hear.) on the rural edge of northern Douglas, shall we say, the and in the UK Professor West said he sold most of his chimney would be seen from a great distance by a lot of • product to motorway building for verges and so on, big people. The fact of the matter is we live in a rural cuttings through the Newbury bypass, that sort of thing, environment and no matter where you put an incinerator and golf courses, and we tried to advise him that our with a chimney that might be anything from 50 to 100 marketplace here was a little different and therefore he metres-plus, you are going to see it, no matter where we would have to do a different study as to what end price he put it. could get for this product which would obviously have a He suggested that it was not economically viable to go serious effect on his business plan. That has yet to be done. to Stoney Mountain. Now, he might be right but I do not What was clear, and it was agreed by Professor West at know that. I will know it very shortly when the the meeting with us and Miss King was there at the same environmental statement comes in and when we can begin time, was that if there were no markets for this crude to make better informed judgements. That process is nearly compost it would have to be landfilled or perhaps, he said complete. This thing is coming together in draft form now. to me, you could have a mini-incinerator. The majority of money to be expended on this process of So again, although I appreciate the point that the hon. investigation is certainly mainly spent or committed, all member for Douglas South, Mr Cretney, is making, I do to bring us fact and information. If it is not economically not believe it is necessary to support your amendment viable it is certainly an issue that we must properly consider because we are already doing what you are asking us to when deciding whether the site is suitable or not. do, every day. We are looking now with a company in the I do not believe it is possible to do a cost-benefit north of the Island to bring in a plastics recycling scheme, analysis, which we seem to hear a lot about at the moment, we are looking at home composting, we are looking at without fact, detailed fact. Some members think that one other areas of recycling, bearing in mind it must be simply runs a bit of a ruler round it and stick your thumb efficient, effective, practical and economic. It costs us up and do that and you say, 'Well, it might be this or that quarter of a million a year now just to recycle aluminium or the other.' That is the way we have got into major cans, oil, glass and paper and some textiles because we difficulties in the past: by not investigating thoroughly. If have that expanse of water which adds enormous cost I am going to put a building up on a site across the road I measured against the price we can get from the will not sign a contract to buy the land until I have had an marketplace. But we are going through on a daily basis engineer dig holes in the ground and tell me for real what with a great deal of urgency the exercise of trying to see is underneath. Remember when the new children's wing what can be introduced into our culture here that is right was built and the firm that built it went bust? The major in terms of reduction and reuse and recycling and therefore contribution to that company going down was a failure to how that will effect the ultimate design of an incinerator. understand at the beginning the ground conditions of the That is in our minds now. We do not have some off-the- site. They lost a huge amount of time coming out of the shelf, it is going to be that big, come what may. This ground with the Jane Crookall, the new one, because the determinant as to its size will flow from all the current soil conditions were disastrous. The thing had to be totally investigations we are doing all the time on recycling, redesigned because the detailed investigation had not been reduction and reuse. My officers have had meetings with done at the beginning. That is what I am saying we are major supermarket companies in recent weeks to see how doing now and I think we should do that wherever we go. we can encourage them to perhaps return to their source If this hon. House believe or another place believes that of origin unwanted packaging materials, wrapping and so we should investigate five sites at once I will say to you, on. These are the sort of initiatives we are taking and if `Fine, but I will need approximately £200,000 per site to this amendment is supported it will have the effect of the investigate them properly so that you can make informed resolution which is to bring everything to a halt and I do decisions. Do you want me to investigate two or four more not believe that you have the time for that. Remember the sites? You have got to give me the money as well because impact on the short-term planning applications for the Point otherwise we are guessing, we are walking on thin air, not of Ayre. If those are not approved by the time we go to the even thin ice: it is not that solid.' polls in November, some people may have some full So, whilst I understand the concerns that the hon. mover dustbins. That is not a statement meant to excite. It is simply makes, but I cannot forget that he is basically an anti- the position we are in. Ballacallow will be full in incineration man which must be in his heart where he is September. coming from, until we have the facts we cannot make a Coming to the points made by the hon. mover, Mr judgement. I cannot make a judgement with my colleagues, Karran, he did ask three questions at the beginning referring put it to the Council of Ministers and bring it to your good to the fact that the chimney could be seen from 50 per cent selves. of the Island, that use of energy and the incinerator, I think, I thank Mr Duggan for his comments about baling but should not be put at Stoney Mountain without a policy, really baling is another form of crude landfill. (Messrs that transport costs would be excessive because of this Brown and Gilbey: Hear, hear.) It is used by, certainly to location. Well, I do not know, with respect to the hon. my knowledge, a district or county council in Manchester member, how he knows that until the investigative process and they do it primarily for transport because they send has asked those questions and brought the facts to us to their crude waste a very long way and it is baled to make it determine whether that is the case or not. I could make a easier to transport it. But today vehicles have in-vehicle guess like he has, I think, that if the incinerator was sited compactors and modern on-site compactors which can get t Incinerator on Stoney Mountain Site — Expenditure of Public Money — Debate Commenced K334 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 5th MARCH 1996 a rate of compaction at site that is equal to that achieved Mr Cretney: That is your opinion. by baling. In fact it is better because with baling you get voids in the bales and ringies and all the rest of it can run Mr Groves: Only my opinion. I would like it to be through them and in fact our advice to me is that that is a based on fact. more anti-environmentally friendly way of disposal of I think that if we support this resolution we are not being crude landfill, (Mr Cretney: Hear, hear.) if that is what totally honest with our constituents and I think that if we you want to do, than the way we do it now and I really do support the amendment, I really think without being not think baling is the answer. critical, that we will be deceiving ourselves in that that is Mr Kermode raised points about whether this is the right something we are doing in the meantime. It will not actually place to be debating this issue and I really leave that to take us any further forward. Naturally I would hope that hon. members to decide and just hope that perhaps what I the House allows the department to continue with the task am saying this morning may help you come to a decision that it has been directed to complete. Thank you very much. on the issue in front of you. I thank the Chief Minister for his support for the The Speaker: Hon. members, the House will now department's efforts, for pointing out the time scale that adjourn and the adjournment will be until 2.30. we face which I tried to allude to at the beginning. He referred to the need for full information and that is again a The House adjourned at 1.01 p.m. point I tried to make. Mr Gilbey mentioned at Stoney Mountain that there are important areas identified by Professor Bellamy of wet INCINERATOR ON STONEY MOUNTAIN SITE heath and so on at the site. I was equally pleased that — DEBATE CONCLUDED — MOTION LOST Professor Bellamy chose to come to the Island. We have had him here before to open those important wetlands in The Speaker: Now, as members will be aware, we are Onchan. He is a world-famous botanist and naturalist, an discussing the motion outlined in item 15 on our agenda, extremely eco-friendly, person-friendly person himself, and I wonder whether the House has got to a stage in the but, with respect, it did not take Professor Bellamy to point debate where I can call upon the hon. member for Douglas out to us what was in the Stoney Mountain area. We know South, Mr Cretney, to reply? it. It is here in the draft instructions to the environmental engineers who are preparing the draft statement. Mr Quine: No, sir. We said that the current land use in the 1982 Development Plan identifies the site as being located within The Speaker: I call upon the hon. member for Ayre, plantations owned by the Isle of Man Forestry, Mines and then. Lands Board, now the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. It also lies within an area described as nature Mr Kermode: I thought you would want to avoid this, conservation zones, nature reserves and sites of ecological importance, and that flowed from a report in 1975 by the Edgar. Nature Conservancy Council and the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology entitled 'Nature Conservation in the Isle of Man'. Mr Quine: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I can understand The area referred to there is described as area number 11 the concern of the people of Foxdale. It is a very unwelcome which is the South Barrule uplands, that whole area of prospect to have an incinerator or a landfill site on your South Barrule uplands, not just the Stoney Mountain site, doorstep; I can understand that. The people of the north of and this was described as having calluna heath in parts the Island have lived with that for 10 years and they have in dominated by Ulex Gallili, conifer plantation in association prospect a further five years. So I have no difficulty with south-west coastal uplands. It says that the 1982 whatsoever in associating myself with the concerns which Development Plan does not identify the proposed site or those good folk have. But of course we all know that is not the immediate surrounding countryside as being defined really the totality of the question that is before us. as high landscape value or scenic significance, indeed the I might also say that I am far from convinced that the main views from the site from the east are marred by the selection of Stoney Mountain as a site for incinerator and existing scar created by quarrying operations which will landfill has been carried out in - well, to be charitable let continue into the 21st century. The point I am trying to me say a highly objective fashion. I do not think that is make is that these very important issues which have to be how it has been arrived at at all, and I can understand that looked at very carefully and evaluated very properly before perhaps the people of Foxdale share that concern, that there a decision is made whether to proceed at Stoney Mountain may not have been as much objectivity put into the exercise or not, we are aware of, we have identified them, they are as perhaps they would have wished or others would have there for assessment and determination. wished. And I think a matter which has not been focussed If this hon. House decides to support this resolution on so far in the public debate surrounding this matter, but today the effect will be a stop on the department's present will be in the immediate future, and a matter which I think efforts to implement, in the direction with Tynwald without they should be very much concerned with, although they delay, the facilities. It will mean, in my opinion and it is have not voiced their concern to any great extent to this only my opinion, that the whole process could be delayed point in time, is of course the planning procedures by which about 18 months, at least. this matter is going to be determined. The procedures, in

Incinerator on Stoney Mountain Site — Debate Concluded — Motion Lost HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 5th MARCH 1996 K335

my view, are bankrupt procedures, they have lost public To my way of thinking we are arriving at a point of confidence and I think that is a serious matter for the very convergence, if that is the right term. We have on the one simple reason that, unless and until we have in place hand this exercise being executed at the moment to evaluate planning procedures to address the evaluation of proposed the Stoney Mountain project, and that is not very far away major developments which stand scrutiny and which carry from us now; it must be quite near to the point where they public confidence, we are going to have this sort of can take that decision. And, separately from that, of course, resistance and these public protests on an ever-increasing we know that the minister is looking at 'refinements' to scale, and that is a matter which I believe should be of the existing policy and whether they offer any prospect great concern to us. So those are three preliminary points. for change of our approach. So I think we are approaching Now, that said, we clearly have to address the motion within the very short term a point of convergence where • as it is before us, and if you look at that motion it speaks of we will have that information before us specific the need to prevent further expenditure of public moneys information as to the suitability or otherwise of Stoney by taking in effect a decision to abort the exercise forthwith, Mountain and we will have before us, perhaps, further and basically, and that, to my mind, is something that creates better information in relation to issues that impact upon some different issues to be addressed, issues which I think our existing policy. To my mind, that is the point at which we really should take on board quite seriously. They are any further decisions called for, either from this House or procedural issues, perhaps. But, as the minister has pointed from Tynwald Court, and that, as I say, is my understanding, out this morning and given us, I think, a very helpful is fairly not far removed from where we are today. That is submission this morning in addressing a number of something we can expect in the very short term. So problems, he is seeking to do no more and no less than to although I have great sympathy, I feel it would be wrong put in place Tynwald policy. Tynwald policy is as he has for us today to, in effect, abort the exercise that has been outlined it to us today, and to this point in time I have put in train by Tynwald through the department to evaluate certainly, for one, seen fit to support that policy. I have no this exercise. I think it would be wrong to do that. wish to hide from that fact at all. I believe, on the facts that we have got before us, that policy is the correct one. The Speaker: Hon. member, I wonder if I could Of course we have heard the minister say today that he is continuing to look at refinements to that policy, and I persuade you just to resume your seat for one moment? welcome that, and as and when perhaps we have got further Mr Quine: and better information before us to refine or to adjust or to Yes, certainly, sir. amend that policy then perhaps it will change somewhat, but at this point in time, to my mind, policy that Tynwald The Speaker: There are three members I think who has approved is the correct policy and I am quite happy to might benefit from your remarks who would love to join state that publicly, I am quite happy to live with that at this us in the chamber. point in time. Now, that policy is in place and it is to the executive to Mr Quine: I am sure they would, sir! implement that policy. As I have indicated, I would question their decision-making in terms of their selection of the site, Mr Kermode: They were trying to miss it! I would question the vehicles by which they are trying to carry forward these policies in relation to planning The Speaker: Please continue, sir. legislation, but the fact remains that it is their responsibility to carry forward that Tynwald policy, it is their Mr Quine: Thank you. As I was saying, Mr Speaker, responsibility to put the issues before Tynwald if further the point is fairly imminent where we will have the issues are to be decided. information we need to take a definitive position in relation What concerns me here - I have come to two points that to Stoney Mountain and to take any decision that we also are of particular concern to me at this juncture - first of all wish to take in terms of refinement of our existing policy, the motion speaks of ensuring that there is no further and that, I would suggest, is when we should address the moneys expended on this particular project. Now, as I type of issue which is before us today. And to abort the understand the situation, of course, the moneys in question, exercise at this juncture I do not think would be prudent i.e. the moneys which have been provided or are committed and, quite honestly, I do not think it would be a very to the evaluation of the Stoney Mountain project in fact reasonable position for those of us outside of government are either expended or committed already, because we are to take, because I can see that if that was to happen today aware of course that the investigation into this project is and if this decision, if this exercise that has been entered already well underway and so, from that point of view, I into by the executive, by government, were to be aborted am not quite sure what the objective of the motion is, today or the process set in motion today to abort that because those moneys, if they have not been spent, are exercise, then the government could quite rightly and, I already committed to the point where this further report suppose, quite properly say, 'Well, look, it is the legislature on the suitability of Stoney Mountain is arrived at, and that has prohibited us, that has stopped us carrying through that is a decision which I trust will be brought back, if not and seeing through the remit which we have been given,' before this hon. House, before Tynwald Court. So in that and I do not think that that would be reasonable. part of the motion I am not quite sure what what we are But one further point is this. Looking at this motion, if seeking to achieve within the motion as far as it relates to we consider that the aspect of it relating to expenditure the curtailment or the stopping of further expenditure. really has little substance, what we are left with is a motion s Incinerator on Stoney Mountain Site — Debate Concluded — Motion Lost K336 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 5th MARCH 1996 that is negative. It is saying to us certain actions will not other locations. The utilisation of the waste heat, if the be done. It does not carry forward our pressing need to put location was on the outskirts of Douglas, could be directed in place facilities to cope with the waste we are creating, to large commercial enterprises such as the creamery, the and I personally feel that that would not be a productive meat plant, Kenmac et cetera, and I believe the energy exercise. Time is not with us, that has been underlined, costs would be significantly lower than those at present. and I have come to the conclusion that we would be better The minister acknowledged there would be an efficiency advised today, although I have serious doubts about the loss of 15 per cent, but this is far more efficient than the • choice and the objectivity in making that choice in terms proposed conversion of heat into electricity as envisaged of Stoney Mountain, to complete this exercise which is at Stoney Mountain - three to four times more efficient. virtually completed anyway, and then, together with any The minister, Mr Groves, already stated that £75,000 has further information on policy, to take a decision, but not to already been spent or committed. I do believe, sir, the abort it here and now, because I think there is too much remaining capital allocated would be better spent against us doing that. investigating the locations closer to Douglas. I also Delay is a matter which does concern me and concern congratulate the minister in investigating other options in me greatly, and I am sure it concerns all members of this waste management which are fundamental to the hon. House, because, quite frankly, time is not on our side. department's strategy of the three r's: reduce, reuse, I represent, as I said, an area that has been the depository recycle. Thank you, Mr Speaker. of the Island's waste for 10 years and has, certainly in prospect, that it will continue to be the depository for Mr Corrie: Mr Speaker, I would like to reiterate another five years, and I wish to see no time wasted in perhaps the main thrust of the argument put forward by trying to find a proper solution to our waste disposal the hon. member for Ayre, because I believe that there is a problem, and putting off decisions and putting off issues danger that a message through the vote of this House could is not going to achieve that, neither is digging holes in the be misinterpreted as to what this House... if one says that ground and depositing untreated waste an answer to our this House is of the opinion. Now it has been said that to problems, so I think we have to forge ahead with this and abort X, Y or Z - I do not know where that power would look to having a decision taken in the very short term, come in actually to abort X, Y or Z. A Tynwald decision which hopefully will either direct us towards an alternative has been made. That is the Tynwald policy, and I would site, which we should pursue with all haste, or perhaps - I have thought that the other part of Tynwald Court, the do not know - continue with the option which is now being Council, would feel rather aggrieved if everything was assessed. brought to a halt with a Tynwald policy because of a motion So I really do not see any merit in supporting this motion in the House of Keys. I thought that would be a most today. I can understand why the member has moved it. As unusual situation. has been pointed out, he is anti-incineration and he is So this motion here - as the hon. member for Ayre quite perfectly entitled to be so, but I see no merit in supporting correctly pointed out, any member is free to put a motion it. I think, if anything, it will create a further loss of time down and, if it is seconded, a debate may take place. One in finding a solution to our problem and that we would be is taking place. But I question as to the result of that motion, better advised to continue and hopefully arrive at a point what effect it will have or what power it would carry other where we take a definitive position on this proposition in than an expression of opinion of members of this House if the very short term. Thank you, Mr Speaker. it comes to a vote, and that may well be members who will vote for a reason today but it may well be that in Mr Braidwood: Mr Speaker, I am a little concerned different circumstances or another place they would vote about some of the aspects of this debate. Both the Chief differently than they would vote today, for perhaps formal Minister and the hon. minister for DoLGE, Mr Groves, procedural reasons, and that is correct - that you do follow have commented on district heating schemes, in the case formal procedural reasons. of the minister, Mr Groves, costings of approximately £10 So I question that and I wonder if... and I would not million to rip up roads, pavements and the integration into like the message to go from this House that the vote could existing systems. I believe the hon. members of this House be misinterpreted to something else, that what really is the understand this would only be a viable proposition for a power of this House. It is as the motion says, 'This House new development where they had no existing services. I do believe, sir, the siting of Stoney Mountain is not a is of the opinion.' If there is Tynwald Court, that controls finances and finance measures and so on and so forth; even correct decision. Apart from the sustainability principle, the fundamentals associated with the Mott MacDonald the amendment here speaks of looking at other matters report are that an incinerator should be located within a which presumably would cost money, and I wonder if that radius of five kilometres from the main centre of means anything in terms of 'where does the power come population, namely Douglas and Onchan. Therefore, four for the department, perhaps, to change course and spend preferred locations were considered suitable: Ballafletcher money on something else arising from a debate here?' The Road, Tromode, Strang Ballaoates, Strang Ballamilligan issue appears to be rather confused by this motion being and White Hoe lands. The latter was rejected by the here. Quite rightly, the hon. member is entitled to move it, department as the minister could not guarantee its support but equally I think that we should know and the public to the Douglas MHKs. But may I add, Mr Speaker, I have should know as to what the formal position is and the not been approached to see what my attitude was to the outcome of a vote in this House today.

Incinerator on Stoney Mountain Site — Debate Concluded — Motion Lost HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 5th MARCH 1996 K337

Mr Brown: Mr Speaker, I think we can all understand Man has and continues to have is that we have no long- concerns of people in any area of the Island when a project term solution to dealing with our refuse and we are in such as this is put forward that it might be situated in their danger of again causing a bit of a stall in terms of whether area and I think it is worth reflecting that what is being or not we progress to identify that clearly. Like the member expressed to us has been expressed time and time again for Ayre, I am quite happy that the strategy that Tynwald when the Isle of Man Government over the years has tried has adopted for disposal of our refuse, which contains a • to find a site either for a tip or an incinerator. And since number of components, is in fact a very sound strategy, this issue came up, just looking back on the ones I could and I do not think there is any doubt about that. The Isle of remember, it is interesting to note that for incinerator sites, Man is a small place and I have never changed my mind for example, in the late 1970s we had the Douglas railway from some years ago now, and I knew nothing about it station area which was proposed; that was strongly opposed until I got involved looking at it. I am certainly of the view and not accepted. We had the Pulrose for one by the power the Isle of Man will not be able to deal with its waste station; that was opposed and not accepted. We had one at effectively without an incinerator. Now, I have no doubt Middle Farm; that was opposed and not accepted. We had about that and I do not think anybody who has been there a site at the White Hoe - opposed and again not accepted. to look at it in depth, even if they have gone in... and I We now have Stoney Mountain - opposed and again, from know one person who went in saying he was against the people there, not accepted, and that is what really this incineration and, after a number of years examining it, saw debate is about. We go to our refuse sites and we go through the Island had no other option. The point is that we have a similar pattern: Foxdale Deads, suggested there for baling heard about baling and so on, but they still create leachate, - that was opposed and not accepted; the sand pit near they still sterilise land, as does crude tipping, and we have Poortown - that was opposed and not accepted; the Raggatt not got the land to sterilise. That is the really big problem, - that was opposed, not accepted but actually got planning and we must keep that uppermost in our minds. permission and was operated, and we know the concerns The other thing is that the Isle of Man has determined, that were expressed at that time; Lhergy Dhoo - opposed; through its different waste management reports that went Ballalough at Peel - opposed and not accepted; to Tynwald, that any incinerator we build will be to the Kerrowdhoo - opposed and eventually not accepted; highest standards laid down by the EC. Now, we are able Ballacallow still opposed, and you go on and on, and on to do that because in fact they have laid down standards, and the reality is that the Isle of Man is a very small place, but there are very few standards laid down for landfill, and one of the difficulties that we all face in that, whether and although incineration is expensive and is seen to be you are from one area or the other, is that the Isle of Man expensive as an option, we as an Island have to take into generates refuse and that refuse statutorily is the account what the other options are, and the other options responsibility, in disposal terms, of the Department of Local are very limited. We are not able to find large pieces of Government and the Environment, and they have, on behalf land. We are unable to find them to tip our refuse in, and of the people of the Isle of Man, to try and identify a way the hon. member for Ayre, Mr Quine, has made the point of disposing of that rubbish and disposing of it long term. about how Ballacallow has been the short-term landfill One of the problems we all know is that we have no long- site now, and I think it is more like six years, although term proposal in place to deal with he refuse of the Isle of there is a site operated by the local authorities up there for Man and this is what this really is all about. longer than that. The only reason that we got the last Now, the hon. member for Ayre, Mr Quine, expressed a application through was because we had a strategy, and concern about the planning procedures, and I think it is that strategy showed that we were going to look at worth just making the point that of course the planning incineration, recycling and so on. Recycling, I would procedures are in the hands not necessarily of the minister suggest, is limited for what we can do as an Island because, but are laid down by Manx law; they are statutorily laid if we are not careful, we would have to - and maybe some down, the time-scales and so on, and there is very little people would say it is right - implement legislation to make discretion within that in terms of how it is dealt with and, it statutory that people have to do certain things with their if that law needs changing, and I think it is fair to say even refuse. Then, when we get it all collected, we have to the department believes that that legislation needs determine how we are going to deal with it and how we changing, that is a matter to be progressed by this House recycle it, where to and what the cost implications are of at some stage, but at the moment, whether we like it or that. not, the department and everybody else has to work within One of the things I have heard about was about that time scale. composting. We keep hearing about composting. Now, Over the last few months while this debate has been when I was minister, myself and colleagues went to see going on, it has been interesting to hear some of the that in Germany and, quite honestly, I have to say that if comments that have been made by people generally about you think we have got a problem with landfill you would how we should be looking more at different issues about have a far greater problem with composting as to the way recycling and all the different things that go on there. And they did it in Germany, who were supposedly some of the all I can say is, certainly in my time, four-and-a-half years leaders on how to deal with that. So there is no easy option as Minister for Local Government and the Environment and that is really the big problem that we all have, and I and five years before that as a member of the Local presume that is partly why we have a debate here today in Government Board, we were always examining ways to terms of our not liking the idea of going to the Stoney deal with the Island's waste, and the problem the Isle of Mountain. 6 Incinerator on Stoney Mountain Site — Debate Concluded — Motion Lost 1038 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 5th MARCH 1996

The point I think that is important is that the department have a difficulty finding a site near Douglas where the have determined a site and they have to go through - main population are. White Hoe is the other one, I suppose, because everybody requires it and we all require it - a which has recently been rejected. So they are the three certain procedure to clearly identify whether or not that sites you could say you have got the option on. Whether site is suitable, and that has a cost implication. The minister you like it or not, they are the ones that are the nearest to has already indicated that the environmental statement is the main bases of population. (Mr Kermode interjecting) being progressed, and that will identify clearly one way or the other what the pros and cons of that site are, and at that Mr Cretney: And there is the power station too. stage I am sure the department will evaluate that assessment and will determine whether or not to go to the next stage, Mr Brown: Well, exactly and this is the problem. You and that is then, I believe, the right way forward. then get the point where straightaway, as soon as you go Now, the hon. member for Glenfaba read out all the into another area, the opposition from that area then different local authorities who have now said they do not suddenly says, 'Hang on, we don't want it near us either,' want this to go to Stoney Mountain. All I can say is, when and this is the reality of the problem that we have. At the we were talking about going to Kerrowdhoo, there were a end of the day, whatever happens, the Isle of Man at some lot of people up at that area saying, from the local authority stage is going to have to make a decision to provide either onwards, 'We do not want you to go up to Kerrowdhoo.' a long-term landfill site - and we are talking about 30 years When we went to Ballalough in Peel they were saying it - which will have to be managed, as well as recycling, as in that area, 'We do not want you to go to here,' so at the well as waste minimisation and all the other things we do, end of the day it does not matter where you turn, there will and the people of the Isle of Man recycle pretty well be that sort of opposition and that is natural, that is considering the basis of the system we have. If we do not understandable. What we have to do, as the Isle of Man have a long-term landfill site for that sort of period, and it Government trying to deal with this issue for the Manx is unlikely we would find one for that sort of period anyway, people, is to act properly and fairly, examine the issue fairly we are going to have to incinerate, because it is the only and then come up with a decision as to whether or not that way to use the waste as a resource as against using the is the suitable site, and I do not believe that we can expect waste as a waste and dumping it in the ground. Then you any more than that, and I am concerned that we might have to say, 'How can you utilise that resource to get some prematurely try to undermine that consideration, albeit that benefit back?' and one thing we do know - and there might there are things that are being said that we can all be problems and that is what we are waiting for the report understand. I have been advised, for example, by my local on - is that from the Stoney Mountain side you can put it authority that they do not agree with, as the hon. member into the electrical grid system. Now, there are disadvantages said, it going to Stoney Mountain. in doing it as electricity as against heating, but also, taking the capital cost of putting in a heating system throughout Mr Gilbey: That is right. an estate, unless you build a purpose-built estate and build the incinerator by it, the costs are quite considerable. The Mr Brown: I have to say I do not know why. Maybe other point that I think is important is, if you use waste the hon. member got a phone call quicker than I did, but I heat from an incinerator it has got to be compatible, because got mine this morning and I was just told my local authority if you do not make it compatible then you are not does not agree that we should go to Stoney Mountain. Now, maximising that waste and you might as well to some first I do not know what they base that on and I do not degree put it in the ground because of the cost of the know all the ins and outs of what they have been told or so incinerator. So there are all these things that are involved on, so from my point of view I am quite happy to hear in the whole subject. what they have to say about that but I know one of the The other point I would just say is, I was interested in concerns is about the distance they have to travel. But I reading the letter from the Malew Commissioners, who have to say they are now travelling from the south of the state in the paragraph of theirs, 'It is the opinion of the Island to the point of Ayre and back, and that is quite commissioners that, had the disposal of municipal waste expensive to my ratepayers and that refuse still has to be been given thorough and careful consideration befitting dealt with, so I think the point is that at the end of the day matters of national importance, this inquiry would have the department is charged with the responsibility, that been unnecessary.' All I can say is, I do not know many department has to undertake that responsibility and other things that have had so much investigation, so many ultimately, as Mr Quine said, the member for Ayre, has to reports; it has had, I suppose, nearly half the members of report back to Tynwald at a suitable time. Tynwald having a look at this at some stage as members The other thing I think is important is to just say that of the Local Government Board, as members of the when we are talking about an incinerator, if we are going departments and ministers and so on. It has been examined to have one, being near where people live - I mean, really and examined and examined. The reality is that the only you are going back to a number of the sites I mentioned real difficulty we have is finding a suitable site for the that have already been rejected for many reasons, by public incinerator and, if it is not an incinerator, it is finding a opinion, by politicians, by planning and so on, but if you suitable site for a long-term landfill. You will never get are really going to say let us put it nearer the main away from either of them. You will need both anyway, conurbation you have basically got two areas: one is albeit a landfill could deal with the waste that is like Pulrose and one is Middle Farm. Outside those you will builders' rubble and so on, not putrescible. Apart from that,

Incinerator on Stoney Mountain Site — Debate Concluded — Motion Lost HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 5th MARCH 1996 K339

this problem is going to go on. I believe the department alternative location. They would rightly feel that that means has started a programme in terms of the first stage. We, I that they are the few carrying the burden for the many, and • believe, should allow them to do that. The minister then why should that make that right in their eyes? No point and his department can consider that report and then a saying that their location is centrally accessible and would decision can be made whether or not to go to the next stage, stop the roads of Douglas, Onchan and Braddan from which is actually to pursue the planning application to put bearing the brunt of congestion of additional traffic. There an incinerator at Stoney Mountain, and if all the things is no point in telling them that the unique advantage which that are being said come into the report, and some of them Stoney Mountain possesses compared with other sites in have been identified by the minister, then there is a the Mott MacDonald list is that it can offer the incinerator, judgement to be made at that stage by the minister and his plus the associated ash landfill site on, we believe, the one department as to whether or not to pursue the next stage single site, thus saving some other community in the Island and considerable expenditure. from the planning battle over an ash landfill site. I think that it has been interesting, the points that have This advantage was highlighted in the original Mott been put by members. I think all I would say is, at the end MacDonald report, but why should they derive any comfort of the day, whatever we all may think, there is no easy from this? An incinerator on Stoney Mountain, an solution to this. The Isle of Man is a small place and, incinerator plus the ash disposal site on Stoney Mountain wherever we move this issue to, we will have a similar - for them the impact is certainly real. For the people of reaction as we have had since the 1970's, and at the end of Foxdale the incinerator will be a reality and, however much the day somebody in Tynwald is going to have to make the environmental affects can be mitigated, whatever the the final decision that that is where whatever it is will go, inspector says about landscaping, tree planting or and that will have to be a decision, and all I would say is, screening, the plain fact of the matter is that it will be there what we must do is ensure that those people who have a and of course they simply do not want it. They cannot be point of view to make are given the opportunity to make blamed for not wanting it. Who does want an incinerator their case fairly and squarely, and I believe that the system in their district? we have allows that to happen. It may not comfort those opposing an incinerator in this area or wherever it may be to know that other Island Mr Rodan: Mr Speaker, I have likewise a great deal of communities, Bermuda for example, have been through sympathy with the people of Foxdale. I also believe that exactly the same planning hoops and environmental battles SMOG have conducted their campaign most impressively as ourselves. This is an island which shares with us the and effectively. The prospects of being home to the Island's great disadvantage of remoteness from the markets for incinerator has understandably united the whole recyclable materials, plus the high transport costs that make community in a way that only the joining together in the economic recycling for an island community at best only face of a common adversity can so unite a community. It a part and never the total solution to waste management. would be an unusual community indeed which did not rise Nonetheless, as the minister has indicated, it is only right to fiercely oppose the perceived threat of disruption with and it would be a dereliction of duty of the department if it which they are faced. I say 'perceived' because, of course, were not to examine as part of its strategy for reuse and the precise nature of the cost to this community is, close to recycling all the evidence that was presented to members the incinerator, the loss of amenity, cost and problems in of the public last week. One could also point out that in making the roads right and engineering the site. All these the case of the Bermuda incinerator, which was opened in have been identified as part of the planning process required 1994, this has given their community added impetus to and environmental assessment and the scoping report. In recycling, composting, certainly greater environmental discussion about the pros and cons of energy reuse, we of awareness and that it has proved a widely accepted answer course must not lose sight of the primary objective, which to their waste problems after much scepticism and doubt is the safe, effective and environmentally acceptable waste by the public, and that the fears of people living next to disposal. It is certainly obvious that there will not be great the facility from pollution or noise have never materialised. scope for utilising waste heat and district heating schemes It is very interesting also that they have devised innovative in this location even if the capital costs referred to earlier measures such as avoiding landfill of ash altogether, instead by the minister were deemed acceptable. The prospect of using the simple technology of mixing bottom ash and fly electricity generation may not, I suspect, be thought as a ash with cement and casting strong concrete blocks, one factor to outweigh more traffic on what has been argued metre cubed, for deposit into the sea as artificial reefs for as inadequate roads, or the height of the chimney that Mr fish and for land reclamation - a process engineered, Cannan has referred to. There will be a whole range of incidentally, by consultants from the north-west of England issues which the planning inspector will have to confront. and which is monitored to meet the highest environmental We know already that the strict standards of emission standards. The point I am making is that incineration has control make the incinerator safe, and, if this whole proved itself in other island communities to be a vital argument has done anything recently, it is to satisfy most component of an integrated approach to recycling and people, I believe, that fears of toxic fallout from waste management that is needed for island communities incineration technology are groundless, but there is no point like the Isle of Man, but none of this will be of comfort to in telling the people of Foxdale, 'Yes, the incinerator is the people of Foxdale nor, I suspect, any part of the Isle of safe' or that, in Island terms, having an incinerator in that Man, urban or not, with a local population, large or small, location means fewer people being affected than in an which is asked to take an incinerator.

Incinerator on Stoney Mountain Site — Debate Concluded — Motion Lost K340 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 5th MARCH 1996

The fact is also that even if the decision had been to ideal site and has never been claimed so to be. It has pluses carry through investigating Ballaoates, a location in and it has minuses, and the opponents who live in the area accordance with the original Mott MacDonald Report, cannot blamed in any way for trying to keep the facility there is little doubt today that we would be dealing not out of their area. Any other site selected by the department, with SMOG - and I do not wish to seem flippant about given the approval of the Council of Ministers, would be people's right to protest - but the organised opposition of equally unacceptable to the people living in or near it, BOG, the Balloates Opposition Group. In this case no causing them pain, the only difference being that the amount of argument by the department's officers would identified problems, at the planning inquiry, would be no convince the residents of Braddan that the utilisation of less contentious, no less real, only different. waste heat by a possible adjacent hospital at Ballamona So we, who are now being asked to put a stop to any would more than justify the additional refuse wagons which further investigation into the suitability of Stoney they would argue would have to go on possibly inadequate Mountain, must ask ourselves, 'Am I prepared to roads (Interjection). With concerns of widespread visibility indefinitely put off investigating any site for fear of the of the chimney, same as in Stoney Mountain, no conclusion problems that so doing will identify, for fear of the certain of Mott MacDonald that Balloates on the other hand was political problem of opposition, for fear of the reality of adequately sited for heat loads to other parts of Douglas having to face local people rising up in vocal persuasive would convince them that this was a price worth paying, and understandable opposition? Let us say no to Stoney and so with White Hoe had the department pushed ahead Mountain here and now; by all means let us support this investigations after an announcement of that site, we would motion. Certainly the people of Foxdale will bless this hon. today be arguing with an equally vehement, possibly larger House for evermore. Certainly let is make a happy decision action group, with whom no persuasive argument by the this afternoon, but I would warn that if we do, the Island department about proximity to sources of the waste, thus as a whole will surely pay the price environmentally, minimising travel time and fuel consumption of refuse economically and socially for our inability to make hard, vehicles and all the other fashionable arguments we have complex and unpopular decisions. Thank you, Mr Speaker. heard, would possibly convince the residents of this part of Douglas that the higher chimney required on this site, Mr Downie: Mr Speaker, all of the previous speakers, situated as it is in a valley, was again a price worth paying, I think, have had the same theme. Whichever option we nor could the residents of Pulrose be blamed for being put before the people of the Isle of Man, I am sure that the cynical about any rosy prospects being held out for them road forward is fraught with difficulty. However, in Mr of a district heating scheme for their homes as a bonus for Cretney's amendment he has suggested that the department having an incinerator just down the road. carry out a full, independent cost-benefit analysis and look into recycling alternatives and subsequent consideration Mr Kermode: They have had tips for years. of disposal methods of the remainders of waste. I think what we have got to understand, hon. members, is that Mr Rodan: After all, they have lived for years in the what we are faced with before we do anything else is find shadow of a power station with not the slightest hint of a an ultimate solution to our refuse problem. Now, we are move by central government to utilise the heat from years either going to tip it or we are going to incinerate it, but of electricity generating to heat their homes in this way, there is not really much left, because even at the best and again we are back to the reasons of capital cost of possible practice for recycling we are not going to be able such major engineering works. to deal with more than 25 to 30 per cent by means of Whichever site the department was contemplating recycling. My hon. colleague on my left is chirping away investigating, let us say, making as its priority proximity (Mr Cretney: Often!) (Laughter) and I wonder what he to waste arisings, we can be sure that the local people would would do if somebody proposed to build a recycling centre welcome the refuse vehicles which would still converge near to him which was about six or seven acres in size and from all over the Island on their roads as warmly as have that you could smell on a decent day from three or four the people of Bride and Ramsey, who for years have miles away; you would need a staff of around 100 people endured the Island's refuse waste vehicles on their way to to do all the sorting and the separation and to run it and the Point of Ayre. Let us not forget that any urban then, at certain times, there were large piles placed at incinerator site will need a separate site for ash landfill strategic places ready to see what market forces were elsewhere on the Island, and whether that is later found available, where you had a market for compost, or a market technically suitable or not as the result of the necessary for cardboard, a market for glass, and I think what we have planning exercise which we are talking about this also got to realise, hon. members, is that we are also subject afternoon, that decision to investigate would of course get then to transport costs. Not only have we got to produce it, as warm a reception as an offer of water to a drowning we have got to stockpile it and wait until the market picks man. We can see what happened at Ballig and we can only up with regard to each particular element, but we are then speculate as to what would have happened at Ballalough, back to the mercy of transporting it away, so really what Poortown, outside Peel, another highly favoured site in we are doing is actually handling our waste here three or the Mott MacDonald list, had that actually been four times. investigated. Now, I am not speaking against recycling; I think an There is no ideal site for these facilities. Every site has element of recycling is essential and, if you look at the pluses, every site has minuses. Stoney Mountain is not an waste management strategy of the department, recycling

Incinerator on Stoney Mountain Site — Debate Concluded — Motion Lost HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 5th MARCH 1996 K341

is definitely highly featured in that principle, but we have capital and revenue implications, because it will be quite to have, as I say, the ultimate solution. We have to have wrong to incur further costs whilst the department is • the ability where, if we cannot recycle or we have got considering the content of the amendment separately, problems, we have got to have somewhere to put our which the minister says they are doing, and because the rubbish so that we know that when it has been disposed benefit of the reuse of heat will not be a viable option, of, it is completely safe. certainly in the proposed site here. I also think, hon. members, that if we are going to Now, I say that the cost-benefit analysis should be within recycle, we should also recycle builders' rubble and three months and independent. I say so out of no disrespect demolition waste and all those other materials, but if to the department's technical or political expertise, perhaps somebody would like to tell me privately where they would apart, after his remarks, from Mr Downie, who one minute like to site this operation, let me know. These are the supported the White Hoe, then went against the White Hoe problems that are going to come back time and time and and then today it seems to me he would not even consider time again. the three is which are supposed to be part of the The hon. member for Garff made reference to heat and department's policy. We have had the views from the the heat source and, to be quite honest with you, hon. promoters of recycling. These should be judged members, we have had four times as much as any independently and in particular, in my view, based against incinerator is likely to produce on our doorstep at Pulrose the department's policy and in an Island context. We are for the last 40/50-odd years. If you look at the topography told that a recycling facility could be up and running in of Douglas about 400 yards away, 500 yards away as the much less than five years, so therefore my suggestion crow flies is Noble's Hospital and the central Douglas would not cause undue delay to the department in taking district. It would not be a great job to bring heat from that the action it currently proposes to visit recycling plants. I source. Now, to date this has not been done and, as far as I say that the analysis should be provided within three am concerned, the main reason why it has not been done months. That is what it says in the amendment - 'within is that to date it has not been found to be practical to do it, three months'. We are told, as has been pointed out by and I think we have got to accept that. I was reading a very others, that any decision in respect of this particular siting good article yesterday about an incinerator that has been proposal will be made after the general election. The general election is eight months away, and in all built in Holland; it is about 25 miles outside of Utrecht, inevitability the decision will not take place straight after and that will now form the core element to a horticultural that, so why the objection to my amendment? We owe it unit and there will be lots of glasshouses and I am told that to those we represent and those who come after to get things the warm water that is produced will form part of this right. I suggest an independent cost-benefit analysis that chemical process to provide a medium for what is called will be back to us within three months. I suggest further aquaculture where they feed all the plants and they give that such a proposal would achieve widespread public them an extra warm environment, so there are other uses. support, which is based on a number of grounds including Who knows, we may build an incinerator one day and be cost, planning and environmental matters, for example. able to have a brick industry back in the Isle of Man and Now, I have heard from my colleague on the right, who use the heat there to heat kilns and bake bricks. There are suggests that a recycling plant would be smelly; I also hear a lot of alternatives, I think, as far as the heat source goes from many people outside that some refuse incinerators and we should not just lock ourselves onto district heating. have problems with dioxins and particulates. That is a I honestly think, hon. members that this particular issue matter for concern for some people outside, equally as the at the moment - you would not be acting in anybody's best smell problem. I am sure you can get round a smell problem interests today if you went along with the motion moved if that is the case, and I have to say that when we met with by the hon. member for Onchan, Mr Karran. I think you the experts from elsewhere this was not something which have got to give the department the opportunity to look at was brought up, but clearly this is something which would this whole issue in a logical way. As previous speakers have to be examined and made a judgement about. If we have said, we are probably three-quarters of the way now really are open-minded, if we really do wish to get this towards preparing the report and, if it is not favourable or right, hon. members, you should support my amendment. not to your liking, I am sure that when it comes back in It appears to me that we are doing things back to front. another form to another place you will let the department If our three R's are reduction, reuse and recycling, then know all about it. Do not pull the rug, hon. members; let we should be putting in place further initiatives in this us try and see this whole thing through and see what the respect, otherwise we will be left with an incinerator which department comes up with. Thank you, Mr Speaker. needs to be fed at the cost of items which could otherwise be reduced, recycled or reused. The Speaker: Thank you. I call upon the member for The minister has indicated that my amendment is not at Douglas South to reply to the amendment. odds with the department's policy or the action currently being undertaken, so please, minister, demonstrate your Mr Cretney: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My view is open-mindedness and vote for my amendment. Why not? clearly that my amendment should be supported, and I By supporting my amendment you will not be holding up believe that it should be supported first and foremost on the government's waste disposal strategy by up to 18 cost grounds to avoid the waste of public resources months, as is the opinion of the minister. He suggested examining sites which will subsequently fail, because it is that would be the case if you supported the resolution, suggested that recycling alternatives will not have the same although of course that is a matter of opinion only.

Incinerator on Stoney Mountain Site — Debate Concluded — Motion Lost K342 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 5th MARCH 1996

To my seconder, the hon. member for South Douglas, whether it is BOG or SMOG, what we are talking about is Mr Duggan, thank you for your support. Can I just point the reality of the incinerator policy. To make economic out my position has not changed. I have consistently sense of any incinerator you have to use the waste heat supported incineration as a safety net which may or may from it for it to be possible on financial terms. Your experts not prove to be the appropriate mechanism to deal with - not my experts - who you are paying a lot of money for the remainder after recycling. Again, this is one of the issues have said that it is absolute financial madness if you do which I have got down in my amendment which needs to not use the waste heat from an incinerator. It makes the be considered, but can I remind hon. members that you financial figures even more absurd than they are at the cannot bail clinical waste and fallen animals. Please support moment where we have begged to differ. my amendment. I praise the hon. minister. I believe he is an honourable chap and he did say £160 per household that it was going The Speaker: I call upon the hon. member for Onchan, to cost for an incinerator policy on this Island, and I think Mr Karran to reply to the debate. we will see quite a bit of Argentine inflation to that figure before we see the end of the day. So when the hon. member Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, I put this motion for Garff talks about these people out at Foxdale and Stoney down today, not because I am totally opposed to Mountain and they would be the same at Ballaoates, you incineration - I make no secret of that - but because the are right. I am not here today because the people of Stoney very experts which we all had discussing this issue, telling Mountain have been on to it. I am here today because of us about this issue, said that for any incineration plant to the point that it is the wrong place, in that if you are going be viable on this Island it has to use the waste heat. Leading to have an incinerator you should use the waste heat from experts who run incinerators in the United Kingdom said an incinerator, and that is why I was quite glad of the hon. that, and they also said that because of the size of the Isle member Mr Braidwood's support. What he forgets in the of Man, everything else would have to go out of the equation when he talks about Ballaoates is that the reason Ballaoates was not put in is because it is all political window, but that is a secondary issue. This resolution was intrigue: if they went to Ballaoates and they wanted a new put down because I believe that any proposal to waste any hospital, if they put the incinerator there they would have more money on locating an incinerator on Stoney Mountain to come clean about the roads. That is the truth of the matter. is madness, and it just goes to show my viewpoint that I That is the reason why it went out to Stoney Mountain and have said for far too long that vanity seems to be more not Ballaoates when they were looking for somewhere else. important than sanity in the corridors of power these days I have to be honest with you: I would personally object around here. to an incinerator because I will be proven right as far as Mr Downie talks about, 'Well, we are going to do all incineration is concerned on this Island. It is not the the things that the hon. member for South Douglas's economic way to go and it is not the environmental way to proposal says.' The truth of the matter is that when Shanks go either. So when the hon. member for Garff says, 'Well, and McEwan came over here, they said that the size of the the residents anywhere would be the same,' more than Isle of Man makes it very questionable whether an likely right, but they would have an awful lot harder job to incinerator can work effectively and efficiently for the size fight on the economic grounds because there would be a of the Island, and to take all the things that could be recycled hospital there to use the waste heat, because when we hear out of the system, then it is absolute nonsense. Obviously people talking about 'I thought we would put them in I suppose they would not want to say that to the man that everybody's homes and we would do this..,' it is absolute actually signs the cheque, the hon. minister, but that is the nonsense. The only place you would put it in is in large sort of comment that was said to me, and the hon. member public buildings, where you would use the waste heat, and Mr Downie says that we will still recycle and we will still I am afraid that as much as Foxdale School might look a waste minimisation. The truth of the matter is, if you go large public building to Foxdale I can assure this hon. for an incinerator you are going to have to burn everything. House that if anybody goes west it is not that big after all. That is a different argument, but to make any sort of So I hope that answers the points for the hon. member for economic sense of an incinerator on this Island you are Garff. going to have to use the waste heat. The only other thing is that he talks about Stoney I would like to say to his colleague on the department, Mountain. Let us remember that it was only 22 on the list his input was the most sensible out of all the inputs from and they actually were really only talking about putting the minister, from all the other ministers, the ex-minister the landfill there, never the incinerator there. It was only and the Chief Minister, even though he did forget to an afterthought that they came along and they wanted to mention, whilst he is talking about Bermuda, who have put the incinerator there and I think one of the reasons was just started with an incinerator and they are putting their the fact of the NIMBY syndrome. I hate this House having top ash and bottom ash together and then throwing it in the impression that I am going to be supporting that we the sea, that Jersey, who have had it for 20 years, are just are all on the parish pump, because I know, if this resolution digging it all back out again because the fact of the matter succeeds today and it ends up at Ballaoates, I am the one is it has become a complete and utter environmental that is going to get hung out to dry because it is going to nightmare and it is going to cost an absolute fortune to be next door to my constituents in Onchan and I understand sort out! I just put that into his point. that. Now, he talks about the residents around Ballaoates Now, I am rather alarmed by the hon. member for being BOG or whatever they would be, but the point is, Castletown, who is the ex-minister and who should be the

Incinerator on Stoney Mountain Site — Debate Concluded — Motion Lost HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 5th MARCH 1996 K343

minister of misinformation. He is talking about this issue: Mr Karran: I do listen to what is said. it is not about the waste heat; the waste heat is not I must say to my hon. colleague from Ayre, I am • important. He wants to read his documents. The waste heat disappointed. I know that the idea of any delay of not is important in any location of an incinerator, and I think it resolving the issue of waste management gives him a is wrong to give this impression to this House: 'Oh, it does glorious opportunity to give the government a good not matter. We could put it -' kicking, and if he is associated with trying to get some sort of common sense over the location of an incinerator, The Speaker: Hon. member, do you think you could then what will happen will be that it might affect his lower the tone of your voice? credibility when he is wanting to rip the throat out of the Council of Ministers. It really is sad when we are down to A Member: There would be less heat in here! this sort of sad game where this is the bottom line. He knows as well as I know that it is madness to go to Stoney Mr Kermode: Turn the volume down a bit! Mountain. He knows as well as I know that without using the waste heat from any proposed incinerator the Mr Karran: I am just making sure they stay awake, economics of the viability of any incinerator go out of the sir. (Laughter) window. He knows that. I hope that he does reconsider his position. I put this down today not on a parish-pump basis Mr Kermode: We would not miss this for the world! but on a common-sense basis. The hon. member for Rushen, Mr Corrin, says 'Well, I Mr Cannan: Come on, Peter. Let us get on with it. do not understand. Will it have any effect?' Well, the hon. member should have listened to the minister. The minister Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, he says, 'Well, we said that if my proposal is supported today, then Stoney have got a strategy here that is workable.' Well, we have. Mountain is dead because this hon. House would have to We have got a strategy here. This debate is not about the agree to it in another place anyway and, if both sides do strategy; this debate is about the location. The strategy not agree in Tynwald, then it will go out of the window. So debate should be at a different time, in my opinion, but if I do hope the hon. member will support the proposal before it is here, then here it is. But when you get leading UK us today and let us kill this off before it goes any further. firms who run incinerators and who say that the Island is The Chief Minister said that he could not understand too small, really, for an incinerator... And when I did my the problems by pursuing this policy, and this policy was debate in November I tried not to go to the nuclear-free not wrong and it was all right, but he did not actually come zones or the eco-whatever-you-call-it society groups within out with reasons why we should go to Stoney Mountain. some of the mad councils. I went to good old Berkshire He just came out that we were supposed to just follow where Sir Walt comes from. (Laughter) Now, there is a blindly along, just as we did over the meat plant and the local authority that has incineration. There is an authority linkspan and then the user agreement, and then we have that is building an incinerator and they have a population got one or two other things and we just have to follow of 850,000 people. They are having to build it and are trying blindly along. I hope that the argument would have been - to get agreements with other local authorities to bring their and he has to argue - that both on counts of environmental refuse in to make incineration viable. Now, they are issues and economic issues it is a non-starter, and I would bringing in from other local authorities because their hope that that would be enough for the Chief Minister to 850,000 do not seem to be able to produce enough rubbish. say, 'It is a non-starter and let us stop the nonsense, let us We must be an awful messy lot in the Isle of Man with stop the charade' because the danger is, the longer these 80,000. issues are left to fester, the more credence they get and then we end up waking up one awful day and we have got Mr Kermode: There is certainly a lot of rubbish in another meat plant on our hands. And this one will make here! the meat plant look like it is a non-event. Mr Downie: Aye, like the Water Authority! Mr Karran: So he talks about the strategy that we will have recycling and waste minimisation. The truth of the Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, the minister spoke matter is, if you go down the road of an incinerator about the basic facts in his debate, and I was somewhat everything else will go out of the window. Mark my words, disappointed with the minister's vagueness in his input, that is the truth of the matter, and that is not just from the because I believe it was vagueness. The truth of the matter hon. member for Onchan, that is from people who actually was that the three issues I raised were the size of the produce the plants and run the plants and who have said chimney and the visual impact, the position as far as the that. So when the hon. ex-minister turns around and says waste heat is concerned and the position as far as the extra `Well, it is an academic exercise. The waste heat is of no costs on infrastructure are concerned, and we really did importance. You can put the plant anywhere,' well, I am not get any answers to their proposals today. People say afraid he has spent an awful lot of money on a lot of that if we support this proposal today we will put everything professional advice that he has obviously not read. back 18 months, but surely, if we stop this today they can start looking at a more credible site such as Ballaoates, Mr Brown: You should have listened to what was said. such as Ballamilligan or wherever they were suggesting, • Incinerator on Stoney Mountain Site — Debate Concluded — Motion Lost IC344 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 5th MARCH 1996 for such a place and we can actually maybe give them six A division was called for and voting resulted as follows: months head start if it is a non-starter, because I believe that that statement proves to this hon. House... And it is all For: Messrs Gilbey, Corrin, Cretney, Duggan, Kermode, right my friends in the Council of Ministers saying, 'Well, Karran, Kniveton and Gelling - 8 do not worry, Peter. It will be killed off at a later date.' These things do not happen, and what concerns me is that Against: Messrs Cannan, Quine, Rodan, Walker, Cringle, you will spend your £200,000 and another 18 months down Brown, May, Crowe, Braidwood, Downie, Mrs Hannan, and we get into the crisis management situation where we Messrs Bell, Groves, Corkill and the Speaker - 15 then put our heads in the sand like the ostrich, somebody comes along and kicks us up the behind (Laughter) and The Speaker: Hon. members, the amendment fails to we have to come up running in ever-decreasing circles and carry, with 8 votes in favour and 15 against. pluck anything out of the air, because we have to be seen I will now put the motion detailed at item 15 on your to do something. agenda. Will all those in favour please say aye; to the Hon. members, this is a serious issue but I do think contrary say no. The noes have it. there are a lot of people expressing the same sentiments as A division was called for and voting resulted as follows: I am expressing here today. We have heard the minister talking about the spot market for electricity and there was For: Messrs Gilbey, Cretney, Duggan, Braidwood, Karran, a reason why we should not be worried about the waste Kniveton and Gelling - 7 heat because we have got the spot market. When we had the opportunity to get it done cheaply to get natural gas off Against: Messrs Cannan, Quine, Rodan, Walker, Corrin, here to get the spot market off gas we did a runner, so why Cringle, Brown, May, Crowe, Kermode, Downie, Mrs would we do any differently as far as the spot market of Hannan, Messrs Bell, Groves, Corkill and the having an electric wire from here to the United Kingdom? Speaker - 16 The truth of the matter is they are red herrings as far as the policy is concerned and I do think that this hon. House The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion fails to carry, should just support my proposal. After all, the consultants with 7 votes in favour and 16 against. have put this item on the hit list of preferred sites at site 22 - not first, second, third, fourth, fifth or sixth but 22. So the point is, you get the consultants saying 'Well, it is EMPLOYMENT (AMENDMENT) BILL madness itself. It is not economically viable.' I was a — CLAUSES CONSIDERED member of the DHPP and I got a hold of DHV, the consultants on IRIS and I asked them, 'Why are we going The Speaker: The next item on our agenda is detailed against the laws of gravity and pumping sewage 600-odd at item 12, which is the clauses stage of the Employment feet up in the air and four-and-a-half miles down the road?' (Amendment) Bill in the hands of the hon. member for and they shrugged their shoulders and said 'Well, we would Ramsey, Mr Bell, and I call upon him to move clause 1. not do that.' (Interjections) I think you want to check your records. The point is, what I am concerned about is Mr Bell: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I am sorry to safeguarding the taxpayers' money. Whether you want to bring members back to the mundane after that burst of support the hon. member for South Douglas - I personally excitement, but here we go! Clause 1 makes it illegal to sympathise with what he is doing - is a matter for this hon. refuse a person employment if he is or is not a member of House. The important thing in this hon. House is to stop a trade union or if he refuses to resign from or apply for any more money being wasted on a completely foolhardy, membership or accept other conditions relevant to union stupid policy of locating an incinerator at Stoney Mountain. membership. I hope that there are enough in this hon. House who believe Sub-clause (1) makes it unlawful to refuse a person in their oath of office and are prepared to save their face employment because (a) he is a member of a trade union, and say, 'We got it wrong boys but let us get going' and (b) he is not a member of a trade union, (c) he refuses to maybe the economics do stand up for Ballaoates with the apply for membership, (d) he refuses to resign his waste heat, because it certainly does not with Stoney membership and (e) he refuses to accept a contractual term Mountain, and that is coming from your experts, not that he must pay union dues or equivalent payments either coming from the hon. member, and I hope this hon. House directly or by way of deduction from wages. will support my proposal. Sub-clause (2) specifies the remedy for unlawful action contrary to sub-clause (1), which is complaint to the The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion that is before employment tribunal. you is detailed at item 15 on your agenda, and to that motion Sub-clause (3) provides that simply advertising a job in you have an amendment which has been circulated in the a way that says or implies that union membership is either name of the hon. member for Douglas South, Mr Cretney. essential or a disqualification for the job counts as refusing I am going to put the amendment to you first. Will all those a person who is not or is a union member. in favour of the amendment please say aye; to the contrary Sub-clause (4) outlaws arrangements under which an say no. The ayes have it. employer will only engage workers nominated by a trade

Employment (Amendment) Bill — Clauses Considered HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 5th MARCH 1996 K345

union and the union will only nominate its own members. favour please say aye; to the contrary say no. The ayes A non-member who is refused nomination by the union is have it. The ayes have it. Clause 3, sir. deemed to have been refused employment by the employer. Sub-clause (5) defines what is meant by 'refusing Mr Bell: Clause 3, Mr Speaker, imposes a three-month employment.' It covers failing to process an enquiry, time limit on complaints to the Employment Tribunal choking off an applicant, failing to offer a job, offering a against action outlawed by clauses 1 or 2. job on obviously unreasonable terms and making an offer Sub-clause (1) requires a complaint to be made to the but then withdrawing it or forcing the person not to accept tribunal within three months of the action in question, but it. the tribunal can allow a complaint out of time if there was Sub-clause (6) provides that offering a job on condition good reason for the delay. that the applicant joins or resigns from a union or on any Sub-clause (2) defines the time of the action - when the term mentioned in sub-clause (1) counts as refusing three months start to run, that is - in the case of an action employment. by an employer. It is (a) the time of the refusal, (b), if it Sub-clause (7) makes an exception for union officials. consists of inaction, the time by which the employer ought If an official post in a union involves employment by the to have done something, or (c), if the applicant is choked union, a person can be required to be a union member in off, the time when that happened, or (d), if an offer is order to hold that post. withdrawn, when it was withdrawn or (e), if an offer was Sub-clause (8) provides that if an employment agency not accepted, when it was made. acts on behalf of an employer in any way which would be Sub-clause (3) defines the time of the action - again, unlawful if the employer acted in that way, then the agency when the three months start to run - in the case of action is acting unlawfully too. by an employment agency. It is (a) the time of the refusal, I beg to move clause 1 stand part of the Bill. (b), if it consists of inaction, the time when the agency ought to have done something, (c), if the applicant is Mr Walker: I am pleased to second, Mr Speaker, and choked off, the time when that happened, or (d), if services reserve my remarks. were provided in a discriminatory way, when they were last provided. I beg to move clause 3 stand part of the Bill. The Speaker: Thank you. If no member wishes to speak to clause 1 I will put the motion to the House that clause 1 Mr Walker: Mr Speaker, I am pleased to second. stand part of the Bill. Will all those in favour please say aye; to the contrary say no. The ayes have it. The ayes The Speaker: Thank you. I will put the motion to the have it. Clause 2, sir. House that clause 3 stand part of the Bill. Will all those in favour please say aye; to the contrary say no. The ayes Mr Bell: Clause 2, Mr Speaker, makes it unlawful for have it. The ayes have it. Clause 4, sir. an employment agency to refuse to take a person on its books because he is or is not a union member or refuses to Mr Bell: Clause 4, Mr Speaker, sets out the remedies apply for or resign from union membership. which the Employment Tribunal can grant if it finds that Sub-clause (1) makes it unlawful for an employment an employer or agency acted unlawfully. agency to refuse to take a person on to its books because Sub-clause (1) enables the tribunal, if it finds a he is or is not a union member or refuses to apply for or complaint under clause 3 above proved, either to order the resign from union membership. employer or agency to pay compensation or to make a Sub-clause (2) specifies the remedy for unlawful action recommendation for action to remedy the complaint, or contrary to sub-clause (1) above, which is again complaint both. to the Employment Tribunal. Sub-clause (2) provides for compensation to be assessed Sub-clause (3) provides that for an agency simply to in the ordinary way for a breach of statutory duty - that is, advertise its services in a way that says or implies that to put the complainant in the same position, so far as money union membership is either essential or a disqualification can, as he would have been if the unlawful action had not for the job counts as refusing a person who is not or is a been taken. union member. Sub-clause (3) enables the tribunal to increase its award Sub-clause (4) defines what is meant by refusing or to make an award of compensation if the employment. It covers refusing services, choking off an recommendation under (1)(b) is not followed. applicant and discriminating against the applicant. Sub-clause (4) limits the compensation to the maximum Sub-clause (5) provides that offering an agency services amount payable by way of a compensatory award for unfair on condition that the applicant joins or resigns from a union dismissal under the Employment Act 1991, and that is or in any term mentioned in sub-clause (1) counts as currently £13,000. refusing employment. I beg to move, Mr Speaker, that clause 4 stand part of I beg to move clause 2 stand part of the Bill. the Bill.

Mr Walker: I beg to second, Mr Speaker. Mr Walker: I beg to second, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Thank you. I will put the motion to the The Speaker: Thank you. I will put the motion to the House that clause 2 stand part of the Bill. Will all those in House that clause 4 stand part of the Bill. Will all those in • Employment (Amendment) Bill — Clauses Considered K346 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 5th MARCH 1996

favour please say aye; to the contrary say no. The ayes or an agency under clauses 1 and 2, but where there is a have it. The ayes have it. Clause 5, sir. complaint against both under clause 5. I beg to move that clause 6 stand part of the Bill, Mr Speaker. Mr Bell: Clause 5, Mr Speaker, deals with cases where both an employer and an employment agency are involved Mr Walker: I beg to second, Mr Speaker. in a case of unlawful action and provides for the procedure and remedies in such a case. The Speaker: Thank you. The motion before the House Sub-clause (1) provides, in a case involving both an is that clause 6 stand part of the Bill. All those in favour employer and an employment agency, that an applicant please say aye; to the contrary say no. The ayes have it. who has been refused or is deemed to be refused The ayes have it. Clause 7, sir. employment can bring proceedings against either or both of them. This may happen if a job is advertised through an Mr Bell: Clause 7, Mr Speaker, provides for the agency. interpretation of clauses 1 to 6 above. Sub-clause(2) provides that if a case is brought against Sub-clause (1) defines expressions used in clauses 1 only the employer or only the agency it can ask for the to 6. other to be joined in the proceedings. For example, if a job Sub-clause (2) provides that action by a person or is advertised through an agency and an applicant is refused company which is an employment agency is not unlawful but does not know whether his application was filtered so far as it is acting otherwise than as an employment out by the agency before the employer was involved, he agency; for example, where a trade union operates as an might proceed against the agency. If the agency has acted employment agency it is only caught by clauses 1 to 6 properly and says it is the employer who has discriminated where it is acting as such, not where it is acting as a trade against him, it will ask for the employer to be joined as union. defendant. However, an application to join made after the Sub-clause (3) provides that references to membership hearing has started can be refused and cannot be made of a union cover membership of any trade union, a anyway after the tribunal has decided in favour of the particular union or a branch of a union. applicant. Sub-clause (4) provides that the only consequences of Sub-clause (3) enables the tribunal to make an award the unlawfulness of action contrary to clauses 1 and 2 is against the employer or the agency alone or to split the liability on a complaint to the Industrial Tribunal. I beg to award between them if it finds that they are both guilty. move clause 7 stand part of the Bill, Mr Speaker. I beg to move clause 5 stand part of the Bill, Mr Speaker. Mr Walker: I beg to second, Mr Speaker. Mr Walker: I beg to second, Mr Speaker. The Speaker: I call upon the hon. member for Malew The Speaker: Thank you. I will put the motion to the and Santon. House that clause 5 stand part of the Bill. Will all those in favour please say aye; to the contrary say no. The ayes Mr Gelling: Mr Speaker, I beg to move an amendment have it. The ayes have it. Clause 6, sir. to this clause, and I wish to explain that under the Employment Act of 1991 the Department of Industry has Mr Bell: Clause 6, Mr Speaker, enables an applicant authority to designate complaints. If a complaint is who claims that an employer or agency has been designated, then the industrial relations officer is pressurised by a third party, such as a trade union, into empowered to conciliate between an individual employee acting unlawfully under clause 1 or 2, for example by the and his employer without a complaint having been made threat of a strike, or the employer or agency, to have the to the Employment Tribunal. Now, the department intends third party joined in the proceedings and provides for the to make an order of designated complaints in 1996. procedure and remedies in such a case. However, the department is only allowed to designate Sub-clause (1) enables the applicant or an employer or complaints arising out of any provision of the Employment agency to have a trade union or other third party joined in Act of 1991 and would like to be able to designate any proceedings if it is claimed that the employer or agency was pressured by the third party into acting unlawfully complaints, not only under this Act, but also under some under clause 1 or 2. provision of this current Employment (Amendment) Bill Sub-clause (2). An application to join made after the of 1996 once it becomes law. This amendment has the hearing has started can be refused and cannot be made support, obviously, of the Department of Industry, and it anyway after the tribunal has decided in favour of the will allow the department to designate complaints under applicant. provisions of this new Bill. I move the amendment standing Sub-clause (3) enables the tribunal to make an award in my name, Mr Speaker: against the third party instead, or the employer or the agency, or to split the award between them if it finds that Page 8, line 9; at the end insert - the employer or agency acted unlawfully, but under (5) In section 76(1) (conciliation) of the pressure from the third party. EmploymentAct 1991, in paragraph (b), after "this Sub-clause (4) provides that sub-clauses 1 to 3 apply Act" there is inserted "or the Employment not only where there is a complaint against an employer (Amendment) Act 1996".

Employment (Amendment) Bill — Clauses Considered HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 5th MARCH 1996 K347

Mr Crowe: Mr Speaker, I beg to second the Mr Crowe: I beg to second, Mr Speaker. amendment. The Speaker: Thank you. Does any member wish to The Speaker: Thank you. Now does any member wish speak to the new clause in principle? If not, I will put the to speak either to the clause or to the amendment? If not, I motion to the House that the new clause which has been will put the motion to the House that clause 7 stand part of circulated be approved in principle. Will all those in favour the Bill, but to that motion we have an amendment in the please say aye; to the contrary say no. The ayes have it. name of the hon. member for Malew and Santon which The ayes have it. I call upon the hon. member for Malew has been circulated. I will put the amendment to the House and Santon to move that the new clause stand part of the first. All those in favour please say aye; to the contrary say Bill. no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. I will now put clause 7 as amended. All those in favour Mr Gelling: Yes, Mr Speaker, thank you for that and I would like to move the insertion of the new clause and please say aye; to the contrary say no. The ayes have it. explain that section 14(2) of the Redundancy Payments The ayes have it. Clause 8, sir. Act of 1990 enables the Department of Industry by order to exclude certain classes of employees from entitlement Mr Bell: Clause 8 makes amendments to provisions of to a redundancy payment under section 1 of that Act. These the Employment Act 1991 and the Redundancy Payments include civil servants and persons treated, for the purpose Act 1990, which enables employees who cannot satisfy of section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1984, as civil their claims against insolvent employers to obtain payment servants, the Clerk of Tynwald and his staff, the Director from the Department of Health and Social Security. of Education, coroners, marine surveyors and the Isle of Sub-clause (1) imposes a 12-month time limit on Man Data Protection Registrar. The Redundancy Payments payments by the DHSS where an employee cannot get (Civil Service) Order of 1990 excludes these classes of arrears of pay, pay in lieu of notice, accrued holiday pay, employees among others from entitlement to a redundancy or a basic award of compensation for unfair dismissal payment. The provisions do not cover classes of employees because the employer is insolvent. The 12 months runs not listed in section 14(2) of the Act who are not civil from the date when the employer became insolvent or the servants or persons treated as civil servants, but who are date when the employment terminated, if later. entitled to severance payments under a superannuation Sub-clause (2) prevents a company director or the owner scheme operating to the principal service pension scheme. of a company claiming a redundancy payment from the In order to avoid double payment, as I have already said in DHSS where the company was his employer and is now moving the principle, it is a requirement to exclude those insolvent. A similar restriction already applies to payments employees who would be entitled to receive a severance by way of compensation for unfair dismissal under the payment under a superannuation scheme from receiving a Employment Act 1991, section 17. payment under the Redundancy Payments Act. The new I beg to move clause 8 stand part of the Bill, Mr Speaker. clause, which again has the support of the Department of Industry, extends the existing exclusion provisions to cover Mr Walker: I beg to second, sir. persons who are members of superannuation schemes which are similar to the principal Civil Service pension The Speaker: Thank you. I will put the motion to the scheme. Mr Speaker, I beg to move the insertion of the new clause in the position in the Bill after clause 8: House that clause 8 stand part of the Bill. All those in favour please say aye; to the contrary say no. The ayes have it. "Redundancy payments The ayes have it. Now, we have a new clause and I call upon the hon. member for Malew and Santon, in whose In section 14(2) (public offices etc.) of the name this new clause stands, to seek the approval of this Redundancy Payments Act 1990, for paragraphs (a) to clause in principle. (c) there is substituted the following paragraph -

Mr Gelling: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Under Standing "(a) with respect to which provision may be made Order 154, I would like to move the principle that a new by a scheme, order or regulations under any clause be inserted at this stage of the Bill, and I would like of sections 1 to 5, 7 and 8 of the Superannuation to explain to members that the object of these provisions Act 1984; or". in this new clause is to ensure that public servants whose conditions of service entitle them to severance payments Mr Crowe: I beg to second, Mr Speaker. under the provisions of a superannuation scheme which are no less favourable than statutory redundancy payments The Speaker: Thank you. Does any member wish to speak? If not, I will put the motion to the House that the cannot receive both types of payment. So, in order to avoid new clause stand part of the Bill. All those in favour please double payment, there is a requirement to exclude those say aye; to the contrary say no. The ayes have it. The ayes employees who would be entitled to receive a severance have it. Clause 9, sir. payment under a superannuation scheme from receiving a payment under the Redundancy Payments Act and I Mr Bell: Yes, Mr Speaker, I assume these clauses will therefore move the principle that we insert the new clause be renumbered, so I will carry on as they are printed at the after clause 8. moment, if that is okay. • Employment (Amendment) Bill — Clauses Considered K348 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 5th MARCH 1996

Clause 9 enables the chairman of the Employment appointed day or days. I beg to move clause 12 stand part Tribunal, sitting alone, to deal with certain complaints and of the Bill, Mr Speaker. also enables the Department of Industry to make a scheme for payment of allowances for loss of earnings and Mr Walker: I beg to second, sir. travelling expenses to parties to and witnesses before the tribunal. The Speaker: Thank you. The motion before the House Sub-clause (1) is introductory. is that clause 12 stand part of the Bill. All those in favour Sub-clause (2) provides that the chairman of the tribunal please say aye; to the contrary say no. The ayes have it. can deal with certain cases alone. These cases are: (a) The ayes have it. That concludes consideration of the complaints about wrongful deductions from wages and clauses stage of the Employment (Amendment) Bill. refusal by the DHSS to pay a claim for arrears of wages et cetera against an insolvent employer; and (b) any other complaint, if (i) the parties consent, or (ii) the chairman is SUPPLY OF GOODS AND SERVICES BILL satisfied that either party has withdrawn. — CLAUSES CONSIDERED Sub-clause (3) enables the Department of Industry, with Treasury approval, to arrange to pay allowances for loss The Speaker: Item 13 on our agenda is the clauses stage of earnings and travelling expenses to parties to and of the Supply of Goods and Services Bill. This Bill is in witnesses before the tribunal. The details of the the hands of the hon. member for Onchan, Mr Kniveton, arrangements will be worked out administratively. and I call upon him to move clauses 1 to 4 inclusive. I beg to move clause 9 stand part of the Bill, Mr Speaker. Mr Kniveton: Mr Speaker, I believe I answered all Mr Walker: I beg to second, Mr Speaker. questions from members at the second reading stage apart from those from my absent colleague, Mr Karran, who The Speaker: Thank you. I will put the motion to the wanted to know whether this Bill covered the display of House that clause 9 stand part of the Bill. All those in favour petrol prices by garages, but I have to inform him that this please say aye; to the contrary say no. The ayes have it. is a matter which is adequately covered by other legislation The ayes have it. Clause 10, sir. and not this Bill. He also wanted to know if service charges in restaurants were covered by this Bill. Again, I have to Mr Bell: Mr Speaker, clause 10 reduces from five years say that it is a legal requirement for any service charges to to one year the period for which a part time employee - be prominently displayed on price lists or menus if they that is, one working between 8 and 16 hours a week - has are to be charged. This matter is also already covered under to work before he gains employment rights. I beg to move other legislation such as the Price Marking Act, the Trade clause 10, Mr Speaker. Descriptions Act and the Consumer Protection Act. As I explained last week, this Bill is very much a re- Mr Walker: I beg to second, Mr Speaker. enactment of existing provisions which can be found in The Speaker: Thank you. The motion before the House four different statutes. The purpose of this Bill is to is that clause 10 stand part of the Bill. Will all those in consolidate the provisions applying to the terms implied favour please say aye; to the contrary say no. The ayes in contracts for the supply of goods and to bring Isle of have it. The ayes have it. Clause 11, sir. Man law in this area into line with that of England and Wales, which has recently been updated. Part 1 of the Bill Mr Bell: Clause 11, Mr Speaker, brings the definition sets out in a single code the implied terms in contracts for of 'trade dispute' for the purposes of the Trade Disputes the supply of goods. The terms are ranged in groups relating Act 1985 into line with that in the Employment Act 1991, to title, compliance with description, quality and by omitting disputes between a single employee and his compliance with sample. There are also separate provisions employer. The effect is that disputes involving a single in respect of these terms when applied to the supply of employee will have to be dealt with, if at all, by the goods under contracts of sale, hire purchase, other contracts Employment Tribunal under the ordinary employment for the transfer of ownership such as part exchange and rights legislation. These rights did not exist when the 1985 hire. Act was passed. I beg to move clause 11 stand part of the With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to take Bill, Mr Speaker. the first 16 clauses in groups of four as the clauses are very repetitive and largely re-enactment of existing Mr Walker: I beg to second, Mr Speaker. provisions.

The Speaker: Thank you. I will put the motion to the The Speaker: Please proceed, sir. House that clause 11 stand part of the Bill. All those in favour please say aye; to the contrary say no. The ayes Mr Kniveton: Thank you, sir. Clauses 1 to 4 contain have it. The ayes have it. And finally clause 12, sir. the most basic term of any contract for the supply of goods, a condition that the supplier has the right to supply them. Mr Bell: Clause 12, Mr Speaker, gives the Bill its short If it turns out that they were not his, the customer is entitled title and provides for it to be brought into force on an to repudiate the contract and get his money back or, if he

Supply of Goods and Services Bill — Clauses Considered HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 5th MARCH 1996 K349

wishes, claim damages for breach of contract. There are Again, there is no change in the law here and therefore, also warranties that there are no undisclosed charges over Mr Speaker, I beg to move clauses 5 to 8 become part of the goods and that no one will claim them from the buyer. the Bill. Clause 1 sets out the obligations of the supply of goods under a contract of sale, the basic transaction under which Mr Kermode: I beg to second and reserve my remarks, the seller transfers ownership of goods and the buyer pays Mr Speaker. • the price in money. Clause 2 makes similar provision to clause 1 in relation The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Does any to the supplier's title to the goods in a hire purchase member wish to speak to clauses 5 to 8 inclusive? If not, I • transaction. This provision was first introduced in 1976 to will put the motion to the House that clauses 5 to 8 inclusive make it clear that customers under hire purchase stand part of the Bill. All those in favour please say aye; to agreements have substantially the same rights as buyers. the contrary say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 3 makes similar provisions to clauses 1 and 2 in Clauses 9 to 12 inclusive, sir. relation to other contracts which involve the transfer of ownership in goods - for example, exchange, part Mr Kniveton: Yes, Mr Speaker. Clauses 9 to 12 deal exchange, contracts for work and materials. This was first with the terms as to the quality and fitness of goods supplied introduced in 1985 under the Supply of Goods and Services under contracts of sale, hire purchase, et cetera. They make Act. significant changes in the law to improve the rights of Clause 4 implies terms as to the title of the supplier in consumers and to clarify the law. These terms cannot be the contract of hire goods. This was also first introduced excluded by an express term of the contract where the in 1985. Unlike the terms implied by clauses 1 to 3, which customer is a consumer and only if exclusion is reasonable are fundamental to the contracts concerned, this term can where the customer is not a consumer - that is to say, a be excluded by agreement, but only if the exclusion is person who buys in the course of his business. reasonable, which is further explained in clause 18(2). Clause 9 re-enacts the existing implied terms as to fitness These clauses, as I have already explained, Mr Speaker, for purpose and reforms the outdated terms as to are re-enactments of existing provisions and therefore I merchantable quality in line with the changes in the United beg to move clauses 1 to 4. Kingdom. The only change in the law is contained in sub- clause (2), which requires that the goods are satisfactory Mr Kermode: I rise to second and reserve my remarks, quality where the seller sells in the course of a business. Mr Speaker. The definition of this new concept of satisfactory quality is contained in clause 20 and provides a general standard The Speaker: Thank you. Does any member wish to of acceptability - that is to say, one where a reasonable speak to any of clauses 1 to 4 inclusive? If not, I will put person would consider the goods as satisfactory. The main the motion to the House that clauses 1 to 4 inclusive stand change here is that all relevant factors are to be taken into part of the Bill. All those in favour please say aye; to the account whereas the present standard of merchantable contrary say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clauses quality only requires that the goods are fit for the purpose 5 to 8 inclusive, sir. for which goods of that kind are normally bought. A non- illustrative list of aspects of quality is also provided Mr Kniveton: Yes, Mr Speaker. Clauses 5 to 8 deal covering such matters as appearance and finish, freedom with the terms implied in a contract for the supply of goods from minor defects, safety and durability. by description or specification, such as 200 sheets of 50 Clause 10 makes similar provision to clause 9 in the millimetre mild steel, 1 metre by 2 metres, or one new case of hire purchase agreements. Implied terms as to black Rolls Royce Silver Cloud. The supplier must ensure quality and fitness in hire purchase agreements were first that the goods conform to the description or the customer enacted in 1939 and amended in 1976, and the term as to can reject them and demand his money back or claim `merchantable quality' is changed to 'satisfactory quality' damages. There is no change in the present law. These in line with the UK Act of 1994. terms cannot be excluded by an express term of a contract Clause 11 makes similar provision to clauses 9 and 10 where the customer is a consumer - that is to say, one who for other contracts under which the ownership of goods is does not buy in the course of a business and only if the transferred - for example, exchange or part exchange. exclusion is reasonable where the customer is not a Implied terms as to quality and fitness in such contracts consumer. were first enacted in 1985 and the term as to 'merchantable Clause 5 specifies the term implied in a contract of sale by description. quality' is changed to 'satisfactory quality' in line with Clause 6 makes provision similar to clause 5 in relation the UK Act of 1994. to hire purchase agreements. This was first introduced in Clause 12 makes provision corresponding to clauses 9 1976. to 11 in the case of a contract of hire. Implied terms as to Clause 7 makes similar provision to clauses 5 and 6 in quality and fitness in hire contracts were first enacted in relation to other contracts which involve the transfer of 1985 and the term as to 'merchantable quality' is changed ownership in goods, and was first introduced in 1985. to 'satisfactory quality' in line with the UK Act of 1994. Clause 8 implies a similar term to clauses 5 to 7 in a Mr Speaker I beg to move clauses 9 to 12 become part of contract of hire goods. This was first introduced in 1985. the Bill. • Supply of Goods and Services Bill — Clauses Considered K350 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 5th MARCH 1996

Mr Kermode: I rise to second and reserve my remarks, the Bill. Will all those in favour please say aye; to the Mr Speaker. contrary say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 17, sir. The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. I will put the motion the House that clauses 9 to 12 inclusive stand part Mr Kniveton: Clause 17, Mr Speaker, implements a of the Bill. Will all those in favour please say aye; to the recommendation of the Law Commission that the right of contrary say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clauses the of the customer, other than the consumer, to reject the 13 to 16 inclusive, sir. goods if they are of unsatisfactory quality should be limited. At present the customer has the right to reject the goods Mr Kniveton: Yes, Mr Speaker. Clauses 13 to 16 imply and get his money back if there is any defect even one so terms as to quality in contracts for the supply of goods by insignificant that it is unreasonable of him to do so. The sample, for example commodities sold as per sample. The commission considered that his right should be retained terms are amended in line with the changes in clauses 9 to in the case of the private consumer dealing with a supplier 12 to replace 'merchantable' quality with 'satisfactory' who is in the business but limited in the case of commercial quality. These terms cannot be excluded by an express term transactions so that the customer should only have the right of a contract where the customer is a consumer and only if to compensation or a reduction in price, not to reject the the exclusion is reasonable where the customer is not a goods. This was implemented by the UK Sale and Supply consumer. of Goods Act 1994. Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 17. Clause 13 implies terms as to quality in a sale of goods by sample, amended in line with clause 9 by substituting Mr Kermode: I rise to second and reserve my remarks, `unsatisfactory' for `unmerchantable'. Mr Speaker. Clause 14 implies terms as to quality in a hire purchase agreement for goods supplied by sample amended in line The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. The hon. with clause 10 by substituting `unsatisfactory' for member for Onchan, Mr Karran. `unmerchantable'. Also a definition of 'by sample' is included. Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, I would just like to Clause 15 makes similar provision to clauses 13 and 14 ask the hon. mover. The reason why this is being brought for other contracts under which the ownership of goods is in is because of a piece of legislation in the United Kingdom. If that is the case why is it being brought in and transferred by reference to a sample, for example exchange does it seem to be taking away consumers' rights or is that or part-exchange. Implied terms as to quality in such not the case? contracts were first enacted in 1985 and are amended in line with clause 11 by substituting 'unsatisfactory' for The Speaker: Does any other member wish to speak `unmerchantable'. to clause 17? Reply, sir. Clause 16 makes similar provision to clauses 13 to 15 for contracts of hire by reference to a sample. Implied terms Mr Kniveton: Yes, Mr Speaker, I can assure my hon. as to quality in such contracts were first enacted in 1985 colleague from Onchan that that is not the case. and are amended in line with clause 12 by substituting `unsatisfactory' for ' unmerchantable ' . The Speaker: The motion before the House is that Mr Speaker, I beg to move clauses 13 to 16 stand part clause 17 stand part of the Bill. Will all those in favour of the Bill. please say aye; to the contrary say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 18 and schedule 1, sir. Mr Kermode: I rise to second and reserve my remarks, Mr Speaker. Mr Kniveton: Clause 18, Mr Speaker, re-enacts provisions of the Misrepresentation and Unfair Contract The Speaker: Thank you. The hon. member for Terms Act 1980 and other provisions relating to exclusion Onchan, Mr Karran. clauses limiting the rights of the parties to agree to exclude the terms implied by clauses 1 to 16. These restrictions Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, can I just ask where were introduced as a consumer protection measure to is the definition for what is satisfactory as far as clause 13 prevent commercial suppliers imposing standard form is concerned when it talks about it? What is unsatisfactory, exclusions of liability, particularly on private customers. what is satisfactory and how do you define what would be Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 18 and schedule 1 stand satisfactory in these cases? part of the Bill.

The Speaker: Does any other member wish to speak Mr Kermode: I rise to second and reserve my remarks, to any of these clauses? Reply, sir? Mr Speaker.

Mr Kniveton: Yes. In response to my colleague Mr The Speaker: Thank you. I will put the motion to the Karran, clause 20 is the clause that he will be looking at. House that clause 18 and schedule 1 stand part of the Bill. Will all those in favour please say aye; to the contrary say The Speaker: Thank you. The motion that is before no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clauses 19 and 20, the House is that clauses 13 to 16 inclusive stand part of sir.

Supply of Goods and Services Bill — Clauses Considered HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 5th MARCH 1996 IC351

Mr Kniveton: Yes, Mr Speaker. Clause 19 defines the Mr Kermode: I beg to second and reserve my remarks, contracts to which part 1 applies and clause 20 defines Mr Speaker. other terms used in this part. There is no change in the law. Mr Speaker, I beg to move clauses 19 and 20. The Speaker: Thank you. Does any member wish to speak to clause 22? The hon. member for Ramsey? Mr Kermode: I rise to second and reserve my remarks, Mr Speaker. Mr Groves: No, thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Thank you. Does any member wish to The Speaker: I will put the motion to the House that speak? If not, I will put the motion to the House that clauses clause 22 stand part of the Bill. Will all those in favour 19 and 20 stand part of the Bill. Will all those in favour please say aye; to the contrary say no. The ayes have it. please say aye; to the contrary say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 23, sir. The ayes have it. Clause 21, sir. Mr Kniveton: Clause 23, Mr Speaker, re-enacts section Mr Kniveton: With you permission, sir, I was going to 14 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1985 which take clauses 21 to 26 together. imposes on the supplier of any service in the way of business a duty to provide it within a reasonable time. This The Speaker: No, I think it would be better if you were restated the common law rule decided in the case of to take them separately, sir. Charnock v. Liverpool Corporation where it was decided that the garage was liable for hire of a car where it took an Mr Kniveton: Right, sir. Mr Speaker, part 2, clauses unreasonable time to complete repairs to the customer's 21 to 26 - I know I am only taking 21 - simply re-enacts car. Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 23. part 2 of the Supply of Goods and Services Bill 1985 which codify the common law rules relating to the supplier's and Mr Kermode: I rise to second and reserve my remarks, customer's obligations under a contract for the supply of Mr Speaker. services, for example dry-cleaning, legal services, motor repairs, building work, et cetera. The National Consumer The Speaker: Thank you. I will put the motion to the Council recommended codification in order to achieve House that clause 23 stand part of the Bill. Will all those greater clarity and certainty, to remove the need to refer to in favour please say aye; to the contrary say no. The ayes the old case law and to increase public awareness and so have it. The ayes have it. Clause 24, sir. raise the quality of services. The inclusion of the 1985 provisions in this Bill is to bring into one enactment all Mr Kniveton: Clause 24, Mr Speaker, re-enacts the the implied terms which apply to the majority of the basic common law rule that where no specific price for consumer contracts. services is agreed or to be determined in accordance with Part 1 sets out the terms implied in contracts for supplied the contract or past dealings, the customer is obliged to goods and this part the terms in contracts for the supply of pay a reasonable price, which is what the court thinks is services. If a contract includes both goods and services, reasonable in all the circumstances of the case, not what part 1 applies to the goods element and this part to the the supplier thinks it ought to be. This only applies where services element of the contract. the supplier is acting in the course of a business. Mr Clause 21 specifies the contracts to which part 2 applies. Speaker, I beg to move clause 24. They are all contracts for the supply of services except contracts of employment and apprenticeship and certain Mr Kermode: I rise to second and reserve my remarks, other contracts excluded by order which require Tynwald Mr Speaker. approval. Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 21. The Speaker: Thank you. I will put the motion to the Mr Kermode: I rise to second and reserve my remarks, House that clause 24 stand part of the Bill. Will all those Mr Speaker. in favour please say aye; to the contrary say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 25. The Speaker: Thank you. The motion before the House is that clause 21 stand part of the Bill. Will all those in Mr Kniveton: Clause 25, Mr Speaker, provides that, favour please say aye; to the contrary say no. The ayes generally speaking, the terms implied by clauses 22 to 24 have it. The ayes have it. Clause 22, sir. are subject to any express agreement between the parties and any other terms implied by law. It should be noted Mr Kniveton: Mr Speaker, clause 22 re-enacts section that liability for negligence cannot be excluded at all in 13 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1985 which the case of death or personal injury and only so far as is imposes on the supplier of any service a duty to use reasonable in other cases. Small print standard terms are reasonable care and skill. This restated the common law also only enforceable so far as they are reasonable. Mr rule decided in the case of Curtis v. Chemical Cleaning Speaker, I beg to move clause 25. and Dyeing Company, 1951, where the cleaner was found liable for staining a wedding dress. Mr Speaker, I beg to Mr Kermode: I rise to second and reserve my remarks, move clause 22 become part of the Bill. Mr Speaker. • Supply of Goods and Services Bill — Clauses Considered K352 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 5th MARCH 1996

The Speaker: The motion before the House is that Mr Kniveton: Clause 28 reforms the law on sale of clause 25 stand part of the Bill. Will all those in favour goods by giving the buyer improved rights to reject please say aye; to the contrary say no. The ayes have it. defective goods. At present the buyer loses his right to The ayes have it. Clause 26, sir. reject goods if he has accepted them in the following ways: (1) when he informs the seller that he accepts them even Mr Kniveton: Clause 26, Mr Speaker, defines though he may have had no opportunity to examine them, `business' as including the activities of a public body, for for instance when a buyer signs an acceptance note on example a water or sewerage authority whose contracts delivery he would be deemed to have waived his rights to for services are therefore subjected to the implied terms in reject goods and can only claim damages if they are clauses 22 and 23. Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 26. defective even though he has had no chance to examine them; (2) when he does anything inconsistent with the Mr Kermode: I rise to second and reserve my remarks, ownership of the seller such as selling them on; or (3) if he Mr Speaker. retains them for a reasonable time after delivery without rejecting them he would be deemed to have accepted them The Speaker: Thank you. The motion before the House even though he may not have examined them. At present a is that clause 26 stand part of the Bill. Will all those in buyer is entitled to reject the whole of the batch of goods favour please say aye; to the contrary say no. The ayes as defective, such as 100 tonnes of wheat, but he cannot have it. The ayes have it. Clause 27, sir. accept part and reject the rest. If he accepts any he is treated as accepting the whole. This clause gives him the option Mr Kniveton: Clause 27, sir, deals with a problem of accepting part and rejecting the rest. Mr Speaker, I beg affecting principally commodity dealers but also to move clause 28. consumers. Under the present law where part of a quantity of goods is sold, for example 10 cases out of a shipment of Mr Kermode: I rise to second and reserve my remarks, a particular wine or 100 tonnes of wheat forming part of Mr Speaker. the cargo of a particular ship, the ownership of the goods sold does not pass to the buyer until they have been The Speaker: Thank you. I will put the motion to the identified or ascertained by being set aside for that buyer House that clause 28 stand part of the Bill. Will all those even if he has paid for them. Therefore if the seller becomes in favour please say aye; to the contrary say no. The ayes insolvent the buyer cannot claim any of the bulk but can have it. The ayes have it. Clause 29, sir. only prove for the value of his share in the liquidation or bankruptcy. On the sale of specific or identified goods the Mr Kniveton: Mr Speaker, clause 29 amends section ownership normally passes to the buyer on the making of 8 of the Moneylenders Act 1991 which enables the Board the contract, being the Sale of Goods Act 1983, 16, and on of Consumer Affairs to make regulations giving a cooling- the seller's insolvency he can claim the goods. off period for contracts under which consumers are given The solution recommended by the commission and credit and describing the documentation to be used. implemented in the UK by the Sale of Goods (Amendment) This clause enables the regulations to amend or repeal Act 1995 is that the buyer who has paid for the goods existing hire purchase legislation, in particular the forming part of a bulk should acquire ownership of an Advertisements (Hire-Purchase) (Isle of Man) Act 1966 undivided share in the bulk pending the setting aside or which makes limited provision in this area, in order to avoid appropriation of a particular part of the bulk in accordance overlaps and conflicts. The regulations require Tynwald with the contract. However, to permit further trading he approval. should be deemed to have consented to certain dealings Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 29. with and deliveries of the bulk. An undivided share is a share in a large item which has Mr Kermode: I rise to second and reserve my remarks, not yet been divided up. For example, if a fund or item of Mr Speaker. property is left to three children in equal shares each of them has a one third undivided share in the fund of property The Speaker: Thank you. I call upon the hon. member until it is divided between them. The co-owners in such a for Ramsey, Mr Groves. case are known as 'owners in common' as opposed to 'joint owners'. Clause 27 inserts new provisions in the Sale of Mr Groves: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wonder if the Goods Act 1983 to give effect to this. hon. mover could just clarify my understanding of sub- Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 27. clause (4) of this clause where it does clearly say that whatever regulations the board proposes to make are put Mr Kermode: I rise to second and reserve my remarks, before Tynwald for approval, but I believe this has been of Mr Speaker. some concern to some organisations involved in the issuing of credit for purchase of particularly motor cars, and that The Speaker: Thank you. The motion before the House the board will also consult with such organisations and is that clause 27 stand part of the Bill. Will all those in entities as it thinks fit before making such regulations. I favour please say aye; to the contrary say no. The ayes wonder if the hon. mover could confirm that, please. Thank have it. The ayes have it. Clause 28, sir. you.

Supply of Goods and Services Bill — Clauses Considered HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 5th MARCH 1996 K353

The Speaker: Does any other member wish to speak? and 4 stand part of the Bill. Will all those in favour please Reply, sir. say aye; to the contrary say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. And finally, clause 32, sir. Mr Kniveton: Mr Speaker, the point raised by the hon. member for Ramsey, Mr Groves - I am not quite in a Mr Kniveton: Clause 32, Mr Speaker, provides the position to answer this one correctly and I would prefer, if short title for the Bill and for its commencement at the end it is acceptable, that I bring it back at the third reading of the period of two months beginning with the day on stage. which it is passed. Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 32.

The Speaker: The motion before the House is that Mr Kermode: I rise to second and reserve my remarks clause 29 stand part of the Bill. Will all those in favour and if I could just make a quick comment regarding the please say aye; to the contrary say no. The ayes have it. question asked by Mr Groves, Mr Speaker. Section 29(a) The ayes have it. Clause 30 and schedule 2. of the Bill says that we will consult with interested parties and companies, and they all agree with this as far as we Mr Kniveton: Clause 30, sir, introduces schedule 2 are aware. Okay? I beg to second and reserve my remarks. which makes transitional provision for past transactions. I just spoke. Sorry, Mr Speaker. Its effect is basically that any changes made by the Bill will not apply to contracts entered into before it comes The Speaker: I have to freely admit that I am just into force, that is, two months after passing, which will be slightly confused. governed by the existing law. It also continues the practice introduced in the Sale of Mr Kermode: That makes two of us. Goods Act 1983 by which the provisions governing past , transactions are scheduled so that where they apply their The Speaker: But I would put the motion to the House terms can easily be found. For example, the terms as to that clause 32 stand part of the Bill. Will all those in favour quality or fitness in a contract or sale made before the please say aye; to the contrary say no. The ayes have it. commencement of the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) The ayes have it. That concludes consideration of the Act 1976 are those in the Sale of Goods Act 1895, 16, clauses stage of the Supply of Goods and Services Bill. which is set out as a substitute to clause 9 in paragraph 3(1). If the contract was made after the commencement of the 1976 Act the terms are those in the current Sale of Goods Act 1983, 14, which is set out as a substitute to FAIR TRADING BILL— clause 9 in paragraph 3(2). CLAUSES CONSIDERED Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 30 and schedule 2 become part of the Bill. The Speaker: Now, hon. members, the last item on our agenda today is consideration of the clauses stage of Mr Kermode: I beg to second and reserve my remarks, the Fair Trading Bill and I call upon the member for Mr Speaker. Douglas East, Mr Kermode, to move clause 1.

The Speaker: Thank you. Does any member wish to Mr Kermode: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do not believe speak either to clause 30 or indeed to schedule 2? If not, I there are any questions which I failed to answer at the will put the motion to the House that clause 30 and schedule second reading stage but I have since been asked if there 2 stand part of the Bill. Will all those in favour please say have been any comments received from the Chamber of aye; to the contrary say no. The ayes have it. The ayes Commerce since the first draft was issued for consultation have it. We will now deal with clause 31 and schedules 3 in May 1994. Remarkably I have to inform members that and 4, sir. the chamber have failed to make any comment on the Mr Kniveton: Clause 31, Mr Speaker, introduces content of this Bill, although it was mentioned in the letter schedule 3 which makes minor and consequential we circulated to all members of Tynwald when the linkspan amendments, and schedule 4 is introduced and comprises user agreement was being debated in Tynwald. We have provisions superseded by this Bill and repealed as requested their comments on several occasions and finally redundant. The whole of the Supply of Goods (Implied notified them that their silence would have to be taken as Terms) Act 1976 and the Supply of Goods and Services acceptance of the Bill. As there are no other outstanding Act 1985 are repealed. Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause matters from the second reading I propose to move straight 31 and schedules 3 and 4 become part of the Bill. on to the clauses. Clause 1 gives the Board of Consumer Affairs the duty The Speaker: Thank you. to act against a trader who has been guilty of conduct which is detrimental to the interests of consumers and unfair to Mr Kermode: I rise to second and reserve my remarks, the consumers by seeking undertakings from him to desist Mr Speaker. from such conduct. Conduct is to be considered unfair if it involves The Speaker: Thank you. I will put the motion to the contravention of any statutory provision which carries House and the motion is that clause 31 and schedules 3 criminal sanctions such as a breach of trade descriptions,

Fair Trading Bill — Clauses Considered K354 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 5th MARCH 1996 provisions, or consumer safety regulations but a conviction Mr Kniveton: I beg to second, sir, and reserve my of the trader for any such offence is not a precondition of remarks. action under this clause. Another kind of conduct which is considered unfair The Speaker: Thank you. I will put the motion to the under this clause involves civil liability where there is a House that clause 2 stand part of the Bill. Will all those in breach of the trader's contractual obligations to his favour please say aye; to the contrary say no. The ayes customers such as supplying defective goods which is a have it. The ayes have it. Clause 3, sir. breach of the conditions as to the quality implied by the sale of goods legislation and again it is not necessary for Mr Kermode: Clause 3, Mr Speaker, sets out the High any civil proceedings to have been taken for such a breach Court's powers in proceedings by the Attorney-General before action can be taken under this clause. The board under clause 2 and it can either grant an injunction against can act either on complaints made to it or on other the trader or accept an undertaking from him. The High information coming into its possession and the undertaking Court can grant an injunction on three conditions: the court obtained from the trader will seek to ensure that he stops must find the trader has been guilty of conduct detrimental acting in a way which is unfair to the consumers in the to the interests of consumers or unfair to them and it is for course of his present business or any future business of the Attorney-General to show that this is the case; or the his. trader does not give an undertaking to the court or, if he Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 1. does, the court is not prepared to accept it either because of the terms or because it does not believe his word; and Mr Kniveton: Mr Speaker, I beg to second and reserve the court thinks that without an injunction the trader will my remarks. probably carry on in a manner unfair to consumers. The court can accept an undertaking either in general terms or The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Does any in terms of taking specific action such as altering the member wish to speak to clause 1? The hon. member for content of advertisements or giving new instructions to Glenfaba. salesmen or staff if the court thinks this will have the desired effect. Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 3. Mr Gilbey: Yes, I would just like to comment on the point the hon. mover made about the fact that he has made Mr Kniveton: I beg to second, sir, and reserve my every effort to get the views of the Chamber of Commerce remarks. and others, and I certainly congratulate him on this. It is what has been confirmed to me by them, that they have The Speaker: Thank you. Does any member wish to not given any views, and I must say I find it extraordinary speak to clause 3? If not, I will put the motion to the House that no-one at all in business in this Island should want to that clause 3 stand part of the Bill. Will all those in favour comment on a Bill which has some very radical proposals please say aye; to the contrary say no. The ayes have it. in it, whatever you think, and I would say that I do hope in The ayes have it. Clause 4, sir. future when such Bills are sent to the private sector for consultation they will give their views if only to say they Mr Kermode: Clause 4, Mr Speaker, deals with the totally agree with it all. case of unfair conduct on the part of a company where an individual is thought responsible for the company's actions A Member: Hear, hear. so that the High Court proceedings can be brought personally against the responsible director, manager or The Speaker: Does any other member wish to speak person controlling the company. Mr Speaker, I beg to move to clause 1? Reply, sir. clause 4.

Mr Kermode: I would like to thank the member for Mr Kniveton: I beg to second, Mr Speaker, and reserve his comments but he is quite right. I would have thought my remarks. with such an important Bill like this which does affect their business they would have wanted to make some sort of a The Speaker: Thank you. If nobody wishes to speak comment but I still beg to move, Mr Speaker. to this clause I will put the motion to the House that clause 4 stand part of the Bill. Will all those in favour please say The Speaker: The motion before the House is that aye; to the contrary say no. The ayes have it. The ayes clause 1 stand part of the Bill. Will all those in favour have it. Clause 5, sir. please say aye; to the contrary say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 2, sir. Mr Kermode: Clause 5, Mr Speaker, sets out the High Court's powers in proceedings by the Attorney-General Mr Kermode: Yes, thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause 2 against an individual director, manager or owner of a provides the sanction against a trader who breaches or fails company under clause 4. The Court can either accept an to give undertakings under clause 1 to desist from conduct undertaking from him or grant an injunction as was which is detrimental or unfair to consumers. In such cases described in clause 3. Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 5. the board can ask the Attorney-General to take proceedings for an injunction in the High Court. Mr Speaker, I beg to Mr Kniveton: I beg to second, sir, and reserve my move clause 2. remarks. Fair Trading Bill — Clauses Considered U HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 5th MARCH 1996 K355

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. The hon. members will see that in sub-clause (2) of clause 6 on line member for Glenfaba. 3 we refer to a particular description and that is why this amendment to correct a drafting error is necessary. I beg Mr Gilbey: Mr Speaker, I think if hon. members look to move the amendment, Mr Speaker: at clause 5(2) they will see at the bottom a reference to clause 4(4)(a) to (c). If they then look up the page they Page 7, line 16; for 'to which that practice applies' will see clause 4(4) and there is no (a) to (c), and I think it substitute 'of that description'. should be clause 4(3)(a) to (c), which is on page 5. I did point this out to officers of the board and I thought that The Speaker: Thank you. there would be an amendment to cover this, but it is probably not a very important point. Mr Walker: I beg to second, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Does any other member wish to speak The Speaker: Thank you. Does any member wish to to clause 5? speak either to the clause or indeed to the amendment? If not, I will put the motion that clause 6 stand part of the Mr Gilbey: It may be that some member would like to Bill but to that motion we have an amendment in the name move an amendment. of the hon. member for Ramsey, Mr Groves. Will all those in favour of the amendment please say aye; to the contrary The Speaker: Reply, sir? say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. I will now put clause 6 as amended. Will all those in favour please say Mr Kermode: Mr Speaker, I am not aware of that aye; to the contrary say no. The ayes have it. The ayes situation which has been brought to my attention. However, have it. Can I just refer briefly to clause 5, just for a if there is no amendment being made, unfortunately I moment? I think, hon. member, it may be helpful to give cannot help the hon. member and I beg to move clause 5. consideration to the problem that was raised by the hon. member for Glenfaba either at the third reading or indeed The Speaker: The motion before the House is that in another place. Can we move on to clause 7 and indeed clause 5 stand part of the Bill. Will all those in favour schedule 1? please say aye; to the contrary say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 6, sir. Mr Kermode: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Kermode: Clause 6, Mr Speaker, defines the terms The Speaker: That is with a view to helping. used in clauses 1 to 5 and in particular the term `consumer' is defined to mean a person to whom goods or services are Mr Kermode: Yes, I will attempt to deal with that at supplied by a person in the course of that person's business, the third reading, if possible, and it may mean suspension provided the purchaser is not acting in the course of any of standing orders to do that, but I am quite prepared to business. This means that a private person buying a car come along with that. from a dealer is a consumer but a dealer or private person Clause 7 and schedule 1 enables action to be taken in buying a car from a private person can never be a consumer the Isle of Man against consumer trade practices which as the supplier was not acting in the course of a business. have been found to be detrimental to the interests of Sub-clause (3) makes it clear that a person does not consumers in the UK and outlawed there under Part II of have to have a place of business in the Isle of Man to be the Fair Trading Act 1973. subject to action under clauses 1 to 5, so action could be The Board of Consumer Affairs is given power by order taken against a non-resident trader who visited the Island to apply to the Island an order under the 1973 Act, section only occasionally. However, it must be appreciated that 22, which regulates or prohibits such practices. Before traders without any presence in the Island, such as mail making the orders the board must consult with interested order companies and telephone canvassing companies parties and the orders require Tynwald approval. A breach based in the UK, will be outside our jurisdiction but action of such an order is to be a criminal offence under schedule could be taken by the UK authorities. 1 which reproduces the sanctions applied to section 22 Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 6. orders in the UK and provides for the enforcement of such orders by the board with the same enforcement powers as Mr Kniveton: I beg to second, sir, and reserve my provided under the Consumer Protection (Trade remarks. Descriptions) Act 1970, an Act of Tynwald. Three orders could be applied to the Island under this The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. I call upon clause. The Mail Order Transactions (Information) Order the hon. member for Ramsey, Mr Groves. 1976 relates to advertisements except on radio, TV or film inviting orders for goods where payment is to be made Mr Groves: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to before dispatch of the goods. Such advertisements must propose an amendment which has been circulated, the carry the name and business address of the person carrying purpose of which is to correct a drafting error and that is on the business. The Consumer Transactions (Restrictions on page 7, line 16, to delete the words 'to which that on Statements) Order 1976 prohibits persons selling goods practice applies' and substitute 'of that description'. Hon. from putting up notices which state 'no refunds' or `no • Fair Trading Bill — Clauses Considered K356 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 5th MARCH 1996

returns' or similar. Also where manufacturers or Mr Kniveton: Mr Speaker, I beg to second and reserve wholesalers supply goods with labels or notices advertising my remarks. their guarantees the labels or notices must make it clear that the guarantees do not affect the consumer's statutory The Speaker: Thank you. I call upon the hon. member rights. For instance, under the sale of goods legislation the for Ramsey, Mr Groves. consumer is entitled to a refund if the goods are defective, not just a repair or replacement which is usually offered Mr Groves: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Again I would under the guarantee. The Business Advertisement like to move the amendment which has been circulated in (Disclosure) Order 1977 requires a person advertising my name which is to correct a drafting error, that is, on goods for sale in the course of a business to make it clear page 9, line 19, to delete the words `section 9(2)' and that the goods are being sold in the course of a business. substitute for them 'paragraph 6 of Schedule 3' which hon. In the case of a motor vehicle sale this usually entails members will see then makes the sub-clause (4) make putting the advertisement in the relevant page of the sense. I beg to move, Mr Speaker: classified adverts or by inserting the letter 'T' in any advert with a footnote to explain to the reader that this is a trade Page 9, line 19; for 'section 9(2)' substitute advert. `paragraph 6 of Schedule 3'. Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 7 and schedule 1. The Speaker: Thank you. The Speaker: Thank you. Mr Bell: I beg to second, sir. Mr Kniveton: I beg to second, sir, and reserve my remarks. The Speaker: Thank you. Does any member wish to speak either to the clause or indeed to the amendment? Do The Speaker: Thank you. Does any member wish to you wish to reply to the amendment? speak either to clause 7 or indeed to schedule 1? If not, I will put the motion to the House that clause 7 and schedule Mr Kermode: Just to accept the amendment, Mr 1 stand part of the Bill. Will all those in favour please say Speaker. aye; to the contrary say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 8, sir. The Speaker: Thank you very much. Thank you. I will put the motion to the House and the motion is that clause 8 stand part of the Bill but to that motion we have an Mr Kermode: Mr Speaker, part 2 of the Bill, clauses 8 amendment in the name of the hon. member for Ramsey to 18, deals with action against anti-competitive practices. which has been circulated and I will put the amendment This is conduct which tends to restrict, distort or prevent first. Will all those in favour of the amendment please say competition. Such practices are to be investigated and aye; to the contrary say no. The ayes have it. The ayes undertakings sought to desist from them. Competition have it. I will now put clause 8 as amended. Will all those references can be made to a commission by the Council of in favour please say aye; to the contrary say no. The ayes Ministers which may result in undertakings being sought have it. The ayes have it. Clause 9, sir. and orders being made prohibiting certain activities which can be enforced by the High Court by injunction. The only Mr Kermode: Mr Speaker, clause 9 enables the Council other clause in part 2 is clause 19 which provides for the of Ministers to make a preliminary reference to the Board investigation of prices by the Board of Consumer Affairs. of Consumer Affairs to report on whether anti-competitive Clause 8 defines 'anti-competitive practices': conduct practices are or have been going on. which tends to restrict, distort or prevent competition in Sub-clause (2) requires the report of the board to be connection with the production or supply of goods or laid before Tynwald and published in accordance with services in the Isle of Man. The Council of Ministers are schedule 3, paragraph 4. A public notice must be issued in able to exclude any activity from this definition by an order one or more newspapers identifying the subject matter of which is subject to Tynwald approval. Such an exclusion the report. A copy must be made available for public could be based on particular activities or classes of persons, inspection and other copies must be made available for or by the size of the market share enjoyed by a trader or sale. simply on his annual turnover. Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 9. An omission in the UK legislation has been corrected in this Bill under sub-clause (7) where off-street parking Mr Kniveton: I beg to second, sir, and reserve my has been brought within the meaning of services. Strictly remarks. speaking it is neither goods nor services and as a result was inadvertently omitted from the UK legislation. The Speaker: Thank you. I will put the motion to the Sub-clause (8) also provides that the activities of public House that clause 9 stand part of the Bill. Will all those in authorities are included within the scope of this part of the favour please say aye; to the contrary say no. The ayes Bill. have it. The ayes have it. Clause 10, sir. Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 8. Mr Kermode: Mr Speaker, clause 10 provides for the The Speaker: Thank you. acceptance by the board after appropriate publicity or

Fair Trading Bill — Clauses Considered HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 5th MARCH 1996 K357

undertakings by traders that they will stop anti-competitive Mr Kniveton: I beg to second, sir, and reserve my practices or take other steps which will prevent them remarks. operating against the public interest. The clause also provides for the variation and release from undertakings. The Speaker: Thank you. If no member wishes to speak The board may not accept an undertaking if a formal to clause 11 I will put the motion to the House that clause competition reference has been made by the Council of 11 stand part of the Bill. Will all those in favour please say Ministers under clause 11. aye; to the contrary say no. The ayes have it. The ayes Before accepting an undertaking the board must publish have it. Clause 12, sir. a notice stating the board is proposing to accept an undertaking, and all the circumstances detailed in sub- Mr Kermode: Mr Speaker, clause 12 provides for the clause (3) must be included in that notice so that making, contents and publication of a report on a representations can be made by interested parties. Once competition reference under clause 11. The report must be the board has considered these representations and decided made to the Council of Ministers and then laid before to accept the original undertaking or a modified version of Tynwald before being published in accordance with it the board shall arrange for that undertaking to be schedule 3, paragraph 4. The report must contain reasoned published. The board is also required to keep the conclusions as to whether any person has been carrying undertaking under review and from time to time consider on the practices in question, whether they are anti- any change of circumstances which might require the competitive, and if so, whether they operate against the undertaking to be varied, superseded or withdrawn. public interest. Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 10. If the commission does find anti-competitive practices and they have acted against the public interest, then the Mr Kniveton: I beg to second, sir, and reserve my commission is required to make recommendations as to remarks. what action should be taken to remedy the adverse effects of that practice. The commission may also make The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Does any recommendations as to the action to be taken by public member wish to speak to clause 10? If not, I will put the authorities. motion to the House that clause 10 stand part of the Bill. Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 12. Will all those in favour please say aye; to the contrary say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 11, sir. Mr Kniveton: I beg to second, sir, and reserve my remarks. Mr Kermode: Clause 11, Mr Speaker, provides for a competition reference under which the Council of Ministers commissions a formal investigation into anti-competitive The Speaker: I call upon the hon. member for Ramsey, practices following a report or an investigation by the Board Mr Groves. under clause 9 or where the undertaking procedure under clause 10 has not worked. Mr Groves: Thank you, Mr Speaker. An amendment The Council of Ministers can refer an anti-competitive circulated in my name, which I beg to move, corrects a practice to a select person or body, the commission, for a printing error to include the word 'be' after the word 'shall' formal investigation and report. The commission can be to make it read in English. I beg to move: the Board of Consumer Affairs or any other department or statutory board or an individual or group as the Council of Page 14, line 36; after "and shall" insert "be". Ministers thinks appropriate. In the same way that an undertaking cannot be accepted by the Board under clause Mr Bell: I beg to second, Mr Speaker. 10 once a competition reference is made, then under clause 11, sub-clause (5), a competition reference cannot be made The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Does any by the Council of Ministers if an undertaking is still in member wish to speak either to the clause or the force relating to the same practices or goods or services. amendment? The hon. member for Rushen? Do you wish Sub-clause (6) sets out the duties of a commission on a to reply, sir? competition reference. It must investigate and report whether any person mentioned in the reference has been Mr Kermode: No reply, just to accept the amendment, carrying out the practices in question, whether they are Mr Speaker. anti-competitive practices, and if so, whether they act against the public interest which is defined in schedule 3, The Speaker: Thank you. I will put the motion to the paragraph 5. House. The motion is that clause 12 stand part of the Bill `Public interest', amongst other things, means the but to that motion we have an amendment in the name of desirability of maintaining and promoting effective the hon. member for Ramsey, Mr Groves and I will put competition between persons supplying goods and services the amendment first. Will all those in favour of the in the Island and promoting the interests of consumers, amendment please say aye; to the contrary say no. The purchasers and other users of goods and services in respect ayes have it. The ayes have it. I will now put clause 12 as of the prices charged for them and in respect of their quality amended. Will all those in favour please say aye; to the and the variety of goods and services supplied. contrary say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 11. 13, sir. • Fair Trading Bill — Clauses Considered K358 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 5th MARCH 1996

Mr Kermode: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause 13 cartel dividing up a territory or fixing prices under requires a report on a competition reference to be made paragraph 2. The order can require such an agreement to within a specified time limit up to six months. A report be terminated. made after that time cannot be acted upon. There is, Paragraph 3 - an order under paragraph 1 or 2 cannot however, a power for the Council of Ministers to extend relate to terms and conditions of employment. This is a the time limit once only by up to three months following matter for trade union or other legislation. representations made by the commission, Mr Speaker, I Paragraph 4 - an order can prohibit the blacklisting of beg to move clause 13. any customer such as a wholesaler refusing to supply goods to a retailer who refuses to sell at a minimum price. Mr Kniveton: I beg to second, sir, and reserve my Paragraph 5 - an order can prohibit any contract term remarks. which requires a customer to buy goods or to pay for goods or services other than those supplied. An order can prohibit The Speaker: Thank you. I will put the motion to the discrimination in prices charged to customers such as where House that clause 13 stand part of the Bill. Will all those retailers who take supplies from other wholesalers are in favour please say aye; to the contrary say no. The ayes charged higher prices, and similarly under paragraph 7 - have it. The ayes have it. Clause 14, sir. the giving of preference to certain customers who do not take supplies from other wholesalers can be prohibited. Mr Kermode: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause 14 Paragraph 8 - an order can prohibit the charging of prices enables the Council of Ministers, once a report on a different to those on published price lists. This is a means competition reference has been received, to request the of ensuring that there is no discrimination or preference as Board of Consumer Affairs to seek undertakings from the mentioned in the previous paragraphs. persons detailed in the report. If the board cannot get a Paragraph 9 - an order can require a supplier to publish suitable undertaking from the persons concerned it must price lists. This is a means of ensuring there is no advise the Council of Ministers accordingly and the discrimination in prices charged. Council may then make an order under clause 15. The Paragraph 10 - an order can require a supplier to publish Council of Ministers, instead of requiring the board to seek information about costs and margins about any supply. an undertaking under this clause, can also make an order Paragraph 11 - an order can regulate prices but only to under clause 15. If the board does get an undertaking from the extent that the commission's report says that the level the persons concerned it must notify the Council of of prices charged operates against the public interest. Ministers, publish details of the undertaking and monitor Paragraph 12 - an order can prohibit a supplier its observance and keep it under review. specifying a recommended retail price. On the advice of the Board of Consumer Affairs the Paragraph 13 - an order can prohibit a takeover, the Council of Ministers may release a person from an effect of which will be to make two or more companies undertaking. interconnected, or, if the takeover is permitted to go ahead, Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 14. the persons concerned may be required to observe any prohibitions or restrictions imposed on them by order. Mr Kniveton: I beg to second, sir, and reserve my Paragraph 14 - an order may require a person to give remarks. information to the Board of Consumer Affairs or such other person as may be specified in the order. The Speaker: Thank you. If no member wishes to speak Paragraph 15 - an order can require a different operation to clause 14 I will put the motion to the House that clause of the same business to be carried out separately, such as 14 stand part of the Bill. Will all those in favour please say wholesaling and retailing. aye; to the contrary say no. The ayes have it. The ayes Paragraph 16 - an order can prohibit the exercise of have it. Clause 15 and schedule 2, sir. voting rights by virtue of the holding of any shares, stocks or securities. Mr Kermode: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause 15 and Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 15 and schedule 2. schedule 2 provides a procedure whereby an anti- competitive practice can be stopped by order made by the Mr Kniveton: I beg to second, sir, and reserve my Council of Ministers. remarks. Sub-clause (1) gives the Council of Ministers power to make an order stopping an anti-competitive practice in The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. I call upon three cases: if it has not asked the board to seek an the hon. member for Ramsey, Mr Groves. undertaking under clause 14; if the board reports that it cannot get suitable undertakings; if the undertakings have Mr Groves: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This clause refers been given but have not been complied with. to schedule 2 and for the avoidance of doubt I beg to move Sub-clause (2) enables an order to be made prohibiting the amendment in my name which seeks to place after the a named person carrying out a specified anti-competitive words 'bodies corporate' in schedule 2 on page 31, practice as set out in the relevant commission report. An paragraph 13 that they are defined earlier in the Bill in order may also do anything specified in the 16 paragraphs clause 8(6)(b) and therefore the amendment seeks to draw contained in schedule 2, as follows. Paragraph 1- the order that together for the avoidance of doubt. I therefore beg to can prohibit the carrying out of any agreement such as a move the amendment standing in my name, Mr Speaker:

Fair Trading Bill — Clauses Considered HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 5th MARCH 1996 K359

Page 31, in paragraph 13; after 'bodies corporate' Mr Kermode: Mr Speaker, clause 18 provides the insert 'as defined in section 8(6)(b)'. enforcement of an order under clause 15 which can only be enforced by civil proceedings and this includes Mr Bell: I beg to second, Mr Speaker. proceedings by the Attorney-General for an injunction. Sub-clause (1) makes it clear that there is no criminal The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Does any liability for breach of an order under clause 15. member wish to speak either to the clause, the schedule or Sub-clause (2) provides that civil proceedings can be indeed the amendment? If not, I have to put the clause to brought for the breach of an order and that the Attorney- you but I think first of all I should put the amendment General can apply to the High Court for an injunction. which has been circulated in the name of the hon. member Sub-clause (3) provides for the enforcement of for Ramsey, Mr Groves. Will all those in favour of the directions by the Council of Ministers under clause 16 by amendment please say aye; to the contrary say no. The a court order made on the application of the Attorney- ayes have it. The ayes have it. I will now put clause 15 and General, and the court can award costs against any schedule 2 as amended. Will all those in favour please say responsible person under sub-clause (4). aye; to the contrary say no. The ayes have it. The ayes I beg to move clause 18, Mr Speaker. have it. Clause 16, sir. Mr Kniveton: I beg to second, sir, and reserve my Mr Kermode: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause 16 remarks. makes further provisions as to the scope by orders made under clause 15 and provides that an order can only be The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Does any made against a British citizen or certain other kinds of member wish to speak to clause 18? I will put the motion form of British citizen against a Manx company or against to the House that clause 18 stand part of the Bill. Will all a person carrying on business in the Island, but it can apply those in favour please say aye; to the contrary say no. The to activities outside the Island. ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 19, sir. Under sub-clause (2) an order can apply to existing agreements, for example cartels, as well as future Mr Kermode: Mr Speaker, clause 19 provides agreements. machinery for the Board of Consumer Affairs to investigate Sub-clause (3) provides that an order cannot interfere any price which is of major public concern and to report with any rights under a licence to use a patented invention their findings to the Council of Ministers. Guidance in what or registered design. is meant by 'major public concern' is provided in sub- Sub-clause (4) enables an order to provide for the clause (2) and the report of the board is required to be laid Council of Ministers to give directions to the person before Tynwald and published in accordance with schedule concerned or a director of a company concerned to secure 3, paragraph 4. Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 19. compliance with the order. Mr Speaker, I beg to move 16. Mr Kniveton: I beg to second, sir, and reserve my remarks. Mr Kniveton: I beg to second, sir, and reserve my remarks. The Speaker: Thank you. The motion before the House is that clause 19 stand part of the Bill. Will all those in The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Does any favour please say aye; to the contrary say no. The ayes member wish to speak to clause 16? If not, I will put the have it. The ayes have it. Clause 20, sir. motion to the House that clause 16 stand part of the Bill. Will all those in favour please say aye; to the contrary say Mr Kermode: Mr Speaker, clause 20 gives the Board no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 17. of Consumer Affairs the function of renewing commercial activities in the Island so far as they affect consumers or Mr Kermode: Mr Speaker, clause 17 specifies the constitute anti-competitive practices with a view to keeping procedure of requirements for orders under clause 15. It the Council of Ministers informed. These functions correspond with those of the Office of Fair Trading in the requires the proposal to make such orders to be advertised UK under the Fair Trading Act 1973. I beg to move clause and for the Council of Ministers to consider any 20, Mr Speaker. representations before making the order and the order requires Tynwald approval. Mr Speaker, I beg to move Mr Kniveton: I beg to second, sir, and reserve my clause 17. remarks.

Mr Kniveton: I beg to second, sir, and reserve my The Speaker: I call upon the hon. member for Ramsey, remarks. Mr Groves.

The Speaker: Thank you. I will put the motion to the Mr Groves: Thank you, Mr Speaker. We no longer have House that clause 17 stand part of the Bill. Will all those uncompetitive practices as far as this Bill is concerned; in favour please say aye; to the contrary say no. The ayes we have anti-competitive practices which are clearly have it. The ayes have it. Clause 18, sir. defined in clause 8 at the beginning of part 2 of the Bill.

Fair Trading Bill — Clauses Considered K360 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 5th MARCH 1996

My amendment, which has been circulated, therefore in Sub-clause (1) provides that a prosecution can be effect deletes from clause 20 sub-clause (6) as written from brought within three years from the commission of the the words starting ' "uncompetitive practices" means offence or within one year of its coming to the notice of practices' et cetera right through to the word 'Island'. That the prosecutor, if earlier. is no longer necessary and therefore the amendment that I Sub-clause (2) provides for a 12-month time limit for have had circulated in my name in effect deletes that prosecuting summary offences under the Bill. unnecessary section from the Bill. Could I also point out Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 22. that the amendment itself is incorrectly drawn in that after the word 'Island' there should be quotes to close the Mr Kniveton: I beg to second, sir, and reserve my comment 'commercial activities in the Island'. I so beg to remarks. move, Mr Speaker: The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. The motion Page 22, line 33; for sub-clause (6) substitute - before the House is that clause 22 stand part of the Bill. Will all those in favour please say aye; to the contrary say "(6) In this section "commercial activities no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. in the Island" means any of the following - Now, hon. members, according to my watch it is half (a) the production and supply of goods in past five and standing order 7(2) provides - the Island; Mr May: Mr Speaker, could I move: (b) the supply of services in the Island.' That the House sit to complete the clauses stage of The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. the Fair Trading Bill at this sitting.

Mr Bell: I beg to second, Mr Speaker. The Speaker: Yes, you certainly can.

The Speaker: Thank you. Does any member wish to Mr Duggan: I second that, sir. speak either to the clause or indeed to the amendment? If not, I will put the amendment to the House first. Will all The Speaker: Thank you. A motion has been proposed those in favour of the amendment which, as has been and seconded that standing orders be suspended to enable pointed out, has in turn been amended for a typographical us to complete the clauses stage of this Bill. Does anybody error in that there are inverted commas after the word want to speak to that motion? If not, I will put it to the `Island' in sub-clause (6), will all those in favour of the House. Will all those in favour please say aye; to the amendment in the name of the hon. member for Ramsey, contrary say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause Mr Groves, please say aye; to the contrary say no. The 23, sir. ayes have it. The ayes have it. I will now put clause 20 as amended. Will all those in favour please say aye; to the Mr Kermode: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and can I thank contrary say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause the House for that. There is only a little bit left and it will 21, sir. be about five minutes. Mr Kermode: Clause 21, Mr Speaker, makes it an Clause 23 is a standard provision enabling the directors offence to give misleading information to the Council of or managers et cetera of a company to be prosecuted for Ministers, the board or a commission in the course of any the offences committed by the company. Mr Speaker, I investigation under the Bill. Penalties for offences under beg to move clause 23. this clause are a fine not exceeding £5,000 on summary conviction and on conviction on information to Mr Kniveton: I beg to second, sir, and reserve my imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a remarks. fine or both. Under sub-clause (4) there is no time limit for prosecutions under this clause. Mr Speaker, I beg to The Speaker: Thank you. Does any member wish to move clause 21. speak to clause 23? I will put the motion to the House that clause 23 stand part of the Bill. Will all those in favour Mr Kniveton: I beg to second, sir, and reserve my please say aye; to the contrary say no. The ayes have it. remarks. The ayes have it. Clause 24 and schedule 3, sir. The Speaker: Thank you. If no member wishes to speak Mr Kermode: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause 24 to clause 21 I will put the motion that clause 21 stand part of the Bill. Will all those in favour please say aye; to the introduces a procedural provision for investigations in contrary say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause schedule 3 and enables regulations to be made which 22, sir. require Tynwald approval, specifying the way in which notices under the Bill may be given. Mr Kermode: Clause 22, Mr Speaker, specifies the Paragraph 1 of schedule 3 defines the term 'commission' special time limits for prosecutions of offences under the and provides for the signature et cetera of documents by Bill other than those mentioned in clause 21. or on behalf of a commission.

Fair Trading Bill — Clauses Considered HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 5th MARCH 1996 K361

Paragraph 2 requires the commission to consider Mr Groves: A lot quicker than you would have done! representations by interested parties and give them a hearing if practical, but apart from this the commission Mr Quine: They are National health Service ones! can determine its own procedure. It must, however, act in accordance with any directions from the Council of Mr Kermode: They were not National Health. They Ministers. were paid for privately. (Laughter) Mr Speaker, clause 26 Paragraph 3 requires the commission to exclude private defines terms used in the Bill, and clause 27 gives the Bill or confidential matters from its reports so far as practicable, its short title and provides for its commencement on an but any report is absolutely privileged for the purposes of appointed day or days. Mr Speaker, I beg to move clauses any proceedings for libel. A dissenting opinion may be 26 and 27 and once again thank the House for its included in the report if any member of the commission so indulgence. desires. Paragraph 4 provides for the publication of reports. They Mr Kniveton: I beg to second, sir. are to be laid before Tynwald, advertised and published, but the Council of Ministers can omit any part of the report The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Does any if it relates to an individual's private affairs or interests member wish to speak to either of these clauses? If not I and the Council thinks publication would not be in the will put the motion to the House that clauses 26 and 27 public interest. stand part of the Bill. Will all those in favour please say Paragraph 5 sets out what is meant by 'against the public aye; to the contrary say no. The ayes have it. The ayes interest' in the context of a report under clause 10 and 12. have it. Hon. members, that concludes consideration of It relates to the unequal effect of competition in supply of the clauses stage of the Fair Trading Bill. goods and services and consumers' interests in relation to The House will now adjourn, having completed its price, quantity and variety. agenda, which at one stage I must admit I did not think we Paragraph 6 gives the commission power to summon would do. We will adjourn to 10 o'clock on 12th March in witnesses and require the production of documents, subject this chamber. to the usual safeguards for witnesses against self- incrimination and professional privilege. Tampering with documents is made an offence and refusal to comply with The House adjourned at 5.35 p.m. a witness summons et cetera is punishable by the High Court with contempt of court. Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 24 and schedule 3.

Mr Kniveton: I would like to second, sir, and reserve my remarks.

The Speaker: Thank you. Does any member wish to speak either to schedule 3 or to clause 24? If not I will put the motion that clause 24 and schedule 3 stand part of the Bill. Will all those in favour please say aye; to the contrary say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 25, sir.

Mr Kermode: Clause 25, Mr Speaker, provides information about a business obtained in the course of an investigation et cetera under this Bill is confidential and unauthorised disclosure is made a criminal offence. Certain disclosures for the purpose of facilitating other specified regulated functions are permitted under sub-clause (2) and for the purpose of any proceedings, whether criminal or civil, under this Bill or the Consumer Protection Act 1991, part VI. Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 25.

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

The Speaker: I will put the motion to the House that clause 25 stand part of the Bill. Will all those in favour please say aye; to the contrary say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. And finally, sir, clauses 26 and 27.

Mr Kermode: Thank you, Mr Speaker. With the help of my new glasses I have been able to go much quicker. (Laughter) • Fair Trading Bill — Clauses Considered