32 T2003/4 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 1645 T123 Volume 123, No. 25 ISSN 1742-2256

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

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

P R O C E E D I N G S D A A L T Y N (HANSARD)

Douglas, Thursday, 13th July 2006

Published by the Office of the Clerk of Tynwald, Legislative Buildings, Bucks Road, Douglas, Isle of Man. © Court of Tynwald, 2006 Printed by The Copy Shop Limited, 48 Bucks Road, Douglas, Isle of Man Price Band F 1646 T123 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006

Present:

The President of Tynwald (The Hon. N Q Cringle)

In the Council: The Lord Bishop of Sodor and Man (The Rt. Rev. Graeme Knowles), The Attorney General (Mr W J H Corlett QC), Mr D Butt, Mrs C M Christian, Mrs P M Crowe, Hon. A F Downie, The Chief Minister (Hon. D J Gelling CBE), Mr E G Lowey, Mr L Singer and Mr G H Waft, with Mrs M Cullen, Deputy Clerk of Tynwald.

In the Keys: The Speaker (The Hon. J A Brown) (Castletown); Hon. D M Anderson (Glenfaba); Hon. A R Bell and Mrs A V Craine (Ramsey); Mr W E Teare (Ayre); Mr J D Q Cannan (Michael); Mrs H Hannan (Peel); Hon. S C Rodan (Garff); Mr P Karran and Mr A J Earnshaw (Onchan); Mr J R Houghton and Mr R W Henderson (Douglas North); Hon. D C Cretney and Mr A C Duggan (Douglas South); Hon. R P Braidwood and Mrs B J Cannell (Douglas East); Hon. J P Shimmin (Douglas West); Capt. A C Douglas (Malew and Santon); Hon. J Rimington,Mr Q B Gill and Hon. P A Gawne (Rushen); with Mr M Cornwell-Kelly, Clerk of Tynwald.

Business transacted Page Orders of the Day Leave of absence granted ...... 1647 18. Select Committee on Scrutiny and the Functions of the Standing Committee on Expenditure and Public Accounts – Report received and recommendations approved ...... 1647 25. Pension Schemes Act 1995 – Pension Schemes Act 1993 (Application) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2006 approved ...... 1666 26. Pension Schemes Act 1995 – Pensions Act 1995 (Application) (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2006 approved ...... 1666 27. Social Security Act 2000 – Social Security Legislation (Application) (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2006 approved ...... 1666 28. Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 – Income Support (General) (Isle of Man) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2006 approved ...... 1667 29. Local Government (Entertainments) Act 1950 – Local Government (Expenditure on Entertainments) Order 2006 – Debate commenced ...... 1667 Clarification on Legal Aid question – Statement by the President ...... 1670

The Court adjourned at 1.09 p.m. and resumed its sitting at 2.30 p.m.

Local Government (Expenditure on Entertainments) Order 2006 – Debate continued – Amended motion carried ... 1670 30. Moneylenders Act 1991 – Moneylenders (Exempt Persons) (No. 1) Regulations 2006 approved ...... 1671 14. Police Advisory Group – Report and recommendation – Debate resumed ...... 1671 Welcome to St Ninian’s School ...... 1672 Police Advisory Group – Debate continued – Motion carried ...... 1672 31. Principal Civil Service Pension Schemes – Investigation by committee – Motion carried ...... 1675 Announcement re Martyn Quayle, MHK ...... 1686 Principal Civil Service Pension Schemes – Committee of three appointed ...... 1687 32. E-commerce and the internet – Motion withdrawn ...... 1687 33. Manx National Heritage – Lack of political accountability – Debate commenced ...... 1687

The Court adjourned at 5.07 p.m. and resumed its sitting at 5.30 p.m.

33. Manx National Heritage – Debate continued – Amended motion carried ...... 1690 34. Manx Radio ‘Mannin Line’ – Re-introduction for General Election – Motion lost ...... 1698 35. Queen’s Pier, Ramsey – DoLGE enforcement of listed building policy – Motion lost ...... 1703 President’s tribute to former Messenger, John Crooks ...... 1708 Thanks from the President ...... 1708 The Council withdrew. House of Keys Thanks from the Speaker ...... 1708

The House adjourned at 7.46 p.m. Orders of the Day TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 1647 T123

approved (or which have been laid before Tynwald in Tynwald draft form, prior to consideration by Tynwald) which have been referred by Members, or as the Committee sees fit: The Court met at 10.30 a.m. and to report with or without recommendations each July, and such other times as the Committee deem necessary.’ [MR PRESIDENT in the Chair] and (b) the Tynwald Standing Orders Committee should report to Tynwald on an amendment to Standing Orders PRAYERS which would give effect to the procedure set out in The Lord Bishop paragraph 19.4 above. Recommendation 4: International Agreements – When an international agreement is to be included on the Council of Ministers’ agenda: LEAVE OF ABSENCE GRANTED (a) a copy should be circulated to all Members of Tynwald for information, wherever practicable, or The President: Now, Hon. Members, the Chief Minister, (b) if that is not practicable, then a copy should be Mr Attorney and the Hon. Minister for the Treasury, Mr Bell, deposited in the Members’ Room and Members so will be leaving us later during today’s sitting on Government informed at once, and business and, as I understand it, I think the Minister for (c) when the agreement has been signed, a copy should Health and Social Security will be rejoining us later. be placed in the Tynwald Library for access by the general public. Recommendation 5: Remit of the Standing Committee on Constitutional Matters – The remit of the Standing Committee on Constitutional Orders of the Day Matters should be amended to read as follows: ‘to consider and report on – (a) the Council of Ministers’ policy and approach to Select Committee on Scrutiny and the Functions matters of constitutional importance, and of the Standing Committee (b) any treaties, international agreements etc which on Expenditure and Public Accounts have been referred to the committee by a Member of Report received and recommendations approved Tynwald, and the Members of the Committee shall not be members of 18. The Chair of the Committee (Mr Speaker) to move: the Constitutional and External Relations Committee of the Council of Ministers.’ That the Report of the Select Committee on Scrutiny and Recommendation 6: Lay Members – the Functions of the Standing Committee on Expenditure Lay members should not be appointed as members of and Public Accounts be received and the following committees, but Committees should retain the powers recommendations approved – they already have to appoint specialist assistance whenever a Committee feels it is necessary. Recommendation 1: Membership of Committees – Recommendation 7: Auditor General – (a) the President and Ministers should not be eligible for An Auditor General should be appointed. appointment to any Scrutiny Committee, and Recommendation 8: Responsibilities which the Auditor (b) the President, the Speaker, Ministers and Treasury General’s Office would undertake – members should not be eligible for appointment to the The Auditor General would undertake responsibility for Public Accounts Committee. the following functions: Recommendation 2: Scrutiny Committee – (a) Ultimate responsibility for auditing all statutory A Standing Committee on Scrutiny should be established bodies (including local authorities), with the power and the remit of this committee should include to delegate some of the audit work to firms of local consideration of: accountants; (i) items of approved secondary legislation which have (b) Value for Money Investigations. been referred by Members; and (c) Regular consultation with the PAC and provision of (ii) other items of secondary legislation as the committee assistance with investigations. sees fit. (d) Identification of issues which may be appropriate for Recommendation 3: Scrutiny of EU Legislation – PAC investigations. (a) The remit of the Standing Committee on Economic (e) Examination of issues referred by Tynwald. The Initiatives should be amended to read as follows: Auditor General will be able to decide whether or not to ‘To undertake a full investigation, but will report to Tynwald (a) monitor and consider economic, fiscal and monetary in any event. initiatives of the European Union, international agencies (f) Examination of issues referred by individual Members and states, and economic factors generally, which may of Tynwald or the public. The Auditor General will affect the Isle of Man; and be able to decide whether or not to undertake a full (b) consider items of EU legislation which have been investigation, but will include in the Annual Report

Leave of absence granted Select Committee on Scrutiny and the Functions of the Standing Committee on Expenditure and Public Accounts Report received and recommendations approved 1648 T123 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 Orders of the Day

a list of all the matters referred to the Office and the (4) The Committee shall – action taken. (a)(i) consider any papers on public expenditure and Recommendation 9: The appointment of and resourcing estimates presented to Tynwald as may seem fit to the procedure for the Auditor General – Committee; The following procedures should be adopted for the (ii) examine the form of any papers on public appointment of an Auditor General and the operation expenditure and estimates presented to Tynwald as of the Office: may seem fit to the Committee; (a) The selection of the proposed appointee would be (iii) consider any financial matter relating to a undertaken by an Appointment Committee comprising the Government Department or Statutory Body as may seem Chairman of the Tynwald Management Committee, the fit to the Committee; Chief Minister and the Chairman of the Public Accounts (iv) consider such matters as the Committee may think fit Committee. in order to scrutinise the efficiency and effectiveness of (b) Details of the successful candidate would be placed the implementation of Government policy; and before Tynwald by the Tynwald Management Committee (v) lay an Annual Report before Tynwald at each for approval of the appointment. December sitting and any other reports as the Committee (c) The role and remit of the Auditor General, and the may think fit. mechanism for terminating the appointment, would be (b) be authorised in terms of section 3 of the Tynwald set out in statute to ensure independence, and managed Proceedings Act 1876 and the Standing Orders to take by the Tynwald Management Committee on behalf of evidence and summon the attendance of witnesses and Tynwald. further to require the attendance of Ministers for the (d) The annual budget for the Office would be dealt with purpose of assisting the Committee in the consideration in the same manner as the budget for the legislature; i.e. of its terms of reference. the estimates are submitted to Treasury and approved (5) The Chairman, Vice-Chairman and any member of the by Tynwald. Committee shall not sit when the accounts of any body of (e) The Office would follow the practice adopted by the which that person is a member are being considered. Clerk of Tynwald’s Office of having regular internal Recommendation 12: PAC Reporting Procedure – audits of its accounts and procedures carried out by an The following procedure should be adopted: independent body. (a) Notification that a report of the Public Accounts (f) The staff appointed to assist the Auditor General Committee has been submitted to Treasury will be placed would not be civil servants, but employed under similar on the Tynwald Order Paper. terms and conditions. (b) The Treasury will submit a response to the Clerk of Recommendation 10: Reporting procedure for the the Committee within 3 months from date of receipt of the Auditor General – PAC report. Some or all of the recommendations in a PAC The following procedure should be adopted: report will often be appropriate to other Departments, (a) The Auditor General will produce an annual report but Treasury will have the responsibility to consult with to be laid before Tynwald each October. those bodies and respond to the PAC. (b) In the case of other reports, the following procedure (c) The Treasury response will indicate which of the will be adopted: Committee’s recommendations are accepted and the (i) the report will be issued to the PAC and the relevant action to be taken to address those recommendations, statutory body; and those recommendations which are not accepted with (ii) the PAC will produce its own Report, with the accompanying justification. assistance of the Auditor General’s Office, if required; (d) When the Treasury response has been received, the (iii) the Auditor General will be given the opportunity to PAC Report together with the Treasury response will view the Report before it is issued; be placed on the Order Paper for the next sitting of (iv) the procedure for laying the PAC Report before Tynwald for debate and approval. The recommendations Tynwald will be outlined in paragraph 25.7 below. contained in the PAC Report will be listed on the Order Recommendation 11: Remit of Public Accounts Paper and Treasury and/or other members will be able Committee – to move amendments to those recommendations. The remit of the Committee should be amended to (e) Treasury will have the responsibility to ensure read: that the recommendations approved by Tynwald are (1) There shall be a Standing Committee on Public implemented. Accounts. (f) Monitoring of the action taken on the approved (2) The Committee shall have – recommendations will be through the Annual Policy (a) a Chairman elected by Tynwald, Decisions Report, which details the action taken on (b) a Vice-Chairman elected by Tynwald, Tynwald Resolutions. (c) four other Members elected by Tynwald, Recommendation 13: Monitoring of action taken on and a quorum of three Members. Tynwald Resolutions – (3) Members of Tynwald shall not be eligible for The format set out in Appendix 13 should be adopted in membership of the Committee, if, for the time being, they future Tynwald Policy Decisions Reports. hold any of the following offices: President of Tynwald, Recommendation 14: Remit of Scrutiny Committee – Speaker of the House of Keys, member of the Council of The Scrutiny Committee proposed in recommendation Ministers, member of the Treasury Department referred 2 should be tasked with monitoring action taken on to in section 1(2)(b) of the Government Departments Tynwald Resolutions and reporting annually to Tynwald. Act 1987. The report would contain recommendations as to –

Select Committee on Scrutiny and the Functions of the Standing Committee on Expenditure and Public Accounts Report received and recommendations approved Orders of the Day TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 1649 T123

(a) any Tynwald resolutions, which have not been fully am sure Hon. Members will have read the content. implemented, which the Committee feels should be In simplistic terms, the remit was: to investigate the most removed from the list, and efficient and effective way to create an Auditor General, (b) any other action which the Committee feels is or an equivalent entity, taking into account the present required. systems already in place; to consider matters identified The remit of this Committee would therefore be: in a Report of the Public Accounts Committee and the (1) There shall be a Standing Committee of Tynwald on proposal for two Standing Committees for the Scrutiny of Scrutiny. Government; to consider extending the role of the Public (2) The Committee shall have five Members elected by Accounts Committee; to consider amending Standing Orders Tynwald and a quorum of three members. to provide for the creation of a Standing Committee on the (3) Members of Tynwald shall not be eligible for Scrutiny of Treaties and Secondary Legislation; to consider membership of the Committee if, for the time being, they conditions for the granting of licences or agreements by hold any of the following offices: Government, Statutory Boards or any publicly-owned President of Tynwald or Ministers. business; to consider the appropriateness of identifying the (4) The Committee shall – beneficial owner of the lessor or grantor’s interests when (a) consider – there is Government, Statutory Board or any publicly-owned (i) items of approved or rejected secondary legislation business involved, where such agreement is for a period in which have been referred by Members; and excess of five years; to consider that all loans contracted, or (ii) other items of secondary legislation as the Committee guarantees or loans given by Government, a Statutory Board sees fit; and or any publicly-owned business should be clearly stated in report to Tynwald as and when the Committee sees fit. the Government’s accounts. (b)(i) examine the Annual Tynwald Policy Decisions The matters under investigation were quite clearly Report and consider whether the action taken has substantial and required considerable consideration by your adequately responded to Tynwald resolutions, Committee and it has undertaken the investigation very (ii) consider whether any of the Tynwald Resolutions carefully and thoroughly, resulting in this comprehensive which have not been fully implemented are appropriate Report which is before Tynwald Court today, which outlines for removal from the list; and our considerations and options considered and makes a (iii) lay an Annual Report before Tynwald, with substantial number of important recommendations, as set out recommendations for action where appropriate. on the Order Paper and contained within the Report. (c) be authorised in terms of section 3 of the Tynwald In total, your Committee proposes 14 comprehensive, Proceedings Act 1876 and of Standing Orders to take far-reaching and important recommendations and these are evidence and summon the attendance of witnesses and set out on pages 69-77 inclusive. further to require the attendance of Ministers for the The basis of your Committee’s recommendations are set purpose of assisting the Committee in the consideration out in section 5 of our Report and are as follows. of its terms of reference. Paragraph 5.1 deals with recommendations 17.9 and (5) Members of the Committee shall not sit when an item covers the membership of the Scrutiny Committee and the is being considered, in respect of which – PAC Committee. (a) they could be perceived as having a personal interest; Paragraph 5.2 deals with the recommendation 18.5 and and/or deals with the issue of a Scrutiny Committee and recommends (b) they are a member of the Department with responsibility that a Standing Committee on Scrutiny be established. We for that item, or were a member of that Department at also set out the remit of that Committee. the relevant time. [PP 120/06] Paragraph 5.3 covers recommendation 19.5 and deals with the scrutiny of EU legislation, recommending that the The President: Hon. Members, let us see if we can make existing Standing Committee on Economic Initiatives’ remit good progress today. We have still got some 13 Items on be amended to take on this task and sets out the amended the Order Paper to complete and we have reached Item 18, remit. Hon. Members, Select Committee on the Scrutiny and the Paragraph 5.4 deals with recommendation 21.7 and Functions of the Standing Committee on Expenditure and covers the procedure for when an international agreement Public Accounts. I call on the Chair of the Committee, Mr is to be included on the Council of Ministers’ Agenda, so Speaker, to move. as to ensure that Members of Tynwald are fully informed of such agreements and that they are before the Council of The Speaker: Thank you, Mr President. Ministers, and that when the agreement has been signed a At the sitting of Tynwald Court on 18th March 2003 it copy should be placed in the Tynwald Library for access to was resolved that a Select Committee of five Members be the general public. established to undertake investigations in line with the terms Paragraph 5.5 covers recommendation 21.9. This deals of reference, as approved in the resolution of the 18th. The with the remit of the Standing Committee on Constitutional terms of reference of the Committee were further extended by Matters and recommends that it be amended, as set out in a Resolution of Tynwald on 19th May 2004 and again further the Report. extended on 15th December 2004, with your Committee’s Paragraph 5.6 deals with the recommendation 23.5, comprehensive remit in totality being set out on pages 2, 3 which covers the appointment of lay members onto Standing and 4 of our Report. Committees of Tynwald which is covered in part 23 of the Mr President, quite clearly, what is before Members is Report. a very comprehensive Report, so I am only going to give a Paragraph 5.7 covers recommendation 24.2 regarding resumé of the basis of what is in there, the main points, as I the appointment of an Auditor General and recommends

Select Committee on Scrutiny and the Functions of the Standing Committee on Expenditure and Public Accounts Report received and recommendations approved 1650 T123 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 Orders of the Day that such an appointment should be made. The details of our Paragraph 5.13 covers recommendation 26.4 and considerations are found in part 24 of the Report. deals with the monitoring of the action taken on Tynwald Although set out in our Report, I will go into some detail resolutions and we set out in appendix 13 of our Report the on this matter, due to the implications of the recommendation. format for future policy decisions reports. Considerable consideration was given to this important issue Paragraph 5.14 deals with recommendation 26.7 and this and we held discussions with Mr J Purcell, Comptroller covers the remit of the Scrutiny Committee. and Auditor General of Ireland, to understand the basis of Mr President, I have outlined the basis of our such an independent position. I would put on record the recommendations. However, the detail in the Report is appreciation of our Committee to Mr Purcell for the time extensive and I hope that the outline I have given is adequate that he gave coming to the Island and for his explanation and to demonstrate the major proposals contained within. for forwarding his experience for such a post. The recommendations, if approved, will provide a major Your Committee is satisfied that such an independent post improvement in the scrutiny of Government which your should be created to audit the expenditure of Government Committee is satisfied will be of considerable benefit to the and Statutory Bodies, including local authorities. We set Island and to the public. The recommendations contained out the appointment procedure, which would involve an within the Report are only the start, building and enhancing Appointments Committee involving the Chairman of the on the present Tynwald systems that endeavour to monitor Tynwald Management Committee, the Chairman of the the actions of Government in the public interest. Public Accounts Committee and the Chief Minister. As this The major recommendation is the proposal to appoint position would be a Tynwald appointment, the details of the a Tynwald Auditor General. This is clearly a major step in successful candidate would be placed before Tynwald by the providing a system of independent scrutiny. However, over Tynwald Management Committee for approval by Tynwald recent years events have shown that there is a real need to of that appointment. provide an appropriate form of scrutiny of Government Once appointed, the Auditor General would be expenditure. There will be a need to implement legislation independent and his independence would be protected to bring into effect the position of the Auditor General and by statute, which would set out his role and remit and to ensure his independence. This is not only important for the mechanism for terminating the appointment, if it was Tynwald, but also to give confidence to the public that a found to be necessary. His budget would be set in the same proper system of independent audit, and that the results of manner as the budget is for the Tynwald office and would such work, are placed before the public via Tynwald. be approved by Tynwald. Any staff of the Auditor General’s Mr President, I wish to put on record my appreciation of office, including the Auditor General, would not be civil the considerable amount of work and careful consideration servants. that has been given to this matter by my Committee Paragraph 5.8 covers recommendation 24.4 and deals colleagues. I would also thank everyone who has provided with the responsibilities which the Auditor General’s office assistance to the Committee and discussed issues with us would undertake. These are covered in parts 24.3 and 24.4, which helped us to get to where we are today. on pages 53, 54 and 55 of the Report. Finally, Mr President, I would, on behalf of myself and Paragraph 5.9 deals with recommendation 24.5, which my Committee colleagues, wish to place on record our is the appointment of the resourcing procedures for the sincere thanks to our Clerk, the Deputy Clerk of Tynwald, Auditor General. Mrs Cullen, (A Member: Hear, hear.) for the considerable Paragraph 5.10 covers recommendation 24.7 and deals amount of work that she has undertaken and the commitment with reporting procedures for the Auditor General – for she has given during the consideration of this issue contained example, the Auditor General will be required to produce in this important Report. an Annual Report to be laid before Tynwald each October. I beg to move, Mr President. It will also deal with how other reports from the Auditor General are to be dealt with. The President: Hon. Member for Peel, Mrs Hannan. Paragraph 5.11 of our Report deals with recommendation 25.6 of our Report and covers the remit of the Public Mrs Hannan: I beg to second and reserve my Accounts Committee and recommends changes, with the remarks. renaming of the Committee to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, instead of the present title of the Standing The President: Hon. Members, it will be my intention to Committee on Expenditure and Public Accounts. The remit take the recommendations on the Order Paper individually. and structure of the PAC is unchanged except for the addition Mr Rodan, Hon. Member for Garff. in Standing Orders of providing the additional powers to enable the Public Accounts Committee to utilise the terms Mr Rodan: Thank you, Mr President. of section 3 of the Tynwald Proceedings Act 1876 and to I would like to begin by congratulating the Committee enable the Committee to require the attendance of Ministers on producing a very comprehensive document which I think to assist the Committee in its investigations. will stand this Court in good stead for the future, in that it It is also recommended that the Public Accounts has comprehensively reviewed the existing reports which, Committee shall be required to, at the very least, lay an in itself, would be quite a massive undertaking and analyse Annual Report before Tynwald at each December sitting. the thought processes underpinning previous reports going Paragraph 5.12 refers to recommendation 25.8 and deals back certainly 13 or 14 years. with the Public Account Committee reporting procedure and The system, or the principle of scrutiny, Mr President, is recommends procedures for Treasury to respond to the PAC a very important issue in any parliamentary system. There reports and for the monitoring of actions taken on Tynwald are some features of scrutiny that I think they are drawing approved recommendations from the PAC. out. First of all, it is essential that we have a good system

Select Committee on Scrutiny and the Functions of the Standing Committee on Expenditure and Public Accounts Report received and recommendations approved Orders of the Day TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 1651 T123 of parliamentary scrutiny of the executive. It is essential, committee has been recommended. also, that the executive Government has in place systems What I am disappointed about is, on page 40 of the of internal scrutiny for itself – and Internal Audit is referred Report – bearing in mind what I said about, in my opinion, to – and I believe we have a developing committee structure the worth of standing committees – the rejection for the within Government to provide the necessary internal setting up of two standing committees for the scrutiny of checks and balances. That is something quite distinct from policy development and efficiency of Government. That parliamentary scrutiny and it is largely parliamentary scrutiny suggestion was contained in the PAC Report on the Review of the executive that this Report is concerned with. of the Role of the Committee, as follows: I think it is essential that such scrutiny be both comprehensive and systematic and what I mean by systematic ‘Tynwald be invited to create two standing committees for the scrutiny is not hit and miss. At the moment political issues are, quite of policy development and effectiveness and efficiency of Government, the activities of one being centred on economic development,’ rightly, open for debate, open for questions to Ministers by backbenchers on a whole variety of topics and for the setting and then the economic wealth generating Departments are up of Select Committees. But the very act of setting up a listed – Treasury, DTI, DTL, DAFF, whole plethora of Select Committees, Mr President, can itself be very resource consuming, very, very time consuming for ‘and the other on social affairs,’ Members who are on these Select Committees and there is always the feeling that there might well be vast tracts of DHSS, Education, DoLGE, Home Affairs – in other words, policy that are not being scrutinised at all. the public service arm of Government. The chairs of these It is up to, often, the issue of the day, what is the political two scrutiny committees being ex officio members of the flavour of the week or the flavour of the month, that then PAC. causes a process of investigation into that issue. I have always Some ten reasons are set out on pages 41 and 42 as to believed, Mr President, that systematic scrutiny through a the difficulties that such standing committees for systematic system of Standing Committees is to be preferred and, of scrutiny would encounter and then you read down it and I course, the principle Standing Committee we have, the Public read these with some amazement, that the objection is: Accounts Committee, I am very impressed with the analysis that has gone into that and I pay tribute to those who sit on the ‘…at what stage of the policy development would the committee Public Accounts Committee. That is almost a full-time job on become involved [in parallel with policies being] discussed at its own and how on earth Members carry out their Department departmental level, but rejected for various reasons before reaching duties on top, I think that they are worthy of congratulation. the floor of Tynwald? Who would decide if a suggested policy is of sufficient seriousness for Of course, a system of Standing Committees… until consideration by the committee? relatively recently, the PAC, I think, was the only one we Would the fact that a policy is being examined by the committee lead to had. Then we had a Standing Committee on Constitutional a very conservative approach to policy, or lack of policy development Affairs and we have a Standing Committee on Economic for fear of criticism?’ Initiatives, and let us remember what that stands for, what Economic Initiatives originally was supposed to be about. Then it goes on to say, if the policy had the blessing of It was set up in response to the threat from the EU and the committee and then was found not to work, whose fault external to the Island of economic developments that would would that be? Would it be the committee for not scrutinising be to the possible detriment of the Island and it was felt or identifying a flawed policy, or the Government department critical that, whatever else executive Government might that developed it in the first place? (Mrs Crowe: Yes.) be doing, parliament should be scrutinising such economic Mr President, it is quite an impressive list of reasons not developments, analysing them and coming back to this Court. to set up a scrutiny committee, but those same reasons you To me, that Committee has absolutely lost focus, which is could advance against any parliamentary committee you why I believe the recommendation in here to give it more wished. The Standing Committee on Economic Initiatives, focus is to be welcomed. For example, it concerned itself in would it pass these tests? The Constitutional, would that pass the perfectly proper subject of car parking – these tests? So I find it a bit odd that the Committee went to quite great lengths to find reasons not to have standing The President: Yesterday’s debate, sir. committees, which, Mr President, have the great virtue of being standing committees and shadowing departments of Mr Rodan: – in certain parts of the Island, but why? Why Government. They have this at Westminster. They have had that issue? That is an economic issue, but there is a whole it for 20-odd years. They do not seem to have any problems, mass of economic issues it could look at. Far better that that such as the 10 objections here. There are permanent Committee focuses on macroeconomic themes, particularly committees shadowing the work of Government departments those to do with the scrutiny of European legislation, which and I think that is what – is why I welcome the recommendation that, in fact, that is what it do in this Committee. A Member: They have got 650 MPs. What I also welcome is the recommendation to set up a scrutiny committee to look at secondary legislation, because Another Member: Yes! again, that undergoes very little parliamentary scrutiny and in fact, one of the arguments and cases being made for reform Mr Rodan: Well, we are talking… I am not advocating of the Legislative Council, in terms of giving them a focused, nine standing committees. The idea of having two: one to meaningful parliamentary role, was the idea that they take shadow the wealth-generating economic departments, and on board scrutiny of secondary legislation, for example, or the other the spending, public service departments, seems European legislation. So I am pleased that that particular to me a very good idea indeed, and issues could be referred

Select Committee on Scrutiny and the Functions of the Standing Committee on Expenditure and Public Accounts Report received and recommendations approved 1652 T123 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 Orders of the Day by backbenchers to those committees, instead of setting up Mr Bell: Thank you, Mr President. yet another select committee. This has obviously been quite a substantial job that this It seems to me I must be missing something, Mr Committee has undertaken and, in the main, I think I can go President. It seems so obviously a worthwhile thing to do. along with the general thrust of its recommendations. There I see members of the Committee shaking their heads. I are just a few points, though, that I think it is worth putting would be just interested into why this was thought such a a marker down for. bad idea. I do not think there is any question at all that everybody Thank you, Mr President. believes now – or most people believe – that there should be greater scrutiny of what Tynwald is doing, and, indeed, The President: Hon. Member, Mrs Christian. the work of Government generally. In many ways it is very disjointed at the moment and needs a more co-ordinated, Mrs Christian: Thank you, Mr President. effective approach. In the modern times that we live, scrutiny It is an interesting Report and the one element that I clearly is more important than, perhaps, it has ever been. just want to comment on is the paragraph on the scrutiny of My concern, though, Mr President, is not necessarily legislation and the establishment of a scrutiny committee, about the recommendations that we have ourselves. Whether and I am talking particularly about secondary legislation. they are workable or not will be identified in due course, The Committee did examine whether or not the but I think we must not lose sight of the fact that we do Legislative Council might be more or less a full-time scrutiny have a Government to run and we are regularly now getting body. I accept that, whilst there are some Members of this new layers of accountability, new layers of scrutiny, which Hon. Court who have a greater interest in legislation than progressively, layered one upon the other, is slowing the others, I do not think there would be a lot of takers for a whole process of Government down, and we are tying body which was exclusively devoted to scrutinisation of ourselves up more and more with red tape in so many legislation. (Mr Downie: Hear, hear.) other different areas of Government, quite apart from the scrutiny area, that I do believe we are going to be damaging A Member: I would. the efficiency of the delivery of public services to our people, if we continue without having cognisance of all the Mrs Christian: However, that said, there may be people other activities which are being layered on to departmental who have a particular interest in scrutiny and examination of responsibilities now. secondary legislation, but the one thing that I was a little bit Our great boast over the years, Mr President, has been concerned about in terms of the Report, on page 37 and the that the Isle of Man has been a very responsive Government. top of page 38, was that it is intended that Tynwald approve We have been able to respond to new economic initiatives, secondary legislation and then it be sent to the committee to new social initiatives, very quickly. We are very close to for consideration, (Mr Lowey: Yes.) possibly referred by our people and where a problem arises, we have been able to other Members. respond, in the main, with some speed to that situation. I am not sure whether, in practice, that would be good I fear, Mr President, if we are not careful, if we do not for the reputation of this Hon. Court if, in fact, you were to bear the whole of the process in mind when we are approving pass legislation and subsequently decide that, having looked reports such as this, that boast that we have enjoyed for so at it, it was not right. There may be an argument for that and many years will be a very hollow one and we will, in fact, perhaps, in replying, Mr Speaker could expand on why they be slowing down our ability to both respond to economic felt, in the Committee, that it was appropriate to put things initiatives and, in particular, to respond to abilities to service through. I accept the argument there may be delay factors our public services. So it is just a note of caution, I think, Mr of consideration here and that might be regarded as a very President, that we do need to recognise this in our pursuit good reason, not for delaying, but I do have some worry of yet more scrutiny. about that. A further concern I have, Mr President, and I suppose The other thing that is not clear to me from the Report it was not for this particular exercise at this time… This is, is on what grounds a Member might be referring secondary again, something which will come out later on, and that is legislation to this committee. I can well envisage that if there has been absolutely no mention at all in this Report of someone has not been happy with secondary legislation, costs. There will be a very substantial financial cost to the for reasons of its content, and sought a change on policy or implementation of this. Setting up the office of an Auditor political grounds, they might feel inclined to refer it to this General alone, we will be into very substantial figures, and committee. Would the committee be looking at it on the it is not… Whilst the obvious one is setting up the Auditor grounds of policy, or would they be looking at it simply from General’s position and office, which I do believe will be very the point of view of accuracy of drafting? If it is the latter, expensive, there are now other – or there will be, if this goes I can see that there is a function. If it is the former, it gives through in its form as I read it at the moment – responsibilities a second bite at the cherry on something which Tynwald laid on other departments, as well, which will, in turn, have has already agreed upon. So that seems to me, also, to be a further costs, and, in particular, on Treasury. rather unattractive aspect of the remit, as proposed, of this Treasury is being seen here as having responsibility to committee. ensure that all the recommendations, for example, of the I will wait to decide how to vote on that aspect of it PAC are implemented. Treasury has an ongoing reference until I have heard what Mr Speaker says. I would support right through this Report in other areas. Frankly, Treasury the establishment of a scrutiny committee, but I do have does not have the resources, financially or personnel-wise, concerns about this remit. to do this. There is no way at all, with the present structure, that Treasury could deliver what is being expected of it and The President: Hon. Member, Mr Bell. we are aware that there are other demands now for further

Select Committee on Scrutiny and the Functions of the Standing Committee on Expenditure and Public Accounts Report received and recommendations approved Orders of the Day TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 1653 T123 scrutiny from Treasury as a result of some of the issues which this is to say these are proposals, this is what we see being have come to light over the last year or two, where Treasury effective to remedy the problems and the heartache I would will have to take a closer involvement in the development suggest that we have all suffered over the last five years, of projects on a department level. with the grave problems that we have had to face, so I am So I just point out, Mr President, that there will be further very supportive of it. demands on financial and staffing resources to be able to There is only just one very small question I would ask the deliver what is recommended in the Report. mover of the Report and this is in terms of recommendation I have no problem with the general thrust of the Report, 5, the remit of the Standing Committee on Constitutional Mr President. I do believe we are at a point now where Matters. The way I read it, it says, towards the end, the scrutiny needs to be improved. The systems that we have, it Members of the Committee shall not be members of the would appear, have not been working as well as they could Constitutional External Relations Committee of the Council have and there is no doubt at all that the Report that we have of Ministers, but can they still have Ministers on that before us is timely and we need to give further consideration particular Committee? That is my question, really. to it, but I do have concerns, Mr President, on those two Yes, I had a question mark over costs because it does not points in particular, without going into all the rest of the give an idea of cost, but as I have already said, Mr President, Report at this stage. First of all, we must make absolutely the cost of not doing anything, I would suggest, has been and sure that whatever forms of scrutiny we finally end up with, will continue to be far greater, so I think we have to put our it does not inhibit the efficiency of Government, and we weight behind this Report and we have to support greater must very much bear in mind the financial implications of scrutiny of Government systems for the future prosperity of what this entails. this Island, its business and the parliament. I have to say I do have some concern with one point of reference in the Report, Mr President, where it says that the The President: Hon. Member, Mrs Crowe. annual budget of the Auditor General’s Department will be dealt with in the same way as the budget for the legislature. Mrs Crowe: Thank you, Mr President. I have to say the way we deal with the budget with the Just a small point, please. I, too, would like to legislature is not satisfactory at the moment and is not in line congratulate the Committee. I do think they have worked with how we deal with the other departments. very hard and that the Clerk to the Committee, once again, Therefore, I would have some concerns before we go was Clerk to the PAC Committee Report, so I think has done down that particular route of financing yet another, in effect, an enormous amount of work. I do believe there is a role mini-department of Government, unless we can get some for extra resourcing for public accountability, but I am not clear scrutiny on the financial implications and the annual particularly certain if we need to appoint an Auditor General, budgets of such a department. a staff of many, and, as Mr Bell has commented, a whole But, in the main, Mr President, I can support the general mini-department, which indeed it would be. thrust of the Report. I think it does take us into areas We have just heard the Hon. Member for Garff and where we have all had concerns and I would, with those indeed the Hon. Member for Douglas East, Mrs Cannell, reservations, Mr President, be supporting it. on their feet, saying how much work this Auditor General would do. Well, yes, but the Auditor General would be one The President: Mrs Cannell, Hon. Member. auditor. You know there is only so much work that one auditor could do, so it would be no use lining up all these Mrs Cannell: Thank you, Mr President. departments and divisions that need auditing, need looking I rise to my feet feeling very encouraged today, having at, value-for-money committees etc, without a staff of many gone through the Report and I wish to put on record my praise trainee accountants or ACCAs in which to spread this work and appreciation for the work that the Select Committee and it would be an extensive department. has done, in coming forward with recommendations which I note in 24.4 that the Auditor General would undertake can only, can only improve the systems of government, of responsibility for, ultimately, auditing all statutory bodies, scrutiny for the future, so it is timely and it is a good Report. including the local authorities, as well as the investigative Obviously we will not know how it will bed in, until it is work, the scrutiny work, that we, as a parliament, would bedded in, but I dare say that if there are working areas that be expecting this particular person to do. Also he would be are impractical, then they will be adjusted on the way. engaged in value-for-money investigations. But, you know, if we would have had such a Scrutiny I just wonder if the Committee have, in fact, looked at Committee and if we would have had such an Auditor what kind of resourcing if we are going to set up, if we are not General in place then one might argue we might not have going to appoint ad hoc accountants as extra resourcing for been facing the financial difficulties that we have had to the Public Accounts Committee which we have at the present encounter in this place and another over the last five years, time, which, indeed, would be quite simple to do at any in particular, also over the last ten years, if there had been particular investigation, to appoint a number of accountants greater scrutiny. And nothing is free in life. Yes, it will cost to help a number of committees that the Public Accounts money but what are the costs of not doing it? Committee are reviewing at the time, but I think to look at The costs of not doing it are possibly having to face the responsibilities the audit… Presumably that means the more financial crisis situations in various Government external auditor will not have to audit all statutory bodies, departments for the foreseeable future. That is the cost of not so there would be some small saving there. Presumably, doing anything, so I would ask Hon. Members to actually if all statutory bodies, including local authorities – is this support all the recommendations and let us get running with Government departments as well? Would he perform the this. It will take some time to set up, I would suggest. It will external audit function for all Government departments? require, possibly, legislation changes, but the very nature of I think there are a number of areas… you know, I just

Select Committee on Scrutiny and the Functions of the Standing Committee on Expenditure and Public Accounts Report received and recommendations approved 1654 T123 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 Orders of the Day wonder how large this accounting firm which will be sat in the whole lot on the financial element alone. I do not want the centre of Government will actually have to be to carry to do that and I am glad that I will be able to support the out all these functions, alongside the scrutiny function that bulk of the Report. we were expecting and I wonder if, in fact, any thoughts As far as I am concerned, Mr President, I think it is a very of costing have gone through the Committee or, indeed, important document and a good analysis of what we have numbers of staff that would be required to carry out all the got and the weaknesses exploited, you know, explained and various functions that are identified? highlighted and, to be fair to the Committee, a positive step: On saying that, Mr President, I do congratulate the this is the way we think that you should go. That is a positive Committee. I do think they have done an enormous amount lead and I think that is what we need from our Committee. of work and I think the Report, in itself, is a credit to the Because they say it, it does not mean we have to take Clerk who compiled it. their hands and go the whole hog. I think we can be selective today and I am going to be selective and I would urge the The President: Mr Lowey, Hon. Member of Council. Court to be selective, too.

Mr Lowey: Thank you, Mr President. The President: Hon. Member, Mrs Hannan. It is amazing what a good night’s sleep will do for you. I find myself in total agreement with the two Ministers who Mrs Hannan: Thank you, Eaghtyrane. have spoken so far, so it just goes to show you, after a long I think the main point I would like to cover is the issue day and a good night’s sleep, you can become acclimatised! of the Auditor General. This was one of the issues that the I, too, would like to congratulate the Committee on Committee took extremely seriously and consulted on and the Report because it is a fascinating read and those of us I think we have to remember the Member who has just who are into politics can see the logic on where they are resumed his seat stated this could be six figures. We are coming from, but it imposes what I would call a false sense talking about hundreds of millions of pounds (A Member: of security. Just let us have an Auditor General and all will Hear, hear.) that we have to find. be well. You know the wolves will be kept from the door. You might say this is an investment in the hope that Where is the evidence of that? (Interjections) nothing like this is ever going to happen again. (Interjection) I go to other countries where they have Auditor Generals But when the MEA was discussed, the first thing that and you talk about scandals. Go to Canada and see for happened with that was a statement from the Chief Minister – scandals. They have got an Auditor General: it does not, of the then Chief Minister – stating that Public Accounts itself, prevent wrong-doing. It does not and it would be false had looked at this, so it was all Public Accounts’ problem and foolish of us to think it would. (Several Members: Interjections) that we had got into this I mean there comes a time when… what have we got sort of situation. Public Accounts looked at one particular now? We have got external auditors, we have got internal issue of how the bond was going to be repaid. auditors – and, by the way, we had a Treasury. Oh, that was not good enough but we will sort this out by appointing Mr Lowey: You had your choice. You voted against. financial officers to every department. We have got them now, as well. (Interjections) Where is it all – all accountants – Mrs Hannan: We were told by Mr Proffitt, as one, that where it is all going to stop? And, meanwhile, we still have this was okay to do and we were also told by Treasury that problems. That is the thing that I have got about this Report. repayment of the bond was okay because, in 30 years’ time, It seems to be saying, well, here is a panacea and we have when the bond was due to be repaid, £185 million would this in, we will not… There are certain… this is like the seem like chicken-feed, if you see what I mean – so to get it curate’s egg to me – it is good in parts. all, sort of, in proportion and it would work for them during I do believe that we do need scrutiny of policy, and that period of time. internally. To that extent, you know, you have got to say But that was the first thing that was said when the MEA ‘yes’. I am less convinced of the financial scrutiny being thing came to a head was that the Public Accounts Committee imposed. I do think there is an alternative route, which had looked at it, as if the Public Accounts Committee is… we is to buy in and perhaps give the PAC more professional do not have to worry about it because the Public Accounts clout when they require it. I think it would be cheaper than will see to it. having a standing… and let us face it, we are not talking Public Accounts Committee have a great deal of problem here small beer. in some areas getting information from Departments, let I notice there was not any reference in the Report to alone anything else. (Interjection). Just a response to a letter the finances but you are talking… you are not going to get takes forever. an accountant who will do it off his own bat. He will want It used to be: ‘Public Accounts has asked for something, support, he will want secretarial support, he will want office we will have to respond to this, you know, because Public support, you are talking here of six figures. (Mrs Crowe: Accounts have asked for it.’ Not any more. Not any more. Easily.) I do not want to sort of beat the… but again, is it (Interjections) ‘Oh it is just another committee, you know it necessary? Is it vital? It may be desirable, but is it vital? is just another committee.’ (Interjection) This is the problem All departments of Government have to ask these we have. questions: you know it is the wish list, there are the absolute The recommendation on page 54 quite clearly states essentials, there are the desirables – we would love these and ultimate responsibility for auditing all statutory bodies, I am sure it would help. I just think that this Report here, including local authorities, with the power to delegate some going the whole hog, I think, is a step too far for me, so I am of the audit work to firms of local accountants, which actually glad, Mr President, that you will be putting these things as happens now, would be under the control of the Auditor individual items because I would be tempted to vote against General… reporting to the Auditor General.

Select Committee on Scrutiny and the Functions of the Standing Committee on Expenditure and Public Accounts Report received and recommendations approved Orders of the Day TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 1655 T123

I am sorry that some Members think that is in some way because of the weight of responsibility and other impacts not the best use of public money. I would have thought it is onto Members’ time, now select committees tend only to the best use of public money, because the Auditor General have three members, but this Committee did have five. has the ultimate responsibility for this, but is using local firms I consider and I thank everyone who has congratulated to do that, local people who are involved at the moment. the Committee, but I think congratulations should go to the So, instead of them being involved through Treasury, they Clerk who clerked this and to other people that have helped are involved through the Auditor General and I would the Committee along with the time that it has taken and the hope that Members will support that, because I see this as other issues that have been put in along the way for the select something that we should be doing and we should be leaving committee to look at, but I would commend the Report to Treasury to do the work that Treasury is doing, as opposed the Court. I see it as a little investment, seed corn, that will to an audit action which is looked on as being independent. hopefully control some of the excesses that could happen in It is a parliamentary position, but the Chief Minister of the future, as we have seen in the past. Government is involved in the appointment. I think we also… the Member made mention of a large The President: Let us try not to be repetitive, Hon. Office. There is no guarantee that there is going to be a large Members. Mr Downie, Hon. Member of Council. Office, if the local accountancy firms are doing this work to try to keep the size of the Office down to a small size. It Mr Downie: Thank you, Mr President. is not being spelt out whether this needs to be a full-time I think the group made up of the Committee have actually or a part-time appointment. That would have to be looked done a very good job and they have looked at the matter at, if this Report is accepted and there is no timescale for very thoroughly. Whether or not everyone agrees with the interviewing and appointing at the moment, simply because findings is another thing. My own particular perspective of the policy issue has to be decided first. this is that I wish that, in setting up a committee or even But we have also got issues within local authorities and I having a proper auditor, we could look at issues before the think the other issue is with having somebody who is actually money is actually spent. connected to Tynwald, can look at legislation that is in being One of the big problems, I think, of the present Public and make sure that the work that is done and being carried Accounts Committee is they are coming in after the event out is within the remit of that statutory body under statute. on a lot of occasions and I think it would be useful for some I think that is another area that we should be aware of. That mechanism to be available, when there is a big project is something that should concern us, that there is a statutory underway, for a team to get in there and actually monitor responsibility, if not a policy issue, which has been dealt things. This seems to happen on a regular basis and, of with which is using public money to process various issues course, there are still issues I think outstanding that are on within departments and statutory bodies. the Public Accounts agenda. I think the construction of the I am a little bit concerned about the comments made by hospital is one of them that still seems to be in abeyance. I the Member for Garff in relation to the Standing Committee think a lot of the bigger issues are very important and I would on Policy Development and Efficiency of Government. like to see some of the personalities taken out of the Public I think we would – as the Treasury Minister has already Accounts Committee and have a lot of the work done by said – have Government come to a stop, if every policy people who are professional, who are perhaps from a forensic development had to be submitted to a standing committee accountancy background and somebody who does have a of this Court. The issue that was investigated by the Select knowledge of capital projects and funding and so on. Committee was when does a standing committee get I think it is unfortunate that there is a group of people involved with policy development? who seem to be pushed into this Committee. Some of them Just for argument’s sake, it could have been on smoking, go voluntarily and they enjoy the work, but it is onerous, or it could have been on speed limits or whatever, but I think it is time consuming and I think they would benefit from Government has a responsibility for developing policy and I having some really good advice and someone who has an think the scrutiny has quite clearly been shown to be in this insight onto capital projects and, indeed, on some of the Court and another place and if we are going to get carried very complicated financial matters that they are actually away with having everybody serving on these committees, asked to deal with. you would have committees in all sorts of areas: public When you boil all this down, Hon. Members, you are accounts; then you would have a scrutiny of secondary left with about 14 or 15 Members of Tynwald who are legislation, which is five Members; then you would have not available and then it is what is made up from the rest, policy development and efficiency of Government; you whoever they may be, and I think, from time to time, that would have economic on one side; then you would have is unfortunate. social affairs on another, presumably five Members on One of the recommendations in the Report is to broaden each. the remit of the Standing Committee to look at EU legislation I would suggest that Members would not have time to and that is added to now because, not only are they going do anything else, not even sit on select committees, let alone to be looking at EU legislation, they are also going to be work in a Government Department. looking at international agencies and states and economic I liken it to… it used to be, I think, that Ministers of factors generally which may affect the Isle of Man. Government were quite busy people. I think now it is some I take on board the comments made by a few of the Members who are not Ministers who have a busy time (A previous speakers about cost. In fairness, the way the EU is Member: Hear, hear.) and juggling everything to try to fit developing and the way all these international agreements everything in. This is the difficulty of five or six members of and agencies and states, you will need a person who has got committees trying to get a date when they can fit. There was a skills in that area. Anybody who went to the last Euroclub time when every select committee had five members. Simply meeting and listened to the very good speaker that we had,

Select Committee on Scrutiny and the Functions of the Standing Committee on Expenditure and Public Accounts Report received and recommendations approved 1656 T123 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 Orders of the Day the MEP who was there, she made reference to a new group and advice available from professional people who know the starting in the EU who were going to deal with all the aspects background to a parliamentary issue and they know how the of the pharmaceutical industry, all the regulations, all the system operates. It is no good bringing different people in product testing, all of the various aspects of that. They from the outside world to look at a specific issue and then were going to set up a special unit in Finland, be staffed just walk on to the next thing. by thousands of people and I can tell you now that is going Thank you, Mr President. to churn out hundreds of thousands of pieces of paper that would need to be scrutinised by someone. The President: Let us try to keep focused, Hon. Members. I think, to broaden that out, there needs to be a good core My list of Members wishing to speak is growing. in government and I think there is a good core of people in Hon. Member, Mr Shimmin. Government at the present time who are scrutinising that, but what are we asking for here? Are we looking for another Mr Shimmin: Thank you, Mr President. I will try not body to scrutinise what Government are doing to replicate to repeat too often. (Laughter) what is going on in that area? In fairness, if we are not However, the issue is that every one of us in this Chamber manufacturing pharmaceuticals in the Isle of Man and we has come in here because we believe in the Isle of Man and are not involved in some of these areas, do we really need we believe we can offer something to the Isle of Man. to be spending time looking at them? The make-up of this Committee was interesting, being You have all sorts of other issues coming along to do two Members of the Council of Ministers, two former with the World Trade Organisation, the ILO, all the various Ministers and a member of the Treasury. So it is an maritime conventions. I am hoping, by the end of this year, experienced Committee that has come forward with much we will have an aircraft business on the Isle of Man, an experience of what has happened to our Island, particularly aircraft registry. The paperwork alone and the convention over the last 20 years when things have changed. A common that that operates under would fill this entire circle. So there concern amongst many Members of Tynwald, and indeed is another challenge. the wider public, is the continual growth in Government International agreements: I fully agree, every Member employees over that period of time, and that is not to be of Tynwald should be notified when there is a international surprising to anybody in order to realise the complexity in the agreement that we are looking to ratify or ally ourselves to. nature of running a successful economy and a Government No problem with that. for the people of the Island. Mr Lowey made the argument that we should be buying What that has done has meant that each Government in – we should be buying this expertise in – but if we are Department has expanded its responsibilities and had to going to do this properly and for the right reasons, we need take on further staffing. In order to try and deal with that, to have our own people. The reason why we need to do that is Government is looking at a review of the structure of we are not being dissimilar from having a Clerk to Tynwald. Government at present, in order to try and see whether we You want someone who has knowledge of the workings of a still have to retain the existing roles that we have always parliamentary process and somebody who can audit the work performed as an Island, or whether that should be restructured and the value of the work that a parliament does. To buy in, in some way. That is what this Committee here today is doing, I would suggest that the going rate for some of these people looking at something which has, historically, evolved over may be £60 or £100 an hour. Maybe even more… the years and whether it is actually suitable to fit. I think it is fair comment from most Hon. Members Mr Lowey: Accountants are £400 an hour. this morning that the level of scrutiny of the affairs of Government has not been adequate in certain areas, whether Mr Downie: Well, so that is why it is important, I think, that be legislation, whether that be finance, whether that be to have our own man. I do not know where you get some of policy. What has evolved over the period of time and causes your accountants from, but I can find one for around that. me considerable concern, is the quantity of Members we have in this Chamber to fulfil all the functions that are now Mr Lowey: Try it – corporate prices. expected of us. In reality, if we are honest, there are some Hon. Members who are having a totally disproportionate Mr Downie: So I think I will be guided by some of the workload, yet are in receipt of the same level of financial other speakers, but I think the Report is actually very good benefit. Indeed, the only way for an Hon. Member to get extra and, come what may, as the Hon. Member for Peel said, we finances on top of their basic pay is by being a member of are expending somewhere between four and five hundred Government. (A Member: Yes.) million pounds every year. You then have a situation where that has been accused It is an awful lot of money and when you actually look of being grace and favour of the Chief Minister of the day at the checks and balances within the system, they are not in order to keep people inclusively within Government. If really very robust and I think, come what may, we have got you criticise too publicly then there is always the veiled to start to deal with a lot of the issues that we have been threat that you could be dismissed and, therefore, have a fraught with over many years. There has to be transparency financial penalty. and there has to be a way in which these issues can be At the same time, some Hon. Members in this Court, brought to the fore and examined by people on a much more who fulfil their roles very professionally, are currently independent basis. working in three different Departments, as well as the I think I just want to finish by saying I think the onus various committees that they may be put onto. No added to do that should not rest with Members of Tynwald. I pay for that, nor should there be – it is fulfilling the role think if we are going to have a proper Public Accounts of the Member of Tynwald – but it does mean that certain Committee we need to have it properly funded, resourced people are involved in one, two or three Departments. As a

Select Committee on Scrutiny and the Functions of the Standing Committee on Expenditure and Public Accounts Report received and recommendations approved Orders of the Day TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 1657 T123 person who was previously on the existing three standing need specialists coming in. That is a hidden cost that does committees in the previous House, the ability, not only of the not really get allocated to the public, or ourselves, as to how individual Member – because we can fulfil the work – but to much some of these investigations take place. get those people together in order to actually be efficient has So we are already expending money because neither now become a problem for all of us. So we acknowledge, the Clerk of Tynwald’s Office nor Government have got I believe, that there is a need for scrutiny, but it is the same the adequate resources to do it, and the danger is that we people who are being pulled upon to do the Public Accounts will continue just to expand the employment or the costs of work, maybe some of the Standing Committees’ work and, running our Island, whether that cost be to Government, as has indeed, the plethora of select committees that have evolved happened in the past, or, indeed, the parliament under this sort over recent years, exhibiting a dissatisfaction of what is going of scrutiny area, and that is more money going out, a greater on within Government. level of bureaucracy. It is also going to involve, whether it be So I think it is perfectly right that the Committee looks an Auditor General or the scrutiny committees, firstly going now to see if we can restructure that in order to make more back to Government Departments to challenge and question efficient use of the resource and the time Members have, but I the officers as to why they have made the recommendations think it will lead to, fairly shortly, the requirement to consider or fulfilled the wishes of their Department. whether there should be a separation from Government and Already, most Government Departments, I would say, parliament and a financial reward for those persons who can use examples where their staff are taken away from the choose to be more involved in the scrutiny aspect of (A core functions into dealing with a whole raft of monitoring, Member: Hear, hear.) what Government’s affairs are, so appraisal, paperwork, new policies. We are leading towards a that it is not a financial inhibitor to them. It should not lead Freedom of Information Act, in which case, again, the same to a direct opposition to Government, although that is a officers will be required to research back and evidence all the danger that might be created, but those persons would still information. We are looking at an ombudsman, and, again, be Members of Tynwald, working for the good of the Island, an individual cannot be a master or an expert in every field yet be able to more adequately fulfil the scrutiny role which in which they may be called upon, (A Member: Hear, hear.) we are trying to achieve. so they will all require a level of support, and that is going That cannot be done unless the statute is changed, but I to be professional, expert and expensive resource. think that is something which this paper leads us towards, a So I think that the Committee have identified a necessary realisation of whether the allocation of work is sustainable need for change. I think the public, over recent years, have into the medium-term future. demanded a greater level of scrutiny of Government. I think The Hon. Member of Council, Mr Lowey, is right to we have to respond to that by supporting, if not all, the vast question how far do we continue scrutinising the various majority of these recommendations, yet with our eyes open, people who have a responsibility, and that gets quite complex that it is another diversion of finance into an area which we in regard to where does the responsibility lie. It is said that the must all be working towards, saying that that is to improve Minister is the Department and, therefore, the responsibility efficiency, and if we use it as a political opposition to rests with him or her. We then have issues arising as to the Government, then we will all waste and suffer. competence and ability of officers. Does the responsibility Therefore, this can be managed. It will take co-operation lie with them? and a clarity of the role of either those in scrutiny committees, We have a mechanism and a Civil Service Commission or in those appointed as officers to scrutinise, but I think who have contracts of employment with our employees that history shows that if we do not take these steps now, then must be honoured and fulfilled, but, in reality, we have to we can look ahead, for those who are here after the next get to a level of suitability for our Island to say how many Election, of a continuation of the same, and I think that that times can we have people policing those we are meant to is an inefficiency of Government and, more importantly, is be policing, whether it be within a Department, whether it a lack of confidence to our public, (Mrs Hannan: Hear, be the Treasury. hear.) that we are organising ourselves in a way which is My biggest concern is that we hide, as a parliament, to their benefit. behind, at different times, the Treasury or the Public So I commend the Report. I shall listen to further Accounts Committee, as if that gives us a level of confidence comments. Inasmuch as I have sympathy with the potential that these matters are being looked at, yet at the same time we open-ended nature of the cost of this, I believe that there complain that those bodies are not working quickly enough is an expectation that, if we do not go down these routes, to solve our particular concerns. Having spent time on the then we will not be seen to our public to be able to hold Public Accounts Committee, the time it takes to get things the Government to account, which is what we, as Tynwald, completed is unacceptable, even by the Members’ realisation, should be doing. but there are practical realities why that happens. Thank you, Mr President. The Hon. Member of Council, Mr Lowey, talks about… and I think he picked a figure out of the top of his head of The President: Hon. Member for Ramsey, Mrs Craine. £100,000 for the Auditor General’s office. Mrs Craine: Thank you, Mr President. A Member: Six figures. I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee. I do not know what I did in a past life to deserve that, but I am, Mr Shimmin: I think that certainly that is going to be nonetheless. considerably more than that, whether it is direct Office or whether it is bringing in professionals. What we have seen, A Member: You got elected. over recent years, is that various committees have had to start using external resource because of the complexity that we Another Member: Hear, hear.

Select Committee on Scrutiny and the Functions of the Standing Committee on Expenditure and Public Accounts Report received and recommendations approved 1658 T123 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 Orders of the Day

Mrs Craine: I was intrigued by the opening remarks this I would just like some clarification from Mr Speaker, morning from my colleague from Garff, Mr Rodan, when the Chairman of the Committee. If we could just turn to it became evident that the sting of defeat for the Council of recommendation 3.a (b), and for clarity, I will just read out Ministers is still ringing round the Chamber today, when the subparagraph: they lost on the Report of Economic Initiatives. In fact, it has not only been within this Chamber but outside as well, so I ‘consider items of EU legislation which have been approved (or which congratulate ourselves on that. (Mrs Cannell: Hear, hear.) have been laid before Tynwald in draft form…).’ Going on from that and turning to this Report, as I say, I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee. I came My understanding was that when it was laid before onto that Committee willingly. I also serve in a number of Tynwald it was in final form, and once it was laid before Departments; I serve on select committees; I serve, as we Tynwald it came into immediate effect. If we move on to have said, on other standing committees, as well, and I have the following sentence, it says: been frustrated in listening, this morning, Mr President, to some of the comments, one in particular. ‘and to report with or without recommendations each July’ Whilst my colleague on Public Accounts, Mrs Hannan, Does that infer that if something comes forward, say in was speaking – a previous Chairman of Public Accounts – October, it will be held over until July and there will be no extolling the workload that is associated with being on approval given? I feel that, as I read that, it could lead to Public Accounts, and whilst at the same time listening to the very significant delay if we are not careful. comments from the Minister for Trade and Industry, who said I really have not got a great deal of issue with the Report. that we do not ever produce anything, as an aside comment, I would like to congratulate the Committee. I think they frankly, I find that downright insulting, (A Member: Hear, have done a first-class job here, and I would say that the hear.) because when we are faced with the workload, as we proposal to appoint an Auditor General is not a reflection are – a heavy workload – and we are faced with the enormous on the Committee; it is a reflection on the complexity of difficulty of getting information from Departments, there is Government and the expenditure that Government incurs extreme frustration at the dilatory nature of responses that we on behalf of the population of this Island. receive from Departments, both for ourselves as Members We need a level of expertise, I would suggest, which is and for our Deputy Clerk, who attends to our business. not readily available to us from within this Court. We all Frankly, there is no respect for Public Accounts, as it come from different backgrounds. We all have got differing stands at the present time, and I do find that it is a shame and separate skills to bring to bear to our parliamentary and I have to ask do we want scrutiny or not – duties, but with the increasing complexity of Government, a seat on the Public Accounts Committee could be regarded Mr Karran: Of course they do not. as a hot seat. As the hon. lady who has just resumed her seat has said, it can be a most uncomfortable seat, at times. Mrs Craine: – because, if we do, we cannot continue I do, however, recognise that, if we are not careful, we in the present vein. We have Members who are committed could be setting up more bureaucracy, which might slow in very many other areas and I do not think that that is down the affairs of Government. I would suggest that the appropriate. I do believe that those Members who are on Auditor General, in his or her remit, must be focused. They Public Accounts should, perhaps, be stand-alone Public must focus on major issues, not go chasing after every flight Accounts and nothing else, (A Member: Agreed.) (Several of fancy which crosses a Hon. Member’s mind. After all, we Members: Hear, hear.) because I do think that, whilst the already have Treasury Internal Audit; we have chief financial way in which the duties are exercised… indeed, people officers in Departments; we have people there who are being are particularly careful not to comment on anything of paid to do a job. (A Member: Hear, hear.) So, let us not set which they are related in terms of Department work, but it up another layer of duplication. does make it very difficult when we are trying to establish This really has been reflected in paragraph 24.2.b of the committees and to look at specific items. Committee’s Report. They say that if we are not careful, it is I do find it frustrating that, whilst, on the one hand, going to grow and it needs to be an effective procedure for we have had several Members speaking this morning, identifying the major concerns of the Auditor General. acknowledging that, they, on the other hand, are saying I feel that we must retain control over the potential ‘you are not producing the work’. We cannot produce the expenditure here. If we are not careful, it could grow and work any faster than we are doing and that is where the grow like Topsy, and consume resources, to the point at importance of an Auditor General comes in, in that we need which it is no longer cost effective in having it. to have someone who can professionally advise us and can Thank you, Mr President. lead some of these issues themselves, and, perhaps, who has – I am ashamed to say it – more respect held in the eyes The President: Hon. Member, Mr Karran. of Government than the Public Accounts is at the present time, which is not a situation that we should be in. Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I think the debate has been a That, really, is all I want to say, Mr President, because I very useful debate today. I think we have come a long way am so frustrated by some of the comments that, whilst we since 1988, when one was trying to get an ombudsman set are, on the one hand, expected to produce the work, we are up on this Island. I think some of the debates have been hung bound in doing so. really quite spectacular. There are points that I worry about. We have had the The President: Hon. Member, Mr Teare. previous speaker talk about the issue of flights of fancy by Hon. Members, and I think that the problem we have got to do Mr Teare: Thank you, Mr President. is that… The issue of malice is one thing; the issue of flights

Select Committee on Scrutiny and the Functions of the Standing Committee on Expenditure and Public Accounts Report received and recommendations approved Orders of the Day TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 1659 T123 of fancy is another thing, because often those flights of fancy I am singing Adeste Fidelis, on the hymn sheet, whilst the end up hitting the place where people do not want. I would others are singing O Come, All Ye Faithful, as far as what hope not to see a situation where people can be isolated. they actually think this Report is going to provide. I have to say that I totally agree with the Member for I think that is something where the issue of the costings Ramsey. I think that is part of the condition of the system of of this issue is a very important point. I think it is a very new Members getting in, so that they can spread the work. important point that really does worry me about supporting There is no way that, with the workload of the Hon. Member this proposal here, because what I am reading into these for Ramsey, at the present time, she can give the time that proposals might be totallly different, when it comes down is needed to the Public Accounts Committee. That is not a to what other people are reading into these proposals in criticism; it is a fact of life. front of us. We talk about an EU Working Directive of 48 hours I have to say that I thought that the Hon. Member of a week. It was quite amusing to me when Hon. Members Council’s thing was a bit disappointing about the Public were talking about people ringing in the early hours of the Accounts Committee, but then I can understand why he is morning. I am sure I am not the only one that has almost a not very happy with the Public Accounts Committee, as far weekly experience of someone getting on the phone in the as it is concerned and that is an issue. middle of the night. I think, when I get into the Report itself, it is well Maybe those issues… because of the way Government meaning. It is great and we have come a long way in 20 years, has improved over the years, there are people to send your as far as this issue is concerned – or nearly 20 years – from battered wives to, there is a place for child abuse cases. an ombudsman and it is a similar issue. I know it deals with Those sorts of services that were left to the sitting Member other things, but it is all about audit within the system of or the vicar of the constituency are over, and I think that is government. I think the Committee has done well, and I important to applaud this and previous administrations for, think they have worked hard. that they have put the rungs in the ladder. My concern, Eaghtyrane is they have ticked the boxes, But I do think it is important about the fact of the amount but have they made sure that the boxes are in the right place? of hours. It is not a matter of just reading a thing, as far as I really do think that. the Public Accounts is concerned; it is about understanding When you look at some of the issues that are down a report, and that takes time. It often takes having to go and here for proposal, you look at the issue of the membership ask people to explain sometimes very complicated, basic of the Public Accounts Committee. They have missed the deceptions that have been put in their place, and that all real issue, in my opinion. The real issue is the fact that takes time to do it. I totally agree, and I think that is one of they should be outside the executive. That is where I have the mistakes of the Committee, that I do agree with the Hon. some empathy with the Member for Garff, as far as his two Member for Ramsey. standing committees are concerned. That is a different way I actually applaud the Member for West Douglas. I am of dealing with the situation. glad he has got out of the glaring lights of the ministerial I do really feel that they should bite the bullet and put system of government. He was so right when he talked about these people outside the executive, because if they do the the issue of having the executive and the issue of where he job right… was not conceding the fact of the power of patronage, but that I know with one report alone that I recently had with the he recognised the danger of it, and the fact that this is one Public Accounts Committee, where it took 20 hours just to of the things where I think the Committee has slipped up, in try and make sense of the report, by having the interjection the fact that people on the Public Accounts should not be on of trying to get that input into there. That is half an ordinary other Departments, because if they are doing the job right, working man’s week, and that is just one report. But the then they will not have the time to be doing Departments. problem we have is with the system and the ticking of Often, I think departmental jobs are just part of the… the box. Are we really wanting the boxes and the ticks in there are Departments that need a number of lay members the right places? I think that is something that needs to be on it for Ministers, but most Departments do not need, and looked at. it is all part of the patronage system, which we may care to I thought that the input from the Hon. Member for Peel disagree with. about the PAC being attacked over the MEA: well, we all I totally agree with the Hon. Member when he talks know the reasons why the MEA was being attacked. It was about the audit and the growth in employment. I think that is because a certain Member was giving the executive a hard something that, when we look at scrutiny, it does need to be time, otherwise they were never classed, until recently, as any looked at. He is so right about the growth of employees. I was real force. They were there as a window dressing exercise, one of the ones, when we first got in here, and we had 2,000 and they were a joke. unemployed, we were the ones who actually encouraged no Unfortunately, the problem we have got, at the moment, overtime, and in taking on people to employment. When the is we have got to get it staffed properly, and we have got to private sector took off, we should have dissipated some of get it resourced properly. This comes to another thing which our workforce out, to fill those jobs, but we never changed the Report says is well-meaning and it is a wonderful move, that. over the years, into the reality, but the fact is we need people So, I think the Hon. Member for West Douglas is quite on the Public Accounts Committee who are lay people. right. I think it has been enlightening to hear the issues I have the mandate, Eaghtyrane, and I have the vote, that he says. I think it is important when we hear about the but at the end of the day, I should be able to access the best costings, because the problem we have here is we have got information. One of the human tragedies, in my membership the bones – it is an excellent Report, in the fact that the bones of this Hon. Court, is the lack of people being able to put are there – but the meat is not on the bones. I am worried that that information in. we will end up agreeing to this, Eaghtyrane, and find out that I give you an example, Eaghtyrane. I had a chap who was

Select Committee on Scrutiny and the Functions of the Standing Committee on Expenditure and Public Accounts Report received and recommendations approved 1660 T123 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 Orders of the Day a constituent of mine, not a great supporter of mine, who but at the end of this House, it is no good – maybe of costings dealt with the Singapore sewerage system. He took away as far as the issues are concerned, because I am concerned the master plan of IRIS, came up and said, ‘This is wrong, that the real issue that needs to be addressed, if we are that is wrong, the other is wrong.’ I could not even get the going to stop the MEA, is much to do with the systems of Department to go and talk to the person. This man was one government and getting away from what I know Members of the architects for a sewerage system for six million people, do not like saying: we are a one party state by patronage in an island three quarters of the size of the Isle of Man, basis. Too much has been done in the past, and I think that with six million people on, and we could not even get them is as much as anything. to go and talk to him, because of the lack of order. I agree, So, the points that the Member for Garff mentions about after so many years of bashing my head against a brick wall, scrutiny have got a place for the discussion, but my concern things have improved. is not the cost – the cost is not here. I think the Committee One of the things that concerns me, when we listen to have worked well, but I am concerned that this well-meaning the debate, we hear people talking about accountants and Report will be used, if we support it, as an excuse for not then it always reminds me of the issue of people knowing the doing the other issues. Because we have supported it with price of something, but not the value. It is not just about our viewpoint, with our limited information, and the other an accountant looking at a thing and, alright, a forensic people, the rest of the Court, has supported, with their ideas accountant is good, but sometimes just having somebody of using it as a device not to make sure that the MEA affair being able to view it from a common-sense, business attitude is, maybe, the latest and final biggest scandal this Court has, of ‘what would I do if it was my money in my pocket’. I let us hope that, if we can get some sort of proper route, that think the Committee, unfortunately, has missed a very good will be the end of it, and we will never have such a tragedy lay input that could be there. for the next generation to have to pick up the tab. I know it talks about people can give it advice, but it is not the same as dragging somebody off the street. You need The President: Hon. Member for Rushen, Mr to work up a working relationship and you need that sort of Rimington. thing, and I think that is somewhere where the Committee has gone wrong. Mr Rimington: Thank you, Mr President. I think that, while the Member for Ramsey was on about It is unfortunate that we cannot establish a system that is the cost, and he is right, the reason that weakens this proposal perfect and we never will. We can only take the steps as we is, if we had the costs, we would actually know which hymn see them, and improve as we go along. Indeed, the Report sheet we were singing from, as far as this issue is concerned. that is before us is such a thing as that. It is not the end; it It is alright him talking about the cost, when we have got is not the end product. a £460 million debt and liability from the MEA, which at Certainly, the Hon. Member’s concerns and other the time, a Public Accounts Committee was not trying to Members’ concerns about the cost of the Auditor General: protect me from the then Chief Executive, threatening me, yes, they are going to have to come out, but the Auditor ‘You want to watch your position, I will sort you out’, and General is not going to be established by October. It is going apologising to him. to be some considerable time ahead. There is going to have The situation is that I believe that this is the sort of thing to be considerable work on how that is going to be organised. that is not a luxury, it is a necessity. But what concerns me, There is legislation, there is going to have to be meat on the Eaghtyrane… I think the Hon. Member for West Douglas bones on the issue and that meat is going to have come back was right when he talked of the vast experience, and the to this Hon. Court, or in the branches, in terms of legislation problem you have got in this place is the fact that many have that is going to establish the said position. flourished, had the freedom to flourish, under the ministerial In a sense, we are looking at the principle and, even system, and many have had the opportunity not to flourish though we defined, in the recommendation,s the role and because of the ministerial system. functions of the Auditor General, they are not cast in stone. My concern is: I want to make sure that the rungs are At this point, they will have to, undoubtedly, evolve and be put into a ladder, as far as audit in this country that has got subject to future Reports to this body and in legislation that a ladder propped up, to somewhere it is going, and I am comes forward. concerned, with this well-meaning Report, that that is not I think the main point about the Auditor General going to be the case. which was, to my mind, very strong is his constitutional I just want to mention about the Auditor General. I think independence and that is very important when seen especially that my concern is because there is no meat on the bones, and from outside. At the moment, the external auditors can be there needs to be more depth on the issue. The danger will be seen – wrongly, I think – as part of Government, i.e. they the fact it is like the input that was on about the consultant, are employed by Treasury to do the job, and that is where who needs the anaesthetist and he needs the nurses and he they are reporting to. needs the porter. The same with an Auditor General: it is The whole essence of the Auditor General’s office is like medicine, you do not get general surgeons now, even that it is independent of both Government and Tynwald, allowing for that. even though it is the framework of Tynwald under which it The broad range of technical things, the likes of we had is established, but then, so is Government. It is established the issue from the Hon. Member for East Douglas: is it sludge under the authority of Tynwald. Tynwald is the ultimate or is it sewage? The issue of MEA, the fact that the basic… authority, but once established, it does stand aside. This person is going to have to have such a broad range, and That was the conversation we had, the discussions we I do think that the issue of costing is something. had, with the Auditor General from Ireland. I found that a I am happy to go along with many recommendations in very compelling argument about their position and, also, the Report. I would have liked to have seen an amendment – the quite structured relationship they had with arms of

Select Committee on Scrutiny and the Functions of the Standing Committee on Expenditure and Public Accounts Report received and recommendations approved Orders of the Day TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 1661 T123 government and with their Public Accounts Committee in which is many (Laughter) – very many! Ireland, which gave some pointer to how things could very Overall, I think I would like Hon. Members to consider productively operate. running with the whole body of the recommendations. No The issue of the resources of the Public Accounts doubt there will be individual concerns in the individual Committee was discussed at length by the Committee, and areas. It is not the end of the story. I do believe it is a great I am sure Mr Speaker will respond on that point. There were step forward and we ought to go with it. concerns, and looking how that might be addressed. This was not the Report with which we were going to The President: Mr Waft, Hon. Member of Council. address those particular concerns, but they are issues that do need to be addressed, and there are the mechanisms available Mr Waft: Thank you, Mr President, I will be brief. for that to be done. Obviously, the existence of the Auditor I was thinking of getting a badge for myself saying, General, we would hope, would be of great value to the ‘I survived the Public Accounts Committee’. I was there work of the Public Accounts Committee and complement it, for 10 years, and with some august people, such as Edgar and give greater strength. Likewise, the work of the Public Quine and Mr Luft and company. We did not really have Accounts Committee can add to the strength of the Auditor any problems with getting people to come and see us, but, General – I think that is very important. from time to time, you would send a letter to a Department But I do believe that we are looking at a situation that and you would not get a reply. is going to evolve over time, and, indeed, many of the I think the ultimate thing that you can do is actually other recommendations that have taken some considerable send a policeman over with it, and deliver it, and fetch the discussions. Again, no doubt, we have not got it 100 per cent culprit back to the Public Accounts Committee, and make perfect, but matters will have to be addressed. him answer the questions that have been laid before him for Points have been raised, certainly by Hon. Member of his area. I think it is probably a lack of training these days, Council, about the role of the Scrutiny Committee regarding and disrespect, generally. They do not seem to take a lot of secondary legislation and, yes, that may well need fine notice from letters or, indeed, telephone calls and you know tuning. I think it was envisaged that… we all understand it is very despairing when you do send a letter and you do that in Departments, even though we would like to bring our not get any reply. new scheme, say, before the House – Improvement of Energy The only thing I am concerned about: I wholeheartedly Efficiency, Energy Conservation Scheme – we would like support the recommendations apart from the Auditor to bring it and have it there in front of you in June. Then it General, and my concern is the population of the Isle of comes back for the beginning of October or the beginning Man – 78,000. We have heard reference to Northern Ireland, of November to actually kick off. which I understand is 1.7 million, and Eire, 4 million, so I just Inevitably, it comes in at the last minute, with only a think we should put things in perspective somewhat, when month or so to go and, if there are doubts about that scheme we are talking along the lines of copying another area. or some definition within the scheme, then that is something The last Tynwald – or was it the Tynwald before? – I did that could be addressed by such a committee, but allow the refer to Orwell’s 1984, and perhaps we are looking at… we scheme to go ahead, and the public can continue to be served have perhaps a corporate paranoia, at times, because things by such a scheme, rather than the scheme just go into non- go wrong, from time to time, and it would be nice to have existence for x period while matters are then looked at. someone to point the finger at and say, well, he should really We did not discuss things in terms of this is going to add have been looking at that. in areas of delay. That was very conscious in the minds of the I can understand that thought which, perhaps, is a thread Committee, when we went through the various issues, that that is running through the Court, that someone will be we were not trying to put in delaying mechanisms for the responsible, at the end of the day, and, therefore, nothing will work there. The scrutiny of European legislation: certainly, happen. Unfortunately, this is not how it works out, because we could not cover all matters of European legislation, as the other authorities with all kinds of restrictive investigative Hon. Member of Council, Mr Downie, rightly commented. people looking at them still have problems. You could just take one area and you could be lost forever. As we know we have got a Corporate Committee looking Obviously, you are going to have to be highly selective at the corporacy of the Isle of Man Government. That has at what is of direct relevance to and of concern to us in the not returned any report yet. We have got an Overseas Aid Isle of Man, in the way they do that, so you would need a Committee, being inspected by an Overseas Aid Committee huge body of people ,with professional advisers, if you are group. They have not reported yet. We are shortly to have going to tackle the European legislation en masse. It certainly a Police Advisory Committee looking at the Police, so I do could not be done. not think we should get too carried away with this. In terms of the work of the Auditor General and the Public It refers to in the Report, with regard to the fact that the Accounts Committee – I think we just need to emphasise Government Auditor will be separate and the Member from that point – it is largely retrospective. Obviously, when Rushen referred to it, but he will be reporting to Government, you are looking at something retrospectively, you have got at the end of the day – so, just like the external auditors. an eye to how it is working in the future; but it is largely It states on page 54 about having ultimate responsibility retrospective. It is looking how money has been spent, or is with regard to local authorities’ auditing. Well, we do being spent at that point in time – obviously, for lessons for have external auditors reporting to us who inspect local the future, but it is retrospective. It is not looking at future authority accounts and the next sentence is ‘value-for-money financial programmes; it is looking at financial programmes investigations’. Well, value-for-money investigations are that have been put into place. already taking place and are taking place as I speak. They There is one glaring omission from the Report, I think, are a constant source of problem around Government, from Mr Speaker and that is the number of times we have met, time to time. Somebody is always looking at somebody else

Select Committee on Scrutiny and the Functions of the Standing Committee on Expenditure and Public Accounts Report received and recommendations approved 1662 T123 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 Orders of the Day or over somebody else’s shoulder. So, I would just like the as we develop and keep developing, and people have to realise Court to put it in perspective, the size that we are. that Tynwald, by its nature, evolves. It does not suddenly Regular consultation with the Public Accounts Committee: change; it slowly evolves, because it reacts to issues that are well, fine. Identification of issues which may be appropriate being dealt with. for… well, we are all looking at things that might be Tynwald is evolving, in some ways catching up with the appropriate for the Public Accounts Committee to investigate, changes, in 1986, that were made to the executive Government but is he investigating it, or the Public Accounts Committee we now have. Of course, prior to 1986, Tynwald itself was the and he will decide whether there should be a full investigation? Government, through Statutory Boards. So, it has had to catch Well, the Public Accounts Committee decides in their right up on that, and it has been doing that I think quite successfully. whether they should investigate fully one particular or another This is another step in catch up in making that step. particular issue. Really, I cannot add much more to it, except to say if So, I would just like to let Members keep their feet on we had committees to shadow Departments on policies, it the ground, when they are thinking about the role of this new would require extensive resources, because, basically, you are Auditor General, sir. potentially recreating what is the equivalent of Departments. We do come down to our size and our scale, and it is a The President: Mr Speaker to reply. problem for us. There are only 33 Members of Tynwald. We are one of the The Speaker: Thank you, Mr President. smallest parliamentary structures in the British Isles – I think Can I thank Hon. Members for their contribution in the only one smaller is Guernsey. I am not 100 per cent sure considering this issue before us, which is, quite clearly, not about that. So, we have to be realistic about this, because that, only a large Report, but, in fact, a very important Report for in itself, puts considerable pressures on Members, in terms of how we go forward in the future. dealing with legislation, constituency issues, parliamentary I would like to start on one issue that was raised by the issues and, also, government issues. That should not be final speaker, the Hon. Member of Council, Mr Waft, where underestimated. he said he supports the Report, but he is concerned about the You can create as many systems as you like, but if there Auditor General, and we need to put things into perspective. are not enough Members to service the systems, or effectively I agree and the Committee agree with that. make those systems work, then all you have done is create In fact, Mr President, one of our difficulties was seeing a system, but actually you do no work. That is not what we whether we could make a case, and whether there was a case, are about. What we want is effective systems to be able to which is more important, for there to be a new post created do what we hope Tynwald expects those bodies to do. So, of an Auditor General, because of the potential implications. that is, basically, why we felt that that was not the way to In answer to the Hon. Member, I would say, yes, I agree go forward. about putting it into perspective – only 78,000 or thereabouts Mrs Christian expressed concern about pages 37 and 38, population but the thing is, Mr President, we have all the and the scrutiny of legislation, and what we put in there. What complexities of a fully-structured parliament and government I would say to the Hon. Member is that what we felt was that system in the Isle of Man. We are not a local authority and that Tynwald should always do its job, and get on with the job of means, then, that that creates a different scenario for us. passing its secondary legislation. In doing that, what we did We have a situation where, because of what we do and say was that, if there was an issue of concern, either raised because of how complex it is, it creates other problems, other here on the floor, or subsequently raised by a Member, the issues. I will come back to cost, as I go through. Member could contact the Scrutiny Committee, and raise So, I hope, by the time I have responded, Members will that concern. They could then examine in more depth the feel that they can support the principle of setting this up. There secondary legislation, and if there was a concern, they would will be legislation required, and that will be another House report to Tynwald and the Department concerned, and there that will have to consider how to deal with that, hopefully, then may be a new Order that comes forward. if we support the Report and the recommendations based on In looking at this, we did look at the amount of Orders what we have put in our Report. that actually go through Tynwald without a problem. It is a Mr President, I do thank Members for their contribution high percentage that are… there is no question raised on those and the comments that they have made. I will go through only Orders – a high percentage. There are very few Orders that some points that were raised, because, clearly, there was a lot come back to be amended, because there has been an error said, but what I see as some of the important points were the found in them. So we took that into account and, again, we issues that were raised by Members. tried to look at how we prioritised the resource we required. The Hon. Member for Garff, Mr Rodan, was first to speak, Clearly, we have to realise that the secondary legislation, who raised the issue about the 10 reasons we set out as to the which does not have the scrutiny of primary legislation, can, difficulties of having two standing committees. Well, that was in fact, have a greater impact on how we live, because it sets quite a conscious decision, because we did know that the issue out the detail of how we live. That being said, Mr President, of having two standing committees did have quite a lot of secondary legislation can be amended much more easily. favour, in terms that Members were lukewarm to the idea of I would give an example of if we put a system in that having two separate standing committees. Our problem with created, in a way, going off to a committee first. For example, that is that when we looked at it – and that is why we laid out yesterday, we had the Royal Assent on the Income Tax the 10 reasons – was, in fact, that we did not see, at this stage, legislation. At the same sitting, with a Supplementary Order certainly in the process of Tynwald, that it would actually Paper, we then passed all the secondary legislation related contribute in a way that may be envisaged by Members, and to that. we have tried to explain that as best we can. If we had a system where it had to first go to a Scrutiny At the end of the day, Tynwald might go down that road, Committee, the chances are that legislation would not be in

Select Committee on Scrutiny and the Functions of the Standing Committee on Expenditure and Public Accounts Report received and recommendations approved Orders of the Day TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 1663 T123 until after the General Election. I do not believe that is good to the principle. for the Isle of Man or for Tynwald. What we are saying is, if Tynwald controls the budget in the Isle of Man. One something is identified after, then at least there would be an thing is absolutely sure, it is not for executive Government opportunity to look at that. to control Tynwald. There has been an issue over the last The system is not perfect. I think we would all accept number of years – four years or so, well, nearly five now that, but what we are trying to do is make it work as best we – where Treasury have endeavoured to dictate to the Clerk of can, within what we need to do, to make sure the Island is Tynwald’s Department, the Tynwald Management Committee, successful. There is no point at all in creating systems that the budget it should have, and the Committee, rightly, has tie the Isle of Man down, so that our competitors run rings said no, because the legislation does not provide for that. It around us and our people become poorer because of it, and provides for Treasury to oversee and determine the budgets there are no job opportunities in the Isle of Man. for Departments and Statutory Boards, but not for the Clerk of We have to be realistic and, yes, sometimes that means we Tynwald’s Department. I have to say that principle is followed are criticised. But our responsibility is to make sure the people elsewhere in parliamentary structures. That is not the case. we represent live in a successful Island and have opportunities. That does not mean that the Tynwald Management They do not want to be poor, they do not want to not have Committee act irresponsibly – in fact, they have not done. an income, they do not want not to have a house; they want What they do is still put a budget in to Treasury and they to live. If we create a system that destroys that, they will just say to Treasury, ‘This is the budget we require.’ Ultimately, leave our Island and that is no good to anybody. Tynwald determines whether or not that is the case. So, we must be realistic about this, Mr President. The Mr President, the Treasury Minister, also, raised the issue establishment of a Scrutiny Committee is a step forward in of too much scrutiny and too much required on Treasury. Well, that, and I hope I have answered that. I think, just to answer, that is, I think, slightly a misreading of The Hon. Member for Ramsey, Mr Bell, the Treasury the Report. The Treasury will be merely the conduit for the Minister, said that he was happy with the basic principles, Departments to refer into the Report. So, Treasury’s role is to but we have to realise Government has to run. I think I partly ensure that the Government’s response is produced, and then just answered that. Government has to run and operate for the the Report goes to Treasury, and they are informed about the benefit of the Isle of Man, but, also, the counterbalance to recommendations well in advance. that is that parliament – and that is why a parliament is there It is not a matter that Treasury itself has to undertake all – Tynwald in this case – Tynwald has to be able to question the basis of the work involved; it is a matter of going back the actions of Government. The Government is not in charge through a body – and we are talking here about finance; we of the Isle of Man; Tynwald is in charge of the Isle of Man, are not talking about policy. This is in relation to finance. So, because Government cannot do anything without Tynwald. I think we need to be clear on that. Government does not have a budget without Tynwald. Again, I thank Mrs Cannell for her contribution. She was It collects the taxes, but Tynwald releases the money to the on about the Constitutional Matters Committee and whether executive to run the Isle of Man. If it cannot persuade Tynwald Ministers can be on the Constitutional Committee. Yes, they to do that, it has nothing. That should not be forgotten, and I can, but they can be appointed to that. So, that, hopefully, sometimes think that is being forgotten. answers that one. Again, a number of people talked about the Auditor Mr Henderson: It is. Hear, hear. General and the resources. Can I say, Mr President, we clearly identified there is nothing to stop the Auditor General… and Mr Houghton: By Government Departments. we think it is likely that he will buy in resource and, therefore, he will buy it in, as and when necessary, as, in fact, every select The Speaker: So, I think it is important to keep that in committee can – as Departments of Government do. mind. So, if he is looking into a special subject and he needs Mr President, he says that we need to take into account all support for that, then he can buy that resource in. If he wants those aspects, and we did not take into account costs. First and some auditing done, he can also buy in that resource, and I foremost, this Report is about the principle of having these would hope that we would see it develop in that way, as against structures put in place, and outlining how they can be put in a massive office full of people who were sat there, looking place, how we believe they should be put in place. The next sometimes to see what their workload shall be. I am sure that step will be legislation, if Tynwald approves this Report, some is the view of Members as well. of it will not, but the main one will be. I would accept the point made by the Hon. Member of Can I just say, Mr President, that when the legislation Council, Mr Lowey, who said this is not a cheap option. It is is put together, then costs will be identified. The Clerk of not a cheap option, (Mr Lowey: No.) – and I will come back Tynwald’s Office, the Tynwald Management Committee to that issue, as to why it may not be a cheap option – but I will, if this Report is approved, then feed into its budgeting believe and the Committee believes it is the right option. I will system funds to enable the post to be funded, and then if the come back and put it into context, at the end, Mr President. Keys pass the legislation, the funds will be available. So, that Mr Downie, the Hon. Member – and I thank my process comes next, and that is the normal process; that is not Committee colleagues for their support – Mr Downie, the an issue that comes later. Hon. Member of Council, raised the issue about… he is The Hon. Member, the Treasury Minister, expressed concerned we are looking at the issue after the money is spent concern about a point in the Report, and the statement and the responsibilities. I have to say the responsibility, before I made that we would budget in the normal way for the any money is spent, rests with the Minister. The Minister is Tynwald Management Committee. He said he is not happy responsible for his or her Department, and it is for the Minister with that, and he has had an on-going concern about it. in approving expenditure that he or she is satisfied that that is Well, Hon. Members, the point is that it, again, comes back an effective use of their resources.

Select Committee on Scrutiny and the Functions of the Standing Committee on Expenditure and Public Accounts Report received and recommendations approved 1664 T123 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 Orders of the Day

What this is about, and like the PAC, is, in fact, is a procedure which is different in, if I am right, the primary investigating where an issue may have gone astray. It is not legislation that requires the draft Orders to be laid before about saying to the Minister, now you can go and spend that Tynwald, and it is either at the next sitting of Tynwald, or two money. Quite clearly, that would be impractical, and I am sittings away, it then comes forward for proper ratification as sure the Minister did not mean that aspect of it, but I think, an Order. I am not sure 100 per cent of the procedure, but it clearly, we have to just make the point that responsibility lies is something like that, and I stand to be corrected. with the Minister. There is no issue of delaying proceeding because, quite I would just answer the bit about the PAC membership: clearly, the remit that we put in is saying that the Committee that is a matter for Tynwald Court. They elect who they wish must report each July, but it can report at any other time. So, to be on the Public Accounts Committee with the restrictions in fact if there is anything, they can report to Tynwald at their that are in our Standing Orders which debar certain persons. convenience really and make sure that matters are not held So, that really is a matter for them. up and I am sure that that would happen. As far as resources for the Public Accounts Committee The Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran, raised issues are concerned, I can just make the point – and it was an issue and the main one was about the cost. I think we are all that was discussed, as the Hon. Member for Rushen, Mr conscious of the cost and, certainly, what we are talking about Rimington, said at length, by the Committee – the resources in this Report are the principles. I would say, Mr President, for the Public Accounts Committee, like any other standing the one thing in the life of this House is that it has cost us committee or select committee, is a matter for them to raise. If somewhere in the region of about, I think it is £3.5 million, they require additional resource, there is a clear, set procedure, for public inquiries. That was expenditure we had no control which is that they come to the Tynwald Management over whatsoever, because, once they were set up, they get a Committee seeking that resource. The Tynwald Management life of their own. Committee, basically, is a filter to ensure that it is a reasonable Quite honestly, I think we have to balance up whether or request, and always respond positively to those requests. In not we believe that such auditing needs to go on on a regular fact, I am not aware of any time they have not. basis, or whether we are willing to sit back and wait until Quite clearly, the issue is a concern to the Public Accounts somebody screams, and then we end up employing a very Committee. We have fed back to the Public Accounts expensive commission to look into issues. I think that is really Committee about this issue. They themselves, I understand, the point that Members have to consider. are undertaking quite a bit of work into determining how they It does not mean that you will never have a commission will go forward in the future, and what additional resource they again, because it is likely that you will sometimes, but one require to make them, maybe, more effective and, certainly, of the frustrations sometimes Members have is: they have an to ensure they are adequately resourced to do the role that issue and who do they go to? First, they go to the Department Tynwald expects them to do. I think, then, it will be a matter or the Authority and they may be brushed off. They raise it for Tynwald to support. in here, and it may be brushed off, but they may see it as an The Hon. Member raised an issue about the remit of the important issue; there is nowhere else to go. The only place Economic Affairs Committee. I would just make the point that to go is, say, a select committee to look at it, or a commission. paragraph (a) is already included in their remit, so there is no To be honest, it is okay, to some degree, but as the complexity change to that. The only addition is in EU legislation which of what is happening and the changes are happening, I think has been referred by Members and not all the EU legislation, we need to say, it really is getting a bit old hat doing it that so it is only in relation to anything referred by Members, so way, and there needs to be better way to do it. they will be able to do that job. I have answered the issue of the resources for the Public Mrs Craine: I thank for her comments, and she clearly Accounts Committee. I thank the Hon. Member for Rushen, identified the need. Mr Rimington, and Mrs Hannan on the Committee for their The Hon. Member for Douglas West, Mr Shimmin, again, support and contribution. Again, I have covered the resource aptly described that we are in a changing world. That is the issues, so, hopefully, that is alright. reality, Hon. Members. The world I came into Tynwald to, Mr President, just to wind up and I just want to make the in 1981, is nothing like the world we are in Tynwald today. point that this is an important step forward. It is actually, I It is just so different. There are greater pressures on; there is suppose, as important a step forward as when Tynwald set greater scrutiny; people question more what Government does up the Public Accounts Committee. I remember reading that than they ever did in those days. Rightly so, because we are debate – it was before my time – and it was Roy MacDonald, expending substantial amounts of money on their behalf and who I think was a Member of Council at that time, who put they, therefore, wish to know what is going on and why we forward to Tynwald Court there should be a Public Accounts are doing it. So, I think that was clearly described. Committee. In fact, I would suggest the view of Tynwald The issue about the membership of the Public Accounts was more negative, then, than it is over this Report, if I am Committee was raised, I think, by Mrs Craine. I would picking up the vibes right. say, the reason we did not go into great depth on that is There was actually great concern of having this monster because it is only within, I think, two years that Tynwald, come in, but I think we have to say that what the Public actually, had a Report on that, and determined that the Public Accounts Committee has done over the years has proven that Accounts Committee should not be members who are not in there is a need for that type of investigation, and it has been Government. That may change, in the future. That is an issue effective in many areas. I think this is going to be the same. that Tynwald I am sure will revisit. That is, really, because Yes it is a big step forward, but it is a big step forward, I it was a recent Report, it was not seen necessary to go into believe, for the right reasons. great detail on that again. Mr President, we have an Attorney General who is The Hon. Member for Ayre, Mr Teare, raised the issue appointed to deal with our law, and he is the Government’s about EU legislation in draft form laid before Tynwald. There senior lawyer, if I use that term, but he is, also, the main

Select Committee on Scrutiny and the Functions of the Standing Committee on Expenditure and Public Accounts Report received and recommendations approved Orders of the Day TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 1665 T123 adviser to Government. He deals with the legislation to make In the Keys – Ayes 20, Noes 0 sure it gets put forward in the right way. These days, we should have an Auditor General, because FOR AGAINST Government expenditure is so great. For example, in this Mr Anderson None Mr Cannan year’s Budget – that is, 2006-07 – we are now spending Mr Teare £522 million a year, in revenue terms. That is £10 million a Mr Rodan week, £1.4 million per day, and we do not have anybody to Mr Rimington oversee that, where we have a problem. We rely on select Mr Gill committees or whatever; there is no professional adviser, Mr Gawne Mr Houghton independently able to look at that. Mr Henderson Our capital budget is in excess of £100 million and Mr Cretney growing, as is our revenue budget. To me, if it costs… Mr Duggan whatever the cost is for an Auditor General, it would be Mr Braidwood actually quite small, in relation to the expenditure we are Mrs Cannell undertaking. If that investment – and I see it as an investment Mr Shimmin Mrs Hannan – means that we have somebody who is a professional, who Mrs Craine is able to bring in resources to undertake investigations and Mr Karran scrutiny in the way that I believe it should be done, and Mr Earnshaw my Committee believe, then I believe that will be a good Capt. Douglas investment for the future of the Isle of Man. (A Member: The Speaker Hear, hear.) It is a major step, but it is a major step, I believe, for all the right reasons. The Speaker: Mr President, the recommendation Mr President, at the end of the day, if we approve this carries, with 20 votes for and no votes against, in the House Report today, especially in relation to the Auditor General, of Keys. it will then be a matter for the branches as to the legislation that comes forward. One thing is important, if the Auditor In the Council – Ayes 6, Noes 2 General is going to work, he has to be totally independent of FOR AGAINST Government, and only able to report to Tynwald – when I say The Lord Bishop Mr Lowey ‘only’, Tynwald and its committees, and could we suggest Mr Singer Mr Waft through the PAC and so on, but he must be independent. Mr Butt If he is not independent, then the position will not work. Mrs Christian That was one thing that came out from our discussions with Mrs Crowe Mr Purcell from Ireland. His independence is crucial to Mr Downie enable him to do his role effectively. He cannot be influenced: The President: With 6 for, 2 against in the Council, Hon. as the Attorney cannot over matters of law, he cannot be Members, recommendation 7, therefore, carries. influenced over matters of investigating expenditure. Now, I put to this Court recommendation 8. Those in Therefore, Mr President, I believe this is the right way favour, please say aye; against no. The ayes have it. The forward, a big step but the right step. I beg to move. ayes have it. Recommendation 9: those in favour, please say aye; Several Members: Hear, hear. against no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Recommendation 10: those in favour, please say aye; The President: Hon. Members, as I indicated earlier at against no. the start of the debate in relation to Item 18, which I now put before the Court, we will put it in its sections. So, I will A division was called for and voting resulted as follows: put to Members of the Court each of the recommendations as printed on your Order Paper at Item 18. In the Keys – Ayes 20, Noes 0 Hon. Members, dealing, then, with recommendation 1: FOR AGAINST those in favour, please say aye; against no. The ayes have Mr Anderson None it. The ayes have it. Mr Cannan Recommendation 2: those in favour, please say aye; Mr Teare against no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Mr Rodan Mr Rimington Recommendation 3: those in favour, please say aye; Mr Gill against no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Mr Gawne Recommendation 4: those in favour, please say aye; Mr Houghton against no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Mr Henderson Recommendation 5: those in favour, please say aye; Mr Cretney Mr Duggan against no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Mr Braidwood Similarly Hon. Members, recommendation 6: those in Mrs Cannell favour, please say aye; against no. The ayes have it. The Mr Shimmin ayes have it. Mrs Hannan Recommendation 7: those in favour, please say aye; Mrs Craine Mr Karran against no. Mr Earnshaw Capt. Douglas A division was called for and voting resulted as follows: The Speaker

Select Committee on Scrutiny and the Functions of the Standing Committee on Expenditure and Public Accounts Report received and recommendations approved 1666 T123 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 Orders of the Day

The Speaker: Mr President, the recommendation appeals procedures into the Pension Schemes Act 1993 and carries, in the House of Keys, with 20 votes for and no the Pensions Act 1995, in relation to certain decisions made votes against. by the Department, under those Acts, in line with the decisions and appeals procedures for other Social Security matters. In the Council – Ayes 5, Noes 3 The position is explained in more detail in the memorandum, which has been circulated to Hon. Members, Mr President. FOR AGAINST I beg to move. The Lord Bishop Mr Lowey Mr Singer Mr Waft Mr Butt Mrs Crowe The President: Hon. Member, Mrs Hannan. Mrs Christian Mr Downie Mrs Hannan: I beg to second and reserve my remarks. The President: With 5 for, 3 against in the Council, Hon. Members, recommendation 10, therefore, carries. The President: Mr Karran, Hon. Member for Onchan. We take recommendation 11, Hon. Members. Those in favour, please say aye; against no. The ayes have it. The Mr Karran: Can I just ask on the appeals situation: ayes have it. could the Shirveishagh just highlight is there any massive And 12, Hon. Members: those in favour, please say aye; changes on these Orders? against no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. The other thing is it talks about the issue of the right to Recommendation 13: those in favour, please say aye; appeal to the Commissioner to the High Court. Of course, against no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. it is a bit like the Ritz: you can all eat in the Ritz, so long Recommendation 14: those in favour, please say aye; as you have got the money. Is it covered by Legal Aid, any against no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. appeal process? It is no use having that process, if you have Now, Hon. Members, I put to you the total motion as not got the money to be able to access it – especially the printed on the Order Paper. Those in favour, Hon. Members, people that would most likely be involved in this. please say aye; against no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. The President: Mr Rodan to reply.

The Minister: Thank you, Mr President. The area covered by these Orders, of course, is related Pension Schemes Act 1995 to personal and occupational pensions and the opportunity Pension Schemes Act 1993 (Application) has been taken to develop and improve upon on the existing (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2006 approved system, which is somewhat restrictive. Pensions Act 1995 (Application) (Amendment) (No. 3) In particular, pension scheme members and employers Order 2006 approved are not given the opportunity, at present, to have any decision that the DHSS makes examined by an independent tribunal. Social Security Act 2000 The only come-back is to a court of law, to the High Court, Social Security Legislation (Application) on a point of law. (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2006 approved The difference that is being introduced is building upon that, to have the right to have the decision looked at again, 25-27. The Minister for Health and Social Security to by the DHSS, and, if still dissatisfied, to go to an independent move: tribunal or, indeed, to refer straight to an independent tribunal. If there is an outstanding point of law, there is then the 25. That the Pension Schemes Act 1993 (Application) opportunity to go to appeal to a Social Security Commissioner, (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2006 be approved. [SD No who is a legally qualified person; then, as a fourth stage, if 492/06] there is still a legal issue, again, to go to the High Court. 26. That the Pensions Act 1995 (Application) (Amendment) So, it gives considerable rights. My understanding would (No. 3) Order 2006 be approved. [SD No 493/06] be that the regulations with Legal Aid would apply. That is, 27. That the Social Security Legislation (Application) certainly, my understanding, Mr President. (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2006 be approved. [SD No I beg to move. 494/06] The President: In that case, Hon. Members, the motion The President: Hon. Members, moving on with our that I will put, first, to the Court is that printed at 25 on your Order Paper, you will be aware that, in fact, we completed Order Paper. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. certain of the Orders last evening. I propose now to move The ayes have it. The ayes have it. on to the Orders and take Item 25. I, therefore, call on the Now, Hon. Members, Item 26, that the Pensions Act 1995 Minister for Health and Social Security to move. (Application) (Amendment) (No. 3) Order be approved. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have The Minister for Health and Social Security (Mr it. The ayes have it. Rodan): Thank you, Mr President. And Item 27, that the Social Security Legislation With your permission, I would like to take Items 25, 26 (Application) (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2006 be approved: and 27 together and vote on separately. those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have Mr President, these Orders introduce new decisions and it. The ayes have it.

Pension Schemes Act 1995 – Pension Schemes Act 1993 (Application) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2006 approved Pensions Act 1995 (Application) (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2006 approved Social Security Act 2000 – Social Security Legislation (Application) (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2006 approved Orders of the Day TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 1667 T123

Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 That the Local Government (Expenditure on Income Support (General) (Isle of Man) (Amendment) Entertainments) Order 2006 be approved. [SD No (No. 3) Regulations 2006 approved 499/06]

28. The Minister for Health and Social Security to move: The President: Item 29, Mr Rimington, Minister for Local Government and Environment to move. That the Income Support (General) (Isle of Man) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2006 be approved. The Minister for Local Government and the [SD No 495/06] Environment (Mr Rimington): Mr President, this Order increases from 4p to 6p in the pound the maximum rate which The President: Minister for Health and Social Security, may be levied by a local authority, for the purposes of section Item 28, please, sir. 3 of the Local Government (Entertainments) Act 1950. Provisions under section 3 cover two main areas of The Minister for Health and Social Security (Mr entertainment. Firstly, it makes provision for the use of Rodan): Yes, thank you, Mr President. rateable income, to fund whatever the commissioners think Item 28 introduces Income Support (Amendment) is reasonable, in order to improve or prolong the visiting Regulations. These Regulations, in particular, introduce: season in their district. firstly, a new income support premium for persons with Secondly, it provides for occasions of rejoicing, e.g. substantial caring responsibilities for children or young Christmas lights or New Year’s Eve fireworks; or public persons, for whom they are not entitled to child benefit; and, ceremony civic occasions; or the reception of distinguished secondly, they also provide that the first £10 per week of any persons residing in or visiting their district, such as official occupational, personal or additional state pension income a visits by, for example, a member of the Royal Family, His person, or their partner, has is disregarded in determining Excellency, an ambassador or, alternatively, some other their entitlement to income support. person, say, a distinguished sports person. The position is explained in more detail in the Historically, local authorities have used such rate funds to memorandum circulated, Mr President, and I beg to move. cover events like civic dinners or receptions, and to promote tourist events which would attract visitors to other areas. The President: Mrs Hannan. Following consultation with local authorities, the Department has decided that there is sufficient justification Mrs Hannan: I beg to second. In doing so, I would just for increasing the rate from 4p to 6p in the pound. This like to point out that this introduces a new income support would still keep a limit on the amount of expenditure, but premium for these people with some care of their children, it would raise it to an acceptable level for those authorities and it amounts to £20 per week, but they have to be entitled seeking an increase. to it by the reason of the length of time which they take care If I may just comment on the consultation, Mr President, of the child. we did ask local authorities twice on the matter. There were six authorities who are not on the list of consultees, but did The President: Mrs Christian. not wish to respond. Mr President, in bringing this Order before this Hon. Mrs Christian: Mr President, I just wonder if we could Court, today, I think it would be helpful to clarify certain legal have some clarification. issues that have arisen – most recently, in the constituency It does say £20 a week, but it does say more than one of the Hon. Member for Castletown, Mr Speaker. carer. Can it be a multiple of £20 a week? These concern what a local authority may or may not do, or how much of their rateable income they may use The President: Mr Rodan to reply. in respect of entertainments and community events. It has been suggested that section 16 of the Local Government The Minister: Yes, thank you, Mr President. Act 1985 gives general authority for additional spending on The situation is that the £20 per week relates to the entertainments, over and above the limit set, i.e. the proposed personal allowance in respect of a particular dependent 6p in the pound set out in the Order. child or persons, so my understanding would be it would Mr President, I have to advise the Court that this is not be per dependant. the case. The general powers of section 16 are only meant Thank you, Mr President. to apply where specific powers are not provided under other legislation. Clearly, the Local Government (Entertainments) The President: In that case Hon. Members, the motion Act provides such specific powers. that I put to the Court is that printed at 28 on your Order The powers under section 16 do, however, grant local Paper. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes authorities an implied power, to anything which is ancillary have it. The ayes have it. to the discharge for their statutory functions. A good example would be where local authorities purchase refuse vehicles or wheelie bins, to facilitate the discharge of the duty imposed Local Government (Entertainments) Act 1950 by section 65 of the Public Health Act 1990. The Department Local Government (Expenditure on Entertainments) has, also, advised Castletown Town Commissioners that Order 2006 – Debate commenced they may wish to consider utilising some of the powers provided under the Recreation and Leisure Act 1988. These 29. The Minister for Local Government and the Environment powers are, currently, available to most local authorities on to move: the Island.

Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 Income Support (General) (Isle of Man) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2006 approved Local Government (Entertainments) Act 1950 – Local Government (Expenditure on Entertainments) Order 2006 – Debate commenced 1668 T123 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 Orders of the Day

Mr President, I hope the foregoing additional information at the legislation, and it is creating problems. clarifies matters. I, therefore, beg to move that the Local Mr President, also the Minister provided a helpful Government (Expenditure on Entertainments) Order 2006 explanatory paper and, also, a Written Answer to my Question be approved. at this session about section 3. If Members look at that, it is quite interesting as to what the different authorities think fall The President: Hon. Member for Ramsey, Mrs Craine. into that legislation. (Interjection) Nobody knows! When nobody knows what something means, the answer is get rid Mrs Craine: Thank you, Mr President. I beg to second of it, and clarify it, with proper up-to-date legislation. and reserve my remarks. Some put in civic services; some put in Christmas celebrations; some put in visits by the Governor; or a parish The President: Mr Speaker. day of celebrations. It is all over the place, because nobody knows – The Speaker: Thank you, Mr President. Mr President, I thank the Minister for bringing forward Mrs Crowe: Beach cleaning at Port St Mary. this Order. I am not going to oppose the Order. However, I am, I have to say, to put it mildly, disappointed The Speaker: And cleaning, as well. that, in fact, the Minister has only brought in a straightforward So, quite clearly – and I am not having a go at the Minister uplift from 4p to 6p, when, in fact, the legislature provided – this is about having legislation that does not benefit anybody, for flexibility, within the making of this Order, to provide a and is causing problems for the local authorities. rate that, actually, recognised the different rate incomes of Mr President, what I would say is that I am putting this local authorities. amendment. My amendment adds to the motion on the Order In fact, when I asked the Minister the question which Paper, and states: started this process off again, I asked him: would he be willing to consider being flexible with the Order to reflect the needs of ‘and the matter be further considered by the Department of Local the individual local authorities? The Minister’s answer to that Government and the Environment and a further Order put before Tynwald for approval in October 2006 providing for a 10p rate for Castletown as was, basically, yes, he would certainly be happy to consider requested by the Castletown Town Commissioners.’ that, and would look at that. Mr President, I am moving an amendment: Why have I put that? Well, first and foremost, the Minister provided what had been requested by the local authorities. After the words ‘be approved’ add: Most of them said they were happy with what they got and ‘and the matter be further considered by the Department that is because they spend very little. But then you had Port of Local Government and the Environment and a further Erin who asked for 6 pence and Castletown who asked for Order put before Tynwald for approval in October 2006 10 pence – and we got the 6 pence. providing for a 10p rate for Castletown as requested by Now, Port Erin have a greater income than Castletown. Castletown Town Commissioners.’ This is all about revenue incomes, and what it means is that Castletown is disadvantaged, because by putting it as a rate The reason for that is because I think, first and foremost, if pence in the pound – which is all the Minister can do – by ever an Act needs revoking, it is this Act. (Mrs Crowe: Yes.) rigidly saying it will be, for everybody, 6p, then it is unfair. It is absolute nonsense. If I give the example: if you take Castletown, a penny I would refer Hon. Members to the helpful Answer that rate generates £2,129.60. Times that by six, and that means Mr Attorney provided when I asked him the Question, and they have £12,770.60 available to them. If it was times by asked him for legal interpretations. It goes into, virtually, one 10, they would have £21,296 available to them. and a half pages of trying to respond to that, and, quite clearly, They might not set it up to that level. As the Minister quite even quoting cases in the United Kingdom. rightly said, it is a matter for the local authority to determine To be honest, why does a local authority need to have at what level it should be, but the maximum is 6p, whether legislation that says that the members of that local authority they want to put it higher or not. That is a matter for them. should be controlled on whether they spend 4p of their rates But just to give an example, Mr President: Bride – a or 10p of their rates supporting their community, in whatever penny rate in Bride is £2,117.54. Times that by six and they process? They are answerable to their community. will have £12,705.24. Okay, they do not determine that and All that has happened – certainly, in the case of Castletown that is fine. But what is happening is, by the Order, we are – is that they have been, to some degree, shackled by the restricting what, for example, my town can do to support legislation. They have, rightly, looked at that legislation and its community. So, if the commissioners want to do more, said, ‘We can’t do what we would like to do’, and it has caused they are actually restricted and cannot and, therefore, their all sorts of problems for everybody. income is less. Quite clearly, the interpretation of this legislation is so If you go to Port Erin, a 6p rate in Port Erin is complex, it really does nobody any favours. I believe it is £16,654.56. totally unnecessary. I hope that the next administration will actively look to revoke that legislation, and replace it with Mrs Crowe: Yes, and they do nothing. something more practical, if there is a need for anything, by extending the powers. The Speaker: Now, the point is that the costs of providing I accept the point that the Minister said about the support in Port Erin and providing support in Castletown are Recreational Powers Act, but everybody has been scurrying exactly the same. The cost of labour is the same; the cost of round, trying to find ways to overcome the problem that has machinery or equipment is the same. It does not differentiate now been created, because people have looked more closely because it is in a different area. (Interjection) So, the point is

Local Government (Entertainments) Act 1950 – Local Government (Expenditure on Entertainments) Order 2006 – Debate commenced Orders of the Day TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 1669 T123 why we have this Act, I believe the Minister should introduce they believe that the money they are raising is far too much, flexibility, by determining, in this case, we will allow you then it is up to the ratepayers to deal with it. At the present 10p, because Castletown Commissioners said, ‘We would time, we are not encouraging our ratepayers to hold their like 10p please, because we’re having trouble dealing with rating authorities to account, and we should do so. what we support in our town’. If we do not do this, we are eventually undermining our The President: Mr Earnshaw, Hon. Member for communities. I can tell you, Mr President, that there has not Onchan. been a hotter issue in the town for decades, (Mrs Crowe: Exactly.) because of the problems that the commissioners Mr Earnshaw: Thank you, Eaghtyrane. have found themselves in, because they are restricted by this I am tempted to start a local authority reform debate, but legislation to some degree. Everybody, including myself, I will resist. (Laughter) has been looking to try and find out how to overcome this problem, and it is causing concern. The Speaker: We are where we are, though. Therefore, I would ask the Minister… I hope he will support the amendment, because it is not a problem, because Mr Earnshaw: I think my opening comments are that if Castletown Commissioners have in the Order 10p, but they the whole thing is a bit of a puzzle, at the moment. I have only determine to put 7p or 8p towards it, that is their decision. taken particular note of the consultation exercise that the All this does is set a maximum, but at least it will bring some Department has conducted with the various local authorities fairness in relation to the income available to them. around the Island. We have 24 local authorities, as we all The rate in the pound is irrelevant, in real terms, because know. We have only got 18 responses here from the local it is the income they have available to use that matters. It is authorities, so six of them cannot even be bothered to write all distorted. So, I am happy to support the motion before us, to the Department with a view. because, at least, it is moving forward. But I would ask that Three have written to say they have no view; nine do not we actually be realistic and build in this flexibility. want any increase; and one has no comment. In addition to The request from Castletown was for 10p, because they that… well, we have five where we have got some comments; assess they require that, to support their town. Why should four of them are wanting an increase. So, we have only got, we say no? We, specifically, amended the legislation, to at the end of the day, four out of 24 who are wanting an bring that flexibility in. increase at all, and those are for varying amounts. Therefore, Mr President, I hope that Members will So, there is not much justification really for doing understand the point I am making. I believe it is important, anything on this particular occasion, because most of the and I believe that we need to revoke this legislation in the authorities do not want anything to happen, it would seem. next administration, and bring something more practical in, and that we need to, in the meantime, make provision to put a The Speaker: The one who does is not getting maximum that is flexible to meet the needs of the authorities recognised! who say we need more. I beg to move. Mrs Hannan: Yes!

The President: Hon. Member, Mrs Crowe. Mr Earnshaw: I do take note of what the Speaker is saying, really, because if we take a 6p rate in Douglas, it Mrs Crowe: Mr President, I am delighted to second raises a large amount of money, whereas a 6p rate in, perhaps, this amendment. Santon does not raise a great deal of money, (Interjection I think we have only got to see today the number of events by Mrs Crowe) but it is a large percentage of what they that this particular authority supports. I know some of these actually charge, when they set a rate for the year: 6p is a big events are organised by voluntary organisations. We have, percentage of what they do. at the present time, the Southern 100. Visitors – we have So, I do agree with Mr Speaker. I am not saying I am fields packed with campers down in the south, all attracted supporting the motion that is here or the amendment, but to these races, all of which require some maintenance by the the whole thing wants taking apart and sorting out and local commissioners, in cleaning up and dealing with litter unravelling. that might be left, and all the rest of it. That is only one of the events that takes place in what Mrs Crowe: Yes, local government reform. was the capital of the Isle of Man. The tin bath races are another one, which attracts numerous visitors to the area. Mr Earnshaw: I think it is rather cock-eyed legislation We have other areas that put on little or nothing. You see, that we have got, at the moment. from the report, we have one local authority that claims that The only one that I think where we have got a good the entertainment funding that they have is utilised for beach response really is from Ramsey. Ramsey Commissioners cleaning. It is just a nonsense. have said, any expenditure limit should be a percentage of If a particular authority decides they want to put on the rateable income. I think they have got that about right. some special event… we have had recently, in Peel, the Peel I will be interested to hear the Minister’s comments to Viking event, which I feel certain will have required those the points that has been raised, when he sums up. local authorities to have extra resources for cleaning and the like. If that local area decides that they want to support The President: Which he will do… Oh, hold on. In a particular entertainment, in some form or another, I do that case, Hon. Members – Mr Lowey wishes to speak – so, believe that the local authorities… Mr Lowey will be the first to speak when we return after It is for the ratepayers to hold that authority to account. If lunch.

Local Government (Entertainments) Act 1950 – Local Government (Expenditure on Entertainments) Order 2006 – Debate commenced 1670 T123 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 Orders of the Day

Clarification on Legal Aid question Speaker! (Laughter) Mr President, thank you for that. Statement by the President Yes, obviously, when we get into local government, we can open up all sorts of doors for discussion. I think I would The President: Hon. Members, just before we do go say, first of all, that, not only do I recognise that this Act is, – and we will come back to start again, at this Item, at 2.30 certainly, past its date, but, in fact, all our local government p.m. – I was a little concerned, in response to the Hon. legislation is desperately in need of a consolidation Bill, to Member for Garff’s response to the question raised by Mr bring the whole lot into one new body of legislation. Karran, in regard to Legal Aid. I might be wrong, but I was That was the feeling that, if reform had been underway, it taking it that Mr Karran was referring to Legal Aid, generally, would have been brought in, in terms of the old legislation, or to the appeals situation. a new Bill, and then, once that had bedded in, then one of the My understanding is that Legal Aid applies to the High jobs of the next administration was to bring in a consolidated Court case, and not to an appeal to the Department. I have Local Government Bill, with any refinement. asked Mr Rodan, in fact, if he understands that to be the I think what Mr Speaker has highlighted – and I do not case. wish to make him the champion of a reform that he does not He has told me that, as Minister, he understands the case wish to put himself forward for! – is that the discrepancies that Legal Aid would be available, if an appeal went to the are in rateable values of the different communities, which do High Court, but not, in the normal course of events, an appeal not relate to their populations and their responsibilities. to the Department. I could highlight Port St Mary, which is there, for a village I just wanted to be absolutely sure that matter was with a population which is not half of Port Erin’s – it is well cleared up. over half of Port Erin’s – but the rateable value is under half So, 2.30 p.m. Hon. Members. Thank you. of Port Erin’s. So, they, naturally, struggle to do anything. To a similar extent, that is Castletown’s problem. It The Court adjourned at 1.09 p.m. has not got a big commercial base. It has got a lot of old and resumed its sitting at 2.30 p.m. properties, which are, generally, of low rateable value. At the end of the day, it is a matter of, actually, what is an acceptable level of gross rate that the people of Castletown are willing to support and the services that come with that Local Government (Expenditure on Entertainments) rate. (Mr Lowey: Commissioners.) Those are the issues Order 2006 behind it all. Debate continued I do have sympathy with that general principle. It is Amended motion carried within reason and, obviously, with some limitations, it is the responsibility of the ratepayers of the district or area to hold The President: Please be seated, Hon. Members. their local authority to account for the money that is raised Hon. Members, when we took our break for lunch, we and spent. So, I will accept the amendment. were at Item 29 and, as indicated, first to speak, this afternoon, Can I just say that there is a slight ambiguity in the will be the Hon. Member of Council, Mr Lowey. amendment, in that the matter ‘be further considered by the Mr Lowey: Thank you, Mr President. Department’, but is not just consideration, it is ‘consideration I rise to support the amendment in the name of Mr and do it’. If we considered it and decided it was not Speaker. The reason I do so is a simple one. appropriate, then, obviously, that might cause a conflict. This is not a new problem, by the way, and it has been In response to the particular issues of Castletown, one… Castletown, particularly, I remember, with the from what we can understand – and we will have to talk International Festival of Song and Dance which we used with Castletown more fully – it is that they, actually, were to have. It was, really, a magnificent thing but, of course, ascribing costs under the entertainment rate to supporting it withered on the vine, primarily because it was restricted. events, etc, which could, actually, legitimately be ascribed They wanted to do it and could not because of the constraints as part of their general rate, as part of their general functions placed on it by statute. and powers. So, in a sense, it may not be necessary. There I am all for constraints when they are necessary. This one is the Recreation and Leisure Act. here, they are maxima. They do not have to impose these But we will, obviously, give it consideration and if, for regulations and, if the town of Castletown believes it could some reason, we did not come back with the 10p rate, then, do with a slight increase, then I can see no reason at all… obviously, we would owe you a good explanation why and it would not upset anybody else, but if Castletown needs not. But, certainly, we would be happy to take that matter 10p, I think they should be allowed to get it. forward. I think, without widening the debate too far, I beg to The President: Mr Speaker to reply. (Mr Lowey: No!) move it as stands, and with the amendment. (Interjections and laughter) Mr Rimington to reply! The President: In that case, Hon. Members, the Item is The Speaker: I don’t need encouraging! (Interjections 29 on your Order Paper. To that, you have the amendment and laughter) circulated to you in the name of Mr Speaker. Hon. Members, I put to you first the amendment. Those in favour, please say The President: I am sure you would do, sir, but, on this aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. occasion, I will let Mr Rimington reply! I then put to Hon. Members the motion, as amended. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have The Minister: Perhaps it might as well have been Mr it. The ayes have it.

Clarification on Legal Aid question – Statement by the President Local Government (Expenditure on Entertainments) Order 2006 – Debate continued – Amended motion carried Orders of the Day TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 1671 T123

Moneylenders Act 1991 Home Affairs on the Police Advisory Group and that the Moneylenders (Exempt Persons) (No. 1) Regulations recommendation be approved. 2006 approved The President: Now, Hon. Members, at this particular 30. The Chairman of the Isle of Man Office of Fair Trading juncture, you will recall that, in fact, we bypassed Item 14, to move: because there was a discrepancy in the circulation of papers. We now revert to Item 14, Hon. Members and, although I That the Moneylenders (Exempt Persons) (No. 1) call the Minister for Home Affairs, perhaps we could have Regulations 2006 be approved. [SD No 460/06] a shortened introduction, sir.

The President: I turn, then, to Item 30. We will just deal The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Shimmin): Thank with Item 30: the Chairman of the Isle of Man Office of Fair you, Mr President. Trading, Mr Gill, to move. May I, firstly, apologise to the House for the administrative error which did not include the appendices with the Report. The Chairman of the Isle of Man Office of Fair I am, also, grateful for this opportunity just to, briefly, Trading (Mr Gill): Thank you, Eaghtyrane. reintroduce it, along with the reference that I made yesterday The Moneylenders Act 1991 requires anyone carrying to the appendices. on the business of lending money in the Isle of Man to Hon. Members will remember that the motion brought be registered with the Office of Fair Trading. When the forward by Mr Delaney was stimulated by comments made legislation was drafted, some 15 years ago, it was intended in a motion moved by Mr Karran. So, I recognise that it that registration would be a means whereby local consumers was Mr Delaney who came forward with this, and that was could be protected from unscrupulous lenders. amended, in order to read the amended motion, which is on The legislation was drafted in such a way as to cover page 2. That was to avoid the necessity for a lengthy piece of a wide range of money-lending activities, to ensure that legislation for Isle of Man purposes but, in order to, actually, it could not be circumvented. In doing so, it means that strengthen the role and responsibilities of the Police Advisory many transactions, some of which were never envisaged, Group (PAG). In order to do that, it was under the guidance are currently caught by the legislation. However, the of Sir Ronnie Flanagan and the HMI of Constabularies. Moneylenders Act does allow for the Office to exempt I have been in communication with Sir Ronnie and, as persons from the requirement to register, by making he is an extremely busy gentleman, he has passed me over regulations which have to be approved by this Court. to Ken Williams, who is the HMI for this region. It is his The Regulations before this Hon. Court today exempt the correspondence that is in appendix C. Dorchester Limited Partnership from being registered. The The motion went on to say that the PAG should consider Partnership will, effectively, be investing in local portfolios the most appropriate means for effective accountability, in offered to it by a UK bank and, as such, the lending will respect of the Isle of Man Constabulary, and make a report of be between businesses, rather than between a business and the deliberations. I, yesterday, put on record my appreciation an individual. Furthermore, the Office of Fair Trading has to Mrs Hannan and Mr Speaker, who have been working with obtained warranties that no loans will be made to consumers my Department and myself, in order to get to this stage. or to persons residing in the Isle of Man and, as a result, the Therefore, before you today, you have a brief Report Office commends these Regulations to Hon. Members and which gives an outline of how the Department proposes seeks their approval. to move forward with the Police Advisory Group. It is Eaghtyrane, I beg to move. supported by the members of the existing Police Advisory Group, who have been quite critical of the failure to operate The President: Hon. Member for Douglas East, Mrs it properly, in recent years, and is, also, validated by H M Cannell. Inspector of Constabulary (HMIC). I would just refer you to that appendix, which now all Mrs Cannell: Thank you, Mr President. I beg to second Hon. Members will have, which I hope the Court will accept and reserve my remarks. is a pragmatic way forward for the Island. I quote from that, which says: The President: The motion, Hon. Members, that I put to the Court is that printed at Item 30, that the Moneylenders ‘Thank you for giving me an opportunity to comment on the draft code (Exempt Persons) (No. 1) Regulations 2006 be approved. of conduct for members of the Police Advisory Group (PAG). I have discussed the draft with my colleagues and we are all very Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have comfortable with your proposals. In particular the model seems ideal it. The ayes have it. for the special challenges of the Isle of Man, i.e. customised for your needs rather than embrace a police authority as witnessed in England and Wales. I think the package you propose is administratively tidy and will meet your constitutional needs. Police Advisory Group No doubt, as all get familiar with the role, adjustments will be called Report and recommendation for, but for now I think the code is an excellent platform to assist your Debate resumed decision making.’

14. Debate resumed on the following motion moved by Mr Therefore, I do not believe that the Report in front of you Shimmin: is earth shattering, nor was it meant to be. The statute says, clearly, that we have to constitute a Police Advisory Group. That Tynwald notes the report of the Department of That has fallen into a period of time when it has not been

Moneylenders Act 1991 – Moneylenders (Exempt Persons) (No. 1) Regulations 2006 approved Police Advisory Group – Report and recommendation – Debate resumed 1672 T123 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 Orders of the Day utilised to the benefit of the effective and efficient use of the difference to the Police Advisory Group. Police Service. We do, collectively, believe that this now will We always said, at the Police Advisory Group, that we give a platform for us to move forward into the future. are a statutory body. We know what our responsibilities With that, I beg to move, Mr President. should be. It is down under legislation. We should deal with these issues. The President: Mr Duggan, Hon. Member for Douglas But to actually get together and concentrate the minds South. on what the Police Advisory Group should be doing has been extremely frustrating, because it is really down to the Mr Duggan: I beg to second, sir. Department and the Minister to give things to the Police Advisory Group – that is what the statute says – for them to The President: Mr Earnshaw. discuss and report on. I think, with this outline programme that we have before us now, it does give us hope that the Mr Earnshaw: Yes, thank you, Eaghtyrane. Police Advisory Group, in the future, will be able to work I would like to thank the Minister for getting the matter to this programme, and will be able to have time to consider back on the rails, properly, here. I am not going to repeat issues. what I said on Tuesday, certainly not all of it, Eaghtyrane. Some legislation is produced, and it is sent on an e-mail, (A Member: Hear, hear.) maybe two or three days before there is a presentation to But the comment that I made was that the Hon. Member Members of Tynwald. This is not a Tynwald Committee; for West Douglas, Mr Delaney, I think, moved this because this is a Government Committee – a Committee of the it sprang out of dissatisfaction with certain methodology, Department of Home Affairs, but it seems it is almost, in in the way the Police is being run at the moment. It was some instances, to tell us just before the rest of the Tynwald suitably amended. Members are told, so that we actually know, but we never But the point that I made – or tried to, earlier in the sitting discuss it. on Tuesday, I think it was I spoke – was that the Report On the other side, sometimes statements and all sorts of does not really seem to change anything. It just seems to be issues are introduced, without even a reference to the Police tinkering about. I do not think I am going to vote against Advisory Group, just for information’s sake. Therefore, it has this, but I am just wondering what it really changes, over been extremely frustrating to be on this Committee. what we have got at the moment. So, I shall support it. I shall hope that, in the next five I would just like the Minister to convince me, because years, the people serving on the Police Advisory Group will that is the question I am asking myself: what has really feel more fulfilled than I have in the past. But I have stayed changed? How is this going to improve things? What is in there, purely because I felt that, in the end, we would get bolstering it? somewhere. We have, eventually, got this, that is before us I do not really think there is anything more I can add to now, so I would hope that Members will support it. that. I think that is the primary question I have got, and I am in the Minister’s hands, when he sums up.

The President: Hon. Member for Peel, Mrs Hannan. Welcome to St Ninian’s School

Mrs Hannan: Thank you, Eaghtyrane. The President: Perhaps, Hon. Members, it would be For the last five years, I have served on the Police opportune, at this stage, to welcome into our Public Gallery, Advisory Group – or at least the last four and a half years. I students from St Ninian’s, as I understand it. think the comments made by the Minister who has not long I understand that, maybe, you will be taking part in Junior been in the Department are right in that the motions that have Tynwald in coming days. Welcome. been before this Court have concentrated the mind. But I can point out, that for the last four and a half years, Members: Hear, hear. both Mr Speaker and I have been trying to get more of a constitution, more of something worthwhile for the Police Advisory Group to be involved in. I think, at long last, for the next five years, we have something that, maybe, the next Police Advisory Group members of the Police Advisory Group will be able to get Debate continued their teeth into, with a bit more outcome than we have been Motion carried able to have. It has been a very frustrating Group to be a member of. The President: Continuing with the debate, Hon. We have turned up, almost to all the meetings. Meetings have Member for Douglas East, Mrs Cannell. been cancelled at very short notice. The items that have been on the agenda – if there were items on the agenda – have, Mrs Cannell: Thank you, Mr President. except for one or two issues, been extremely frustrating. I Mr President, I have just got a number of queries, think both Mr Speaker and myself have stayed in there, in really, in respect of the appendices that were circulated to the hope that we can turn things round. Hon. Members this morning. Bearing in mind that we have, So, I think I would just like to put on record that the before us, a code of conduct for the members of the Police members of the Police Advisory Group have felt, for the Advisory Group, am I to assume, therefore, that there was last, at least, four years, that there needed to be a change. not a code of conduct in place, before? I seem to think that There needed to be something different, and it has taken us is, possibly, the case, bearing in mind the previous speaker’s until this time, to get something which is going to make a comments.

Police Advisory Group – Report and recommendation – Debate resumed Welcome to St Ninian’s School Police Advisory Group – Debate continued –Motion carried Orders of the Day TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 1673 T123

Has there been a code of conduct in place, before? Could strongly of the view that the Minister, sitting as Chairman the Minister advise how many members are currently serving of the Police Advisory Group or being on it, is not really on this Advisory Group, and who they are, and what their appropriate, because the Minister is the Department. As length of term of office is? soon as he says, ‘Yes’, round that table, then, to be honest, Further, looking at page 3 of the code of conduct, in the rest of the body do not need to be there. terms of part 2, Interests, Disclosure of Conflicts of Interests, I think it is very important that, when decisions are being I find it quite interesting, in section 8, where it talks about made, or when the Police Advisory Group are listening to and ‘Participation in Relation to Disclosed Interests’: raising points, they are actually transmitted to the Minister, then, as a step back from the Group itself, to consider the ‘A member with a conflict of interest in any matter – issues and see if they are in the best interests of the Isle of (a) must withdraw from the room where a meeting is being held whenever it becomes apparent that the matter is being considered at Man Police Force, and, of course, the people of the Isle of that meeting, unless he/she has obtained a dispensation to do so’. Man. So, I think those issues are quite important. The other thing, I think, that has been missing is What I would like to ask is: is it normal course for the legislation being brought before the Police Advisory Group. meetings to be minuted, or are notes merely taken? If they When there are substantial changes in legislation, then I think are minuted, would it not also have been appropriate to put it is very important that the Police Advisory Group: (1) have into this code that not only must the member declare the had the opportunity to discuss it; and (2) have an input into conflict of interest, withdraw from the meeting, but that that it, before it comes forward. fact should, also, be minuted? There was a difficult situation, as the Minister is aware, Really, they are the only queries that I have. I am prepared recently, in the Keys, where Mrs Hannan and I, both as to give it time, let it bed in, and see how it works. It really members of the Police Advisory Group, had considerable does not reflect the full intention of the original mover of the concerns about legislation that was being promoted, which motion, the Hon. Member for West Douglas, Mr Delaney, were in relation to police powers. The Minister considered but I am prepared to be patient, to see how it works. that, after the Bill had been printed, and took some action on it. But it was unfortunate that that situation arose, and it The President: Mr Speaker. is really better to manage it. I think the important thing is that, with this foundation, The Speaker: Thank you, Mr President. hopefully it will develop, hopefully it will be managed in a Just, really, as a member of the Police Advisory Group, way that will take it forward, and make it that the PAG have I want to make a brief comment on this issue. a meaningful role. I think, again, echoing the comments of the Hon. Member I think it is fair to say that the Minister and his for Peel, Mrs Hannan, who made it clear that the frustration Department, in both Ministers and their Members, and the that we felt, being on the Police Advisory Group over the last outside members who make up PAG, in fact, felt themselves four and a half plus years, has, actually, been quite difficult. somewhat frustrated, at times, because trying to find a way We have found that when we have arrived there, there was through this, and making it meaningful was quite difficult. not, really, a clear purpose for the Police Advisory Group. It I hope, very importantly, that the officers of the was clearly set out in the statute, what their role was, but I Department of Home Affairs and the Chief Constable and think it is pretty obvious that it, actually, had just become a the officers from his side who attend, in fact, will build on general talking shop, prior to that time, and really did not deal this, to make sure that the whole thing does develop in a way with issues that I think was the intention of Tynwald and the that we envisage it. Keys, the branches, when they approved the legislation. I have to say, coming back to the issue of having a Police I think what we have endeavoured to do, with the Board, it is very important that Members understand that we support of the previous Minister, Mr Braidwood, and present are not in the position of a local authority. We have a different Minister, Mr Shimmin, is try to concentrate everybody’s structure, and a different legislative basis for our Police minds, to try and really understand what it is we are looking Force, the Minister for Home Affairs and so on. It is more for the role of the Police Advisory Group to do. akin, really, to the Metropolitan Police Force. Therefore, In legislative terms, the role is, actually, quite clearly to have this body slotted in, that, actually, would have an set out. That is the easy bit! The next bit is actually making executive role, would not really work, because you would it happen and making it work. There have been occasions just have conflict between one and the other. where, as members, as, again, the Hon. Member for Peel Ultimately, Tynwald Court will hold the Minister has said, we have been somewhat frustrated to find that answerable for the actions of the Department of Home Affairs situations arose where the members of PAG either were the and the Police Force, and nobody else. So, I think that this is last to hear about something, or things were happening and a good way forward, based on the legislation that is already we knew nothing at all about it. We felt, ‘Well, how on earth in being. I hope that Members will support it, and I hope can we represent a public view, and give an input into policy that we will see it go forward, to the benefit of everybody, changes, if they are not being brought before PAG, where it in the future. Time will tell. should have been brought before us?’ Now, quite clearly, the Police Advisory Group is not an The President: Mrs Christian, Hon. Member of executive body. I think it has been helpful in our discussions Council. to clarify that, with everybody. I am hoping that what we have actually set down is, really, a small step but an important step, Mrs Christian: Thank you, Mr President. so that the next PAG, and the Minister and his Department, I accept that this Report is about putting some structure on will actually build on that. something which statutorily is required to be done. However, I would just like to endorse the issue that I have been very it does concern me a bit that we hear talk about, ‘This body

Police Advisory Group – Debate continued –Motion carried 1674 T123 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 Orders of the Day hasn’t been able to function properly – we hope it will grow can see from that, that, although in the past, there had been into something.’ If there is not anything there to grow, in the an intention to have a larger number of people, I think the first place, why do we have it? way in which it has worked has allowed it to drop into this Whilst I accept that there is a statutory requirement, it lack of clarity. raises the issue with me again – and I know that other people I strongly agree with the Speaker, when he talks about the may take a different view from me on this – it does set out its Minister being no longer appropriate to be the Chair of that. timetable, which is structured, sensible and useful, in terms I think that is, historically, what has evolved and I think it is of feeding matters through and feeding them back again to inappropriate. I am glad that that is being recognised. the Department. But I wonder whether we still need a Police With regard to the code of conduct, no I do not believe Consultative Forum, as well as a Police Advisory Group. there was a formal, written down code of conduct, previously. We seem to have groups to advise the advisory groups That reflects, I think, Government’s general views on to advise the Minister. It seems to me, if you want to give governance, now, of a variety of bodies. Therefore, it is being the Advisory Group a function, it could incorporate that identified that it should be in place. It is fairly generic. It has consultative function. But that does not seem to have been been personalised for those aspects that were required. explored, at this particular time. As this will be an internal arrangement within the Now, I can see that it may not have been considered Department, I can assure Mrs Christian that we will look at appropriate to review it, because this structure has been set the wording of that, and would not have to revert back to up, and you have been looking to ‘beef up’ the function of the Tynwald, in order to change it. Advisory Group. But I do hope that the Minister, perhaps in The Hon. Member for East Douglas went on about replying, can indicate whether or not the Police Consultative minuting. Yes, the Committee is always minuted and, Forum, actually, in itself, has a very meaty role. indeed, under section 5, it does talk about draft minutes of I know, at the time when it was started, a road show the meetings provided to the Minister within seven working went around the Island and, in some instances, it was well days and, likewise, that is the entire Committee. supported. But, of late, I must admit, very little has been So, it will be fully minuted, and anybody who did have heard of that. Indeed, when they have meetings, I am not to leave for a conflict of interest, that I would expect to be sure that they are terribly well supported, and, therefore, minuted, at that time. you wonder whether there is actually a need. We seem to be Mrs Christian raised the issue about the Police coming overly bureaucratic in all these issues of… I am not Consultative Forum. Again, I believe this is a very useful saying we should not consult, but are we creating too many tool which has not always been usefully operated. However, and too large a body to deal with these issues? in the last 12 months, we have had them circulating around Secondly, Mr President, in terms of the code of conduct – the different parts of the Island, and the attendance was good, and I am quite sure that the members of the Advisory Group but that was the first time it has been done for a couple of would have, whether or not it was written down, observed years. the principles of the code of conduct – but I am concerned Again, that needs the direction and the purpose to be put, that the wording in 8 is actually faulty. giving them a task. Whether that might be dealing with the In 8(a) it says: general community or whether that might be dealing with elderly concerns, youth issues, attending school, youth clubs, ‘A member with a conflict of interest in any matter – there are a variety of means, where lay input is available to, (a) must withdraw from the room where a meeting is being held whenever it becomes apparent that the matter is being considered at actually, be directed, to go and seek the views of people, that meeting, unless he/she has obtained a dispensation to do so’. without it being from the Police Advisory Group. I would remind Hon. Members that we are dealing, I believe it should say, ‘dispensation not to do so.’ effectively, within the statute, which is repeated on page Perhaps, the Minister could take a look at that, and if it is a 4, which does say that the Department shall establish the typographical error, get it corrected – either that, or change Police Advisory Group, and the Police Consultative Forum. the wording to say, ‘a dispensation to remain in the room’. Therefore, any variation on that, I am quite happy to look at, but, at the moment, we were attempting to come forward The President: Minister, Mr Shimmin, to reply. with a practical way, working within the existing statute and giving it a purpose. The Minister: Thank you, Mr President. If this does not materialise, and the benefits that Mr Firstly, with regard to the Member for East Douglas, Speaker and Mrs Hannan have outlined, then, certainly, I the Police Advisory Group, to my knowledge, in recent would expect the Department or, indeed, Tynwald to revisit times, has consisted of the Minister, and the Members of the the whole issue. I think it is worth another opportunity to Department, elected from Tynwald. In order to try and get a re-invigorate this, in order to achieve what was originally geographic split, at the commencement of this House, four intended. and a half years ago, there were appointed Mr Speaker, and With regard to Mr Earnshaw, I accept and acknowledge Mrs Hannan to represent the west. that, yes, it was regarding dissatisfaction, at that time. We are, Mr Bob Jeavons still continues to be a member of hopefully, moving forward from that period of time. However, the Police Advisory Group. Mrs Voirrey Stockdale was it still does remain a concern of some Hon. Members. on. However, she has tendered her resignation through a This was intended to try and give a re-focus and I think job change, and there will be a person from that area of the best answer to his comments, really, have come from responsibility of youth work, which could be brought onto the two members of the Group who have seen it when it has the Police Advisory Group. not been performing, and the optimism that it will now be a In attendance would be officers and the Chief Constable significant improvement. or his Deputy and a member of the Police Federation. We So, with that, Mr President, I beg to move.

Police Advisory Group – Debate continued –Motion carried Orders of the Day TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 1675 T123

The President: Hon. Members, the motion that I put to I call on the Hon. Member of Council, Mr Lowey, to the Court is that printed at Item 14, that Tynwald notes the move. Report of Home Affairs on the Police Advisory Group, and that the recommendation be approved. Hon. Members, those Mr Lowey: Thank you, Mr President. in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. Hon. Members, pensions are hardly the most exciting subject to engage politicians anywhere. However, pensions A division was called for and voting resulted as are a major concern of everyone. follows: My resolution is placed as a response to a major glitch, to put it at its best, or if you like, a serious failure, as has been In the Keys – Ayes 19, Noes 1 told to me, of a major employer to implement an agreement relating to pensions. That employer was the Isle of Man FOR AGAINST Government. Mr Anderson Mr Karran Pensions are expensive and have to be paid for. It Mr Cannan Mr Teare is hardly surprising that, with people living longer, the Mr Rodan demand on resources is, quite simply, too much for present Mr Rimington arrangements. That has been apparent for many years and, Mr Gill while we have begun to attempt to address the growing Mr Gawne problem – and I note that in the Government estimates, I Mr Houghton Mr Henderson think it is £77 million that has been put into the Civil Service Mr Cretney Pension Fund – we are getting deeper and deeper into a Mr Duggan vortex, a morass almost, of financial difficulties that will Mr Braidwood take a concerted effort by everyone to stall or even to slow Mrs Cannell it up, and then, hopefully, to address. Mr Shimmin Mr President, it is also compounded – the Civil Service Mrs Hannan Mrs Craine position – with a breakdown of trust in the body charged Mr Earnshaw with dealing with Government employees. There is now Capt. Douglas an acceptance that the Civil Service Commission failed to The Speaker consult their employees in 2002, when the UK changed their Scheme, as they were required to do. Now, the resulting The Speaker: Mr President, the motion carries in the four years – and I use the words just descriptively – almost House of Keys, with 19 votes for, 1 vote against. guerrilla warfare, standoff, legal chasing, advice seeking positions – it helps no-one and resolves little. In the Council – Ayes 7, Noes 1 Whatever the reasons were or are advanced, to justify the standoff by both sides, it is in no-one’s final interest for FOR AGAINST this to continue. The Lord Bishop Mr Butt Mr Lowey Now, I am very grateful to the Chairman of the Civil Mr Waft Service Commission and his Chief Executive for giving Mr Singer me some of their valuable time, last week, to talk through Mrs Christian the problems. I was very grateful, and I was the wiser when Mrs Crowe I came out. Mr Downie Now, my resolution for a Select Committee to investigate The President: With 7 for, 1 against in the Council, Hon. and report back on the issues is not an overt attempt to Members, the motion, therefore, carries. muscle in on a Department or an agency charged with the responsibilities of pension provision; but it is a sincere attempt to assist both sides to put an end to their present problems and, finally, face up to the real challenges of a Principal Civil Service Pension Schemes secure future pension plan that is affordable, gives financial Investigation by committee security for their senior years, based on evidence-based Motion carried facts. I hope that will conform to generally accepted accountancy 31. The Hon. Member of the Council (Mr Lowey) to principles (GAAP) practices. I am sure I will be told that we move: are doing just that, at the moment, and this will only duplicate or slow down the proceedings – in other words, too many Further to the widespread concern and uncertainty cooks spoiling the broth. relating to the Principal Civil Service Pension Schemes Hon. Members, we have not made a good pot of broth that Tynwald appoints a Committee of three members up to date. I, genuinely, believe that fresh eyes and ears may with powers to take written and oral evidence pursuant just help. I am not going to be arrogant enough to say it will to sections 3 and 4 of the Tynwald Proceedings Act 1876 resolve it, but it may, and that cannot be bad. to investigate the issues and report back at the October Pensions, in the round, certainly need addressing. It is my 2006 sitting. view that this topic will dominate the next few years, as the social issue number one. We need to inform ourselves of the The President: Hon. Members, having taken the financial realities, as well as the workforce and the electorate, remaining Items up to 31, we now turn to Item 31, which is so we can begin to engage with the subject matter. headed ‘Principal Civil Service Pension Schemes’. Now, I do know that the Civil Service Commission has

Police Advisory Group – Debate continued –Motion carried Principal Civil Service Pension Schemes – Investigation by committee – Motion carried 1676 T123 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 Orders of the Day been wrestling with it, and Government to a degree. Treasury provide for themselves a pension provision – there are very has recognised that by setting up the Fund in the first place, few final salary schemes in the private sector, at all – but, and adding a little bit to it each year. But it is not getting to on top of providing for themselves, which will become the core issue. an increasing burden for themselves, they are having to I, also, know – and I am certain of this – I have not pay, through taxes, to provide the pensions for our civil checked, but I am certain of it – that DHSS will, certainly, be servants. looking at pensions, because it is in their remit so to do. That Increasingly, that is becoming an area that is beginning is for the state pension for everybody, and it is ongoing. to upset our taxpayers and one could hardly blame them. Talk, I know, is cheap, but I have to say, Hon. Members, We are saying all the time now, ‘At 20, you must start pretending we do not have a problem is the worst scenario looking – earlier. You must start thinking about your pension of all. It is not just foolish. It is cruel and cheap, because we provision for the future.’ But, all the time that they are trying are just conning ourselves. to do that, and trying to provide for themselves, increasingly, My resolution is not intended to be a criticism of anyone. amounts of taxes are being put aside to try and ensure that It is an attempt to engage everyone – and I use the word the Pension Scheme will be sustainable. ‘everyone’. This Court is charged with making policy. How I think it is imperative that we just try to say to the can we make policy, if only certain sections of the Court are Government, ‘We, actually, want your Government to do in possession of the facts? I believe it is the role of this Court something about this.’ Politically, we have been asking to, actually, have an overview. and asking. We do not see a commitment. We do not see I said we want to engage everybody – this is the executive, a policy. I am sure we are going to be told that the Civil backbenchers and the professionals – to face, head on, one Service Commission will be looking at it, or there will be of the largest financial problems that faces this, and future, a little group. administrations. There is no one answer. Like most problems, But I know it is five years ago that I raised this issue. I I think the first thing you have got to do is identify them, and know other Ministers, at that time, raised the issue. I do not take steps early to resolve them. know what has been done about it since, but what I do know I think we have lost the time element. I think it is is that, if we were, as a Government, to look to be scrutinised galloping towards us at too fast a rate. All of us will have to to FSR17 standard GAAP accountancy practices, I do not work longer. We may all have to increase our contributions. believe that our pension fund would stand scrutiny. Nothing is for nothing. Can we afford it? All of these questions must be asked. Are the agencies The President: Member for Douglas North, Mr of Government that we are using, at the moment, the right Houghton. agencies? I think we have got to ask that question as well. I have run big Departments of Government; I have Mr Houghton: Thank you, Mr President. run small Departments of Government. We have a small Mr President, pensions is a prominent issue, and the Department of Government running a rather large... And I Schemes to which the Hon. Member’s resolution refers have do not know whether the thing is right or not. It may be. It subject to detailed legal scrutiny already. The Civil Service may not be. Pension Scheme, and those others which are analogous to the So, I am looking at the problem in the round. The list is United Kingdom Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme, long. We are not unique in the Isle of Man – longer living, either wholly, or in part, are complex, both in terms of their better health. Do we conform with accepted actuarial construction and interpretation. standards? I am led to believe that we do not. All of this has to be viewed against the legal framework I am seeker after information. This select committee under which those Schemes are made. can, perhaps, get that out on the table and let us see what I can appreciate Members’ concerns about pensions we would be doing, if it was on the open market, and not into the future, and I will mention something more about within house. this shortly, Mr President. This is an issue which needs We should be working as one on this, Mr President, to considerable research due to the wider implications in both resolve this major growing challenge. My resolution should, an economic and employment context. I think, be supported, as a signal that we are determined Government has already indicated that public service to resolve present problems, and meet the challenges that pensions, which total some 21 Schemes, will be subject to pension provision will require for the immediate future, not review as a consequence of reform in the United Kingdom, just of this administration, but the next administration. and the outcome of such review will, no doubt, present an I beg to move. incoming administration, with key issues for consideration, in regard to the future pension arrangements, including the The President: Mrs Crowe, Hon. Member of Council. funding of them. However, that review is separate and distinct from the Mrs Crowe: I am delighted to second my hon. colleague’s current situation. motion, Mr President. The Civil Service Commission has acknowledged that For many years, we have been asking civil servants, the changes to the United Kingdom Principal Civil Service Departments, to address, to give us information about the Pension Scheme in 2002 should have been implemented, and Pension Scheme. The motion itself, on the Order Paper, the intention is to do so. Importantly, though the Commission seems pretty specific, but I notice that the mover of the must get on and fulfil its obligations, as scheme manager, motion widened his area, then, to include the sustainability as it is required to do under pensions legislation, thus far of the Civil Service Pension Fund. the Commission has been open and transparent in handling I think, increasingly, taxpayers on the Isle of Man are these complex issues, both with those affected, personally, beginning to wonder why, when they have themselves to and with Members of this Hon. Court. It has committed to

Principal Civil Service Pension Schemes – Investigation by committee – Motion carried Orders of the Day TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 1677 T123 continue to act in this way, as decisions are reached and Association on this matter, because it is vitally important implementation progresses. that we are transparent on this matter. About 16 per cent of Schemes’ members have sought We are sharing our legal advice with those unions – clarification or information about the pension situation, actually sharing it. There is a confidentiality clause that it and the Commission is discussing, with the trade unions, cannot be issued elsewhere, but the legal advice has been proposals for implementation. All of this takes time and shared. The unions, at this point in time, are considering resources. that legal advice, at this stage – and this is the latest updated The Commission, also, recognises that the general debate position. They are considering that legal advice, in order for on pensions can bring with it further concern and uncertainty us to meet and bring matters further forward. for some on certain occasions. It is considered that this is a So, it is vitally important that the Court understands there situation which is to be avoided wherever possible, in order is no stand-off, there is no guerrilla warfare, but there are to reassure those people who are concerned. very business-like negotiations and relationship going on Mr President, as I have said, the Commission is with the Government Officers’ Association. committed to open and transparent handling of the pension Mr President, the Hon. Member, Mr Lowey, also, said situation, and has, already, undertaken to keep Members and that this is a small Government Department dealing with a individual Scheme members appraised of developments. large financial issue. Yes and no, I would say on that issue. Therefore, to assist the Hon. Member of Council, Mr I think, again, he is linking it with the general issue and Lowey, and this Hon. Court, there is an alternative to a select concern of pensions and how pensions are going to be paid committee, which I consider would be just as effective, at this for in the future, with all the incumbent actuarial advice, in time. It would, also, bring clarity to and focus on the issues all of that matter. which lie at the heart of the Hon. Member’s resolution. What we need to be distinct about here is the issues Mr President, my amendment states: surrounding the non-implementation of the 2002 Scheme, and that to do with the wider implications that the Treasury have Delete the words after: ‘Further to the’ and replace concerns about are two quite separate and distinct elements. with: It is vitally important that Hon. Members understand that, ‘presentation and information paper to Members from the because the issue here that you are voting upon is the whys Civil Service Commission on 4th April 2006, requests the and wherefores of the 2002 Scheme not being implemented Civil Service Commission to prepare a progress report – not the wider issue on pensions. relating to the implementation in the Island of: I cannot stress that enough, Mr President. That is the (a) the provisions of the 2002 section of the UK Principal reason why I am proposing to put this amendment forward Civil Service Pension Scheme, which introduced the in the way that I have, because I feel, Mr President, that the Classic Plus Scheme and the Premium Scheme, and works that are going on behind the scenes in the Commission, (b) further amendments to the UK Principal Civil Service and with the very expensive legal advice that we are obtaining Pension Scheme introduced since that time; from counsel in the United Kingdom, in order to work with and report to the October 2006 sitting.’ the Government Officers’ Association on this matter, and also their legal advisers, in order to make sure that everything is Having listened carefully to the arguments put forward by topped and tailed, and done in a proper way. the Hon. Member of Council, Mr Lowey, there is confusion As Hon. Members of this Court will understand, we deal as to what the Hon. Member wishes to move forward in his with a lot of politics. This is pension schemes that nobody motion, and in the speech that he put. can be politic about. It has to be correct. The issue of pension His motion is to have a Select Committee look into the funds and placing more moneys in pension funds – that I whys and wherefores of why the Principal Civil Service support the Hon. Member of Council about, when he says Pension Scheme 2002, United Kingdom element, was not that, of course, there have to be further injections into those brought in in that time, which is fine. That is going forward funds – is a separate and distinct matter for another day and now, in very great depth, by the Commission, at this that is to do with politics. particular point in time. But this is down to the legalities surrounding the But the Hon. Member goes further by deepening the background issues of the reason why that Scheme was concerns, and linking them, and confusing the issue, with not brought forward. I do know that there will be further other pension concerns, such as pension funds, which are of comment made to the Court from other Members who have serious concern – do not get me wrong – but have nothing good or great understanding of what is going on in this whatsoever to do with the way the Hon. Member of the particular area. Council’s motion is laid out at Item 31 of this Agenda. So, Mr President, there is not a vortex. We are not in The Hon. Member makes some rather concerning financial difficulties. This is not an issue to set hares running, comments, such as there is guerrilla warfare going on, with whereby money is missing out of a pension fund or so on. It a stand-off. Can I assure this Hon. Court, Mr President, there has got nothing whatsoever to do with that. is no such thing happening at all. Finally, Mr President, the implementation, which will happen – the proper implementation of the 2002 Scheme, Mr Lowey: There was. when that is all brought forward – will not have any financial consequence for the Government, as far as I can see at this Mr Houghton: No such thing happening at all. There is time – and I really mean that. no stand-off – and I would assume that he means with the The issues are to do with the contributions of the unions – on this. We are working extremely closely with employee, not additional contributions of the employer. It the unions, and I am having monthly, or even more regular, is vitally important that we all understand that. dialogue with the Chairman of the Government Officers’ So, this is not a pension fund issue; it is nothing to do

Principal Civil Service Pension Schemes – Investigation by committee – Motion carried 1678 T123 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 Orders of the Day with concerns in the future. This is just about making sure motion. It is another classic attempt to move something that we had a solid legal rock that we can rest this Scheme into the long grass, and we have already talked about the upon, when it is issued to our civil servants, as we move long grass during this sitting. It is another illustration of forward. masterly inaction. So, Mr President, I would like to move that this Three and a half years, as I said before, nothing done. amendment is supported by Hon. Members, and I do hope I am concerned at the delay, and I have to say that his they do. understanding of the issues are amply demonstrated by Thank you, sir. his own comments, when he says we are not in financial difficulties. The President: Hon. Member for Ayre, Mr Teare. Well, the Chief Minister, in March 2005 conceded that the Capital Fund, at that time, to provide for our public sector Mr Teare: Thank you, Mr President. pensions, should have been £1 billion – one thousand million I am in full support of the motion put forward by the Hon. pounds. If that is not financial difficulties, then I do not know Member of Council, Mr Lowey. I feel that he is, quite rightly, what is financial difficulties (Interjection by Mrs Crowe) – focusing on the issue; not only the issue of pensions, sir, but putting it politely, with due respect to the Bishop. the management of this issue by the Commission. This is a complex issue, but you really do not need to be a I have a high regard for the Chair of the Commission Philadelphia lawyer to understand it. Let us put it to a select but, unfortunately, this matter has been going on now for committee. The select committee can take external advice, a considerable period of time and nothing appears to be where it feels necessary, (Mrs Crowe: Absolutely.) and let happening. us draw this to a conclusion, without any further delay and I would say that the staff – our staff, the people upon uncertainty for our staff. whom we rely – are entitled to clarity. What are they getting? Let us do it and do it now. By failing to grasp this nettle, They are definitely not getting clarity. Tynwald, too, needs it is going to get bigger and bigger, and when we have to certainty on costs. We are told that there is going to be no pull it out of the ground, it is going to cause more and more cost falling on Government. Well, when people get extra pain for everybody involved. benefits, there has got to be a cost falling on somewhere. Let us do it; let us do it now. (Mrs Crowe: Hear, hear.) Who is it going to fall on? Thank you, Mr President. If we are looking to recover money from people who have already retired, how are we going to do that? Are we The President: Mr Duggan, Hon. Member for Douglas going to say, ‘Hang on a minute, we are going to stop paying South. your pension, until we have recovered the money that we feel is due to us’? Mr Duggan: Thank you, Mr President. What is the cost of this inertia to date? We are told there I was going to ask the Attorney General, but he is not is none, but I have considerable difficulty in grasping that here, sir, regarding the conflict of interest in Mr Lowey’s concept. I do not really appreciate how that can be correct. resolution. Members of Tynwald, as we are well aware, For example, if members of the fund are required to pay are linked to the system, and I just wondered, has he an additional 2 per cent per annum – and this matter has been checked out have we got an interest, to be a member of that outstanding for three years, eight months – in effect they committee? would need to contribute now, to put them back to square one, 7 per cent of their current salary. Mr Lowey: It is of general interest, so it does not… Let us put that in figures. Let us put a little bit of rounding on that. For somebody who is earning £30,000 a year, what The President: Mr Gill, Hon. Member for Rushen. we would have to say to them is, ‘Let’s have £2,100, and we’ll have it now.’ Mr Gill: Thank you, Mr President. In addition to that, if the money had been coming in on I certainly support the motion as it stands on the Agenda a regular basis, the funds would have been invested, and the Paper. I do not know if the timescale is sufficient to actually Government would have had the income and the investment widen it, to see about the sustainability of pensions, public gain on those moneys; the capital would have built up. But sector pensions generally, and all the rest of it. In a way, that the capital has not built up, because we have not had it. does not matter, because if the committee is successful in What is going to happen? The Hon. Chairman of the being formed, they have a timescale to work to, to October Commission says there is no consequence to Government. and, at least, an interim report. Well, from that, he has given us a very strong steer that The primary thrust of this motion is very much about the the people who are going to have to pick this up are our failure of the Civil Service Commission to introduce the two employees. So, how is he going to do that? Schemes that the amendment talks about. I would hope that, The other issue is, from an overall point of view, we are as a matter of record, we could take it that that would be the not grasping this nettle. We are handing a blank cheque over primary thrust, and the secondary element, if time permits, to our children, and the attitude that is being exhibited here would be that an interim report would report on that matter is, ‘Ships? Ships? I see no ships.’ Not very impressive. and then, if necessary, the committee could carry on, or they Now, turning to the amendment standing in the name of could decide that that is not within their remit. That would the Hon. Member for Douglas North, it is almost like we be up to the committee. are circling the wagons to keep the Indians out, but I am But, really, I am concerned at the veracity of the afraid this peasant is revolting. (A Member: Hear, hear.) comments that we have heard from the Chairman of the (Laughter) Civil Service Commission. I am sure, when we all work in I am going to strongly oppose this amendment to the our Departments, the uncertainty (Mrs Crowe: Yes.) and

Principal Civil Service Pension Schemes – Investigation by committee – Motion carried Orders of the Day TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 1679 T123 the disquiet that civil servants of all ranks have, not only So, I do hope that Members will ditch this amendment. about the position of their pensions but, also, completely I know it has not been seconded. I have no doubt it will be, the opposite of the openness and transparency that the and it will be a Minister who will second it. But these are the Chairman’s brief states that they have been engaged in. It is same Ministers who required their Civil Service Commission completely the opposite of that. to withdraw this motion. It is obfuscation; it is wordy answers that say nothing. We talked about expensive legal advice which is being It is answers which are ambiguous, answers which are at openly shared: no, it is not. It is being shared grudgingly, odds with the previous advice that is given. People do not and being drawn out – and it is costing in the region of know if they are coming or going, and it came to such a pitch £40,000. that, as I understand it, a spontaneous vote of no confidence What did the legal advice say? Well, actually, what the in the Civil Service Commission, at a meeting of 600 civil union was saying all along was right. So that is £40,000 servants, was unanimously supported. wasted. If that is a degree of what a great working relationship In a way, I hope that the amendment is seconded, and the Commission claim to have with their workforce, our we can vote on it, and those who vote for it, those Ministers workforce, the workforce of the Isle of Man, I do not think who vote for it now are voting contrary to their actions, that that bears any relation to reality. I cannot understand how when the Chief Minister led the withdrawal of this, at the the Chairman can sit here and claim that the actions that he back end of last year. is alleging… all is well, when we know jolly well that that If you do not vote for the motion, if the amendment fails, is not the case. It is not the case! if you choose not to vote for the amendment, all you will be And when he says they have been open and transparent doing is putting the day off (Mrs Crowe: Yes.) and you will with Members of this Hon. Court, I do not think the Minister be fudging and you will be hedging your bet. for DHSS would have felt that, last November, when he Yesterday we heard the Chairman accusing people of was at the forefront, with the realisation that the motion that cowardice. twice the Civil Service Commission tried to put through the Council of Ministers, then to this Court, and had to be Mrs Hannan and another Member: Yes, that is true. withdrawn at the last minute on both occasions… with the realisation of the financial impact on that Department, and Mr Gill: Well, here is a test of whether you are actually the fact that they had not been openly and transparently dealt going to be up front, whether you are going to be open and with and briefed. As I understand it, the DHSS Minister transparent, or whether you are going to take the cop-out. led the charge to get that withdrawn. It was withdrawn. I will not call it cowardice. I will leave that description to The Chief Minister withdrew it and withdrew it with some the Chairman. embarrassment, and some concern and some anger. Whether it is a cop-out, or whether we just deal with it, It is a shame the Chief Minister is not here to confirm that, that is the option. I commend Mr Lowey for bringing this but that is the reality of it. This is a mess. It is a mess, so let motion. (A Member: Hear, hear.) As I say, the issue about us just put our hands up and say it is a mess, and deal with it sustainability is secondary. It is about letting us find out (Mrs Crowe: Yes.) – instead of saying ‘It’s all alright, we’ll the history of the unfortunate and unhappy situation and have a briefing.’ You can have a million briefings: they will circumstances that have led us here, and let us deal with it. not brief you any more than they want to tell you! The civil servants that are involved in this – it is their The President: Mrs Christian, Hon. Member of pensions, and the longer we leave it unresolved, the more Council. people are becoming embroiled in this. The more people who are coming here, and we are not telling them straight Mrs Christian: Thank you, Mr President. what their pension arrangements are. In listening both to the contribution of the mover and So, we have to deal with it. We have to deal with it one the Hon. Member, Mr Houghton, I felt we were back to the way or another. The way that it has been left with the Civil scenario of yesterday morning, (Mrs Crowe: Yes.) with Service Commission has failed, signally. We have been Adeste Fidelis on the one hand, and O Come, All Ye Faithful failed. The pension scheme Members have been failed. So on the other. there is a stand-off. There just is a stand-off. It seemed to me that the Chairman of the Civil Service I think that the Chairman should really consider his Commission was intent on interpreting the resolution in a comments and reflect on them, and I think he owes this very specific way, whereas I am quite sure, from the words Court a retraction of them, because he knows that they are of the mover, that he intended it to be rather wider than not honest comments. that, and I do think that the wording allows the committee So, I do agree that we should just deal with this. If there to investigate the wider issues, including the longer-term is a mistake, if it is a genuine mistake, it is a mistake, at the sustainability of pensions. end of the day, which this Chairman has inherited. If it is a However, there are two issues here. I always feel mistake, if it is an oversight, if it should have been done and it that where a Division is under pressure, trying to resolve has not, let us deal with the consequences now – because we matters, sometimes the investigation of the issue diverts their are going to have to do it one day. It will not just go away. attention from the issue for a period of time, which is not We are not doing that, and I cannot speak too strongly always helpful. Nevertheless, if, as the Chairman has said, in support of the motion to actually grasp the nettle on this; everything is under control, it should not be too difficult to but, in grasping it, I do not want any suggestion that I am convey to any committee, if it is established, the current accepting that any of the comments in the brief that the position. (A Member: Hear, hear.) Chairman has read – and then he made his own supporting I would agree with the hon. mover that the time has comments, in his own right – have any veracity. come for us to really get down to looking at the longer-term

Principal Civil Service Pension Schemes – Investigation by committee – Motion carried 1680 T123 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 Orders of the Day issues. With regard to the comment about ‘Do we have an forward something which is being accused of being a delaying interest?’, indeed, we all qualify for pensions. We may have tactic, but would actually bring back to this Chamber, at the a degree of interest in common, as we do on many issues same date as the original motion, a report which is far more which come before this Court – and, indeed, our own pension likely to have a way forward than an interim report of a select structures probably should be looked at, as well (Mrs Crowe: committee, meeting over two or three months, in order to Exactly.) – but we could not ignore this issue, for the reason try and deal with a complex situation. of having an interest in it. The opportunity would always exist for the mover of the With regard to the comment of the Hon. Member for motion to bring it back, if he was dissatisfied, at that time. Ayre, when he said we were handing a cheque to our children, I am sure that he has already been attempting to work with I think we are handing a bill to our children – the Civil Service Commission, and I am aware that he did withdraw this motion last month – Mrs Crowe: Yes, an invoice. Mr Lowey: That is right. Mrs Christian: – not a cheque! We need to start to investigate this. Mr Shimmin: – to assist and give time for that I feel quite sure that if there is a report to come back by contact. October, it will be on the very broadest of issues. It may be I can assume that he is convinced that we have hit the able to deal in some detail with the specifics of the current rails. I believe the comments from the Member for North position in relation to the Civil Service Pension Scheme, and Douglas would indicate that there is a sincere attempt to the issues which have arisen in recent years. It, obviously, get the matter moved forward, within the next two or three will not have been able to delve in any great depth into the months, which could give us a meaningful debate in October, policy issues for the future. so that the new Court, whoever they may be, would actually It may be that other Departments of Government have have some finality on this issue. begun to investigate those. It has not been very high profile. It cannot be allowed to rumble on. It is not fair on our staff In fact, perhaps I am wrong in assuming that they have, and, therefore, I believe that the amendment in the name of because I think that the Treasury Minister, not too long ago, Mr Houghton does actually achieve what the Court wants, said, ‘Yes, this is a major issue, it should be dealt with.’ which is to move a matter forward which is complex, has Well, one wonders, perhaps, why the Treasury have not been a sorry history in the last recent years. been focusing on it. But if we are now moving forward, then I, at least, will So, I would support the motion. I do think – and I hope give the Member for North Douglas one more spin of the the Member moving will confirm that his intention is – that dice to come forward, in October, with some resolution to it does look at the wider issues, and I hope that the Court this, or a way forward. It will be up to the Court to determine will support it. whether they are prepared to accept that that is a pragmatic way forward, or indeed, if not, they will support the Hon. The President: Hon. Member, Mr Shimmin. Member of Council, Mr Lowey.

Mr Shimmin: Thank you, Mr President. The President: Hon. Member, Mrs Hannan. I will be that Minister seconding the amendment in the name of Mr Houghton, the Chairman of the Civil Service Mrs Hannan: Thank you, Eaghtyrane. Commission, although the mood of the Court, certainly, sees If there is one reason why I believe that this motion that that might be an interesting vote when we get to it. should be supported, it is the last speaker. (Mrs Crowe: The main reason is that the anger and frustration felt by Yes.) The last speaker seems to have missed the argument, the Member for Rushen, Mr Gill, is understandable. He, absolutely and totally. (Mrs Crowe: Yes.) We are in this like the rest of us, was lobbied quite hard from staff and the position because it has been left with the people that he is Government Officers’ Association (GOA), when there was, suggesting it should be left with! obviously, a breakdown not only in the legality of what was The people that he is suggesting it should be left with being put forward, but, also, the relationships. can deal with it, but I believe that a select committee should We have heard from the Chairman of the Civil Service be set up, and I believe a select committee should look at Commission, this afternoon, that those days are apparently this, not only because we have a large bill in front of us for behind us, inasmuch as there are regular meetings or contact paying our pensions, but for the other reasons – for the way with the Secretary of the GOA. I know that during the main that my constituents have been treated over this. criticisms and problems, I met with and spoke with the Chair My constituents have been rubbished over this and have of the GOA, and, indeed, Mr Moffat from the Transport and been really upset by the whole procedure, when they knew General Workers’ Union, because they very genuinely, like for a fact that they were right. They have been treated with all of us in here, share the concerns about the welfare and the utmost disrespect, by the Civil Service Commission, and the uncertainty that had been created for our staff. have not received an apology, that I understand they should Government would not run without our staff, and we have received to date, because it has now been found that owe it to them to get this matter resolved. Certainly, the 2002 should have been us, and it was not. distress and anger, frustration and emotions that have been Therefore, I think the reason why we should support the running high, in my view, appear to have died down over motion as it is laid down is, purely, because of the comments the last six months, which would indicate that there is a of the last speaker, and the proposer of that amendment, genuine attempt on both sides to move the issue forward because they have not dealt with it. for the general good. They have not only played into the elephant grass, but The Chair of the Civil Service Commission is putting they have, also, buried their heads in the sand – and I do

Principal Civil Service Pension Schemes – Investigation by committee – Motion carried Orders of the Day TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 1681 T123 not know how they can do it both at the same time, but they complicated. You do need to be almost a Philadelphia lawyer. have! (Laughter) You need to sit down and look at it very carefully. It is not an easy matter to grasp but, with the right expert A Member: Easy! advice, I am sure a select committee could resolve what has gone wrong and what has happened so far. We need to, Mrs Crowe: They’ve managed. They’ve managed! somehow, correct the inequity that has been foisted on people who, without their knowledge, are owed money and have to Mr Waft: An ‘ostriphant’! pay money back, to get back to where they should be. I would urge the Members here to strongly support the Mrs Hannan: Well, they are, obviously, acrobats or original motion of Mr Lowey, to set up a select committee whatever it takes – to look at this issue. Thank you. Mr Downie: They are the experts. The President: Mr Speaker. Mrs Hannan: – to deal with all of this. But it has been pointed out, over a long period of time, The Speaker: Thank you, Mr President. that 2002 should have been in. I agree, totally, with the Mr President, in relation to this matter, I want to make it Member for Ayre: how are you going to adjust all of these clear that I will be supporting the motion on the Order Paper issues? and not the amendment. I believe that this issue should be looked at by a select The reason I do that is that I do believe that this issue, committee of this Court. It is not too early to look at it, I which has now been rumbling on a long time – and which, can say that; but we should not leave it any later than this. I of course, as we all accept, is not of the making of the believe that it can be done. present Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, in that I would congratulate the Member for Council for bringing the situation arose before he took over that role – is, in fact, this forward at this time. a situation where we have civil servants, who – many, many of them – for the very first time, are feeling let down. Two Members: Hear, hear. We all, like the Hon. Member for Peel, Mrs Hannan, have constituents who are civil servants and people who, The President: Hon. Member, Mr Butt. normally, just get on with the job. I have had people come to me and say that this just is not fair. When they try to get Mr Butt: Thank you, Mr President. more information, they say that they find it difficult to get I, too, would strongly support the motion of the Member it clearly identified, where they stand, and they think that of Council, Mr Lowey. It is very welcome as far as I am what is happening is just wrong. concerned. We have a responsibility, as Tynwald Court, for ensuring I, also, welcome the final admission by the Chairman fairness, not only for the people of the Isle of Man, which of the Commission that they have made a mistake and the includes our Civil Service, but everyone, including our Civil Schemes are in error. We have had two withdrawals in the Service. Quite clearly, something is wrong. past, at the end of last year, where no such admission was With the greatest respect to the amendment, we did made, and I am glad to see that, finally, that admission has not need an amendment that said, ‘We will give you a been made. presentation’, because that could have been done anyway. I I know that I have had approaches from civil servants, think it is just unfortunate that this has got to the stage it has. both serving and retired, and I know that a lot of people have It is a bit like treading sand, in a way, for the Chairman and been disadvantaged, already. Some retired people have not his Commission – or that is what it seems like. Really, there had their just dues. There are even people who have died, may well be difficulties. We all know that, sometimes, things since the Scheme should have been put into place, and the get into a difficult mode, and it is hard to break it. widows are not receiving what they should receive. I think that the select committee will not delay it. I think It will, in effect, from what I understand and what Mr the select committee, potentially, could actually assist in Teare says, cost £2,000 to £3,000 for several hundred people helping make it go forward. I think, most importantly, for to restore their rights to where they should be. the future, hopefully, helping Tynwald to understand what Mr Lowey talks about a battlefield and guerrilla warfare, went wrong or what the problem is. I think that that is etc, and I would like to make a short comment on that. The important as well. person whom I spoke to – and whom other Members, I I do think, as Mrs Hannan said, it is not too early. In fact, think, have spoken to as well – who acted quite correctly in I think Tynwald has been patient, and has allowed the Civil pointing out, with his expert knowledge, that the Schemes Service to try and resolve this matter and, really, the feedback were not implemented, has been treated as a whistle-blower, is that the thing is still struggling. It needs that extra kick, in effect. I understand that he, and even his managers, are basically, to put it mildly, to make it go forward. being threatened with disciplinary proceedings, because of I think that the setting up of a select committee will, what they did. Now, that is totally out of order. (Mr Cretney: actually, give it that boost that will give it, maybe, a bit Shame!) more urgency to try and resolve it. I do not underestimate I think there is, obviously, now a lack of trust between a what I understand to be the difficulties on all sides, but I do lot of civil servants and the Commission. Although I have a think that we have to ensure that we do not end up with staff respect for the Chairman himself, and he has inherited from becoming so demoralised that, in fact, they either leave the the 2002 debacle, I think the place to look at this is a select Civil Service, for all the wrong reasons, or, in fact, become committee. I have read lots of the papers. They are very bitter, and then have no faith in who they work for, which

Principal Civil Service Pension Schemes – Investigation by committee – Motion carried 1682 T123 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 Orders of the Day is, of course, the people of the Isle of Man, because they place. Actually, it has been taking place, although not in a feel let down. satisfactorily visible manner, to give confidence to people So, I would say that Members, I hope, will reject the in the Civil Service – I think one must be clear about that. amendment and support the motion in the name of the Hon. But that activity has been taking place, and it is right that Member of Council, Mr Lowey. the Civil Service Commission comes and updates the public and this Court with the situation. The President: Mr Rodan. Now, I leave it to the Court to decide whether, in parallel with that, there should also be a parliamentary investigation. Mr Rodan: Thank you, Mr President. But one thing is for sure: this is not going to be the last The terms of the resolution refer to widespread concern word on the subject, whatever is said in October – not by and uncertainty relating to the specifics of the Principal any stretch of the imagination, because the prime issue Civil Service Pension Schemes. I think the Hon. Member facing the next administration is going to be its ability to of Council it was, who referred to the widespread concern fund and sustain pensions, both the state pension and all and uncertainty that exist on the general pension situation the associated factors with that – increase in the retirement anyway, and felt that a select committee could do well to age – and the public sector, currently with a 60-year-old take that into account. retirement age. I do not think the public will tolerate, other Mr President, I do not think there is a great deal between than that situation has to change and the end to final salary the Hon. Members who have spoken this afternoon. There is schemes, and so on. widespread concern and uncertainty about the particular… So, these are big, big issues for the next administration. It is still not resolved to the satisfaction of the Civil Service A select committee is not going to find the answers over employees, or to our satisfaction. the summer. But there is, also, concern and uncertainty that stems from what we read, and what we hear about the general Mrs Crowe: It can start. pensions situation, driven by the UK, with whom we have a reciprocal agreement, and that uncertainty and despair Mr Rodan: It is not. But it may well make a useful is, largely, coming about from the fact that we had, until contribution. (Mrs Crowe: Exactly.) I have no problem with 1997 – and the UK had – largely funded pension liabilities a parliamentary investigation to inform that debate, nor is and, due to changes in the tax treatment, that advantage has there any problem with what should properly happen, and disappeared. that is executive action, with the Civil Service Commission There was a funding, on the part of the UK, to meet coming forward, Mr President, by October. I think that is liabilities that was greater than the rest of Europe put the least that should happen, in any case. together, until 1997. That was all thrown away. So, yes, there is a pensions crisis in the UK, like it or The President: Hon. Members, the position in relation not, both for state pension provision – we are tied into that, to Mrs Cannell, the Member for East Douglas, is she has through our reciprocal agreement – but, also, through our drawn to my attention to the fact that her husband is a civil public sector provision, for a very good historic reason. servant. It is the particulars of the adherence to that, in a proper Hon. Members, my ruling would be that it is not a manner, that is giving rise to concern. I speak as the Minister personal matter in that regard. It is held in common with for the Department that has a statutory responsibility for everyone else who is connected to the Civil Service, and there ensuring compliance with the terms of these public sector are 1,100 to 1,500 civil servants who are connected, in one schemes. form or another, directly to the Pension Scheme. The Hon. Member for Ayre, rightfully, drew attention to Nevertheless, I have left it to Members themselves to the Court to the fact that there is some £1,100 million liability make their own mind up whether or not they wish to leave that has been earned in the public sector, which is growing for the debate or not. by £50 million a year, year on year. We are, currently, paying Mr Braidwood. out – the taxpayer is paying out – £30 million a year. That is going up 10 per cent each and every year. Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr President. Mr President, no wonder there is widespread concern and Mr President, I did not go to the presentation organised uncertainty (Mrs Crowe: Exactly.) – no wonder! by the Civil Service Commission on 4th April 2006. But I Now, whether the response to that concern and uncertainty did go to the presentation organised by the Hon. Member for should be a parliamentary response, a select committee – Rushen, Mr Gill, when Frank Allen, the General Secretary of Prospect, was there, when he was going through the anomaly Mrs Crowe: Why not? from the change in the UK Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme, which took place, I think, from October 2002. Mr Rodan: Yes, one can see circumstances where a At that time, new entrants, I think, after the 1st October select committee is exactly what is required. went into the new Scheme, which was based on 60ths, and I would say, though, Mr President, that the amendment they had to pay a higher contributory rate, against those is, also, capable of support, because, whatever else you want before who had joined before October 2002, who were based to do with the select committee to have a parliamentary on 80ths. Then, it was the people, who were already in the process, the least that should happen is that the Civil Service Civil Service before October 2002, who were given the Commission comes back with a situation update by October. opportunity to move into the new Scheme, if they increased (Interjections) That should happen anyway, Mr President. their contributions, as well. I see nothing inconsistent or incongruous at supporting Now, there have been problems with the Civil Service the amendment ,which is to ensure that executive action takes Commission and with the GOA, but I think the Chairman

Principal Civil Service Pension Schemes – Investigation by committee – Motion carried Orders of the Day TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 1683 T123 of the Civil Service Commission, when he was speaking, amendment. No-one is suggesting there is no merit in the said that they have now got quite a good relationship. I feel amendment. Unfortunately, the Ministers sat and listened, that, as the previous speaker, I can support the amendment. round at the Council of Ministers, where we get the cosy circle, I can, also, see clarity in the motion, as well. all saying, ‘This is what we’ll do, this is how we’ll address However, what the amendment does say is that further this issue. We’ll have an amendment from the Civil…’ amendments… At least it is down in black and white, that No-one listened to the mover. All you had to do was to there are further amendments to the UK Principal Civil listen to what he said. (Mr Lowey: Absolutely.) What you Service Pension Scheme, since October 2002. We know had to do was to say, ‘We’re all looking.’ that, in the UK, they have been looking at finishing for We had an explanation this morning from Mr Speaker new entrants coming into a final salary scheme. We know, about the parliamentary purse strings. Who gives the money particularly in the private sector, that a lot of firms have now to the Treasury to pay the bills? Tynwald. stopped final salary schemes to new entrants and, in some So, what is wrong with a Tynwald select committee companies, have actually stopped it for employees who have starting to look to get some facts and figures about the whole been there for a number of years. of the pension scheme? There is nothing wrong with the So, at least, with the amendment, it is down in black and amendment, as the Hon. Member for Garff said, because, of white. It does not say that in the motion which is by the Hon. course, the Civil Service committee would report these facts Member of Council, Mr Lowey. to a select committee – precisely what they would do. I do believe that, now that there is a reasonable The first thing they would do is the Civil Service relationship between the Civil Service Commission and Committee would say to whichever select committee, ‘These Prospect and GOA, they can move forward. At least they are the facts and figures.’ The select committee presumably are talking. What would have to happen with the select would employ an actuary to give them the correct figures on committee is they would then have to get all these people which to base some assumptions. They would, presumably, in – which is the same thing which is happening at the have to engage a pensions expert, a consultant, in the moment with the Civil Service Commission. management of pension schemes. So, in actual fact, I will support the amendment in the There is nothing that is so complex that a select name of the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, committee could not begin to address it. It is just a nonsense. I because I believe they are going forward now. Hopefully, am just amazed at the way in which the Ministers today have we will have a resolution to this problem, which should have gathered round. They are leaving the Court one single motion been, probably, solved by last year. that could have been supported without any difficulties at all, and we see the same performance as we did yesterday. The President: Hon. Member of Council, Mrs Crowe. I feel very sorry about that, because in your hearts, Ministers, you all know that the pension issue, at some time, Mrs Crowe: Thank you, Mr President. has got to be looked at. Is this not reminiscent of yesterday afternoon? We have got ring-a-ring-a-roses by the Ministers, once again! The President: Mr Waft. (Laughter and interjections) They have all gathered round… Mr Waft: Mr President, I happened to be around at the If you had listened to the Hon. Member who is charged time, in October 2002, and I would like to, if you would bear with pensions, if you had listened to the Member for Garff, with me, set out the chain of events, leading to the situation I think he was quite flexible. What he said was, there may that we find ourselves in now. be some merit in a select committee. How long has this Before I carry on, can I just clarify the position. If you Government been talking about addressing the pensions want to talk about pensions in particular, and the holes in issue? What have you done? Nearly at the end of your the pensions, and how much is owed to pensions throughout administration – nothing. the UK, be my guest, but do not put me on that select What we are saying perhaps, the mover, is: let us make committee, (Interjection by Mrs Crowe) because you will a start. be here forever and ever, they would never come to an end of it! A lot cleverer people than us have tried to work it out Mr Lowey: That’s right. and they are still pondering. However, if I could just begin with the separation and Mrs Crowe: What we are saying is it will not be the last deal with the position we find ourselves in, with regard to word. The Hon. Member for Garff is quite correct: it will the Superannuation Scheme, the UK Pension Scheme and not be the last word. But from Government, we have not what happened. had the first word! In October 2002, the Civil Service Commission received We have not had one single paper about the facts and a report on the changes to the UK Civil Service Pension figures regarding Civil Service pensions – not one single… Scheme. Now, bearing in mind that the UK Civil Service No-one has got a clue, we are all working in the dark. Let a Pension Scheme, at that time, had been talking about that select committee, at least, start to get some information. pension scheme for about two or three years prior to that, I feel quite sorry for the Chairman of the Civil Service and had been having problems all along the road. Commission. I do not think there was meant to be any So, the Commission asked for the report to be prepared personal attack – certainly not from the mover and certainly by the Personnel Office. This report was set out to identify not from myself – on the valuable work he has had to do in not only the situation with the Civil Service Scheme, but trying to catch up with the position he was left in, through also the effect it would have on the 13 other Schemes which no fault of his own. were analogous Schemes to which the Civil Service hold Now, what I would say, of course there is merit in the responsibility.

Principal Civil Service Pension Schemes – Investigation by committee – Motion carried 1684 T123 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 Orders of the Day

The report’s main focus was on the Principal Civil of the report, having been involved in much of the work. Service Pension Scheme, the current Scheme and the new However, they had not seen the final draft, at that stage. Scheme. The report, when we received it, recommended if we A timetable would have to be produced and a adopt the Civil Service Pension Scheme, we would need to communication strategy involving members of the Scheme close off the old Scheme to new entrants, make it compulsory and those Schemes analogous to it. There would, also, appear for them to join the new Scheme, offer the same choices as to be the need to include any legislative changes that may accorded to the civil servants: for instance, to remain with be required. the existing Scheme and receive a pension equating to the It was important to get the permission of the Treasury rules of that Scheme upon retirement; or to move to the new for the actuarial review to be conducted. We, also, needed Scheme from the launch date and preserve their previous to establish the likely costs of the review, and how the costs service under the previous Scheme. were to be funded. In effect they would receive a pension made up of There was, also, the need to take into account any two parts: part under the old Scheme, part under the new necessary software to account for any changes to the payroll Scheme, on retirement; or, convert their previous service systems and software development, to produce personalised into the new Scheme and receive benefits accordingly from benefit statements for use in the options exercise. the new Scheme when they retire – a conversion rate of There was a draft outline timetable. However, once the possibly 0.92 years under the new Scheme applied to the report had been sent to the Treasury, it was not until March previous year’s. 2003 that a response was received. Consequently, the For example, 10 years’ pensionable service could be proposed timetable was already out of date, after the first converted to 9.2 years in the new scheme, because they action following the Commission’s consideration. were switching to the whole new concept. It uses the same Clearly, this affected any future implementation date. contribution rate, possibly being that of the UK, of 3.5 per Further delays were incurred, when the Personnel Office cent. was unable to establish the funding. They had to get the The recommendation was to close all existing by analogy funding for the actuarial review which was considered by Schemes to new entrants, and that the Commission makes the Commission. Consequently, the actuarial review was not the policy decision that, either there will possibly be a completed, until November 2004, which was due to have single Scheme for all the Civil Service and, by analogy, all been completed in 2003. organisations, within a contribution made of 3.5; or those So, I hope I have been able to outline the situation, Schemes that do not have a contributory rate should be until my departure in 2004. I know there have been many adapted by the new Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme, meetings with the unions involved, since then, and there have and those Schemes that do have an employee contribution been problems with legal issues, since that date. I do not, rate should have a Scheme put in place, in line with the personally, feel that ongoing delicate consultation with the Princpal Civil Service Pension Scheme, but with a single Commission, the unions and now legal firms, all trying to contribution rate of between 7 and 8 per cent. It is all so come to some mutual agreements as to the best way forward very vague. for all concerned, would be enhanced in any way by the So, with the raft of differences to consider, prior to intervention of three politicians, however well meaning. embarking on any exercise of change, the opinion of the The problem I have thought about, since this debate actuaries should be sought – just what the ex-Minister was started, was: there is too broad a brush here. We are trying stating a few minutes ago – (a) robust figures could then be to apply too broad a brush to what is a very narrow issue of sought concerning the projected growth of the population the Civil Service Pension Scheme. We are trying to include of the Island; (b) a definite estimate as to how the staffing all the pension problems throughout the world, and I do not levels of the Civil Service would grow; (c) to estimate the think we are going to solve that in three months. future cost of the introduction of this Scheme to be made as to whether it would be cost neutral; (d) to model for both the Mrs Crowe: Only in the Isle of Man. introduction and the exclusion of Accruing Superannuation Liability Charges (ASLCs) the Department charges, and Mr Waft: I would recommend that the people who are what its impact on the service delivery would be, and a doing the work, now, seem to have some rapport taking place. suitable model for the administration of the current and future I would suggest we leave them to sort it out, until October, superannuation provision for the Island’s public and civil and see the presentation when it is made. servants be established, focusing on the roles of the Treasury Thank you, Mr President. and the Personnel Office, on behalf of the Civil Service Commission, and how they interface with one another. The President: Now, Mr Lowey to reply. It was to look at the staffing levels of the Personnel Office to be increased to undertake development and introduction Mr Lowey: Thank you, Mr President. of the report’s recommendation. This should be a fixed-term First of all, can I thank everybody for their contributions post of, say, 18 months, to oversee the development and to the debate. I said, at the very outset of this, that I was implementation stage of the Scheme, and they would be part not in a blame game. I said, in my opening address – this of a joint project team. is addressed, really, to the Chairman of the Civil Service The next step would be to seek Treasury concurrence Commission – the language I used was to illustrate what to the way forward and set up a joint project team, and had happened. join up with those who are currently compiling up-to-date There is no doubt whatever that, for nearly four years, superannuation records for all current civil and public we have had a form of guerrilla warfare. There was no servants. talking. There was no coming to a meeting of minds. There Treasury, through their Superannuation team, were aware was hostility. People have been treated – individuals – quite

Principal Civil Service Pension Schemes – Investigation by committee – Motion carried Orders of the Day TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 1685 T123 disgracefully. I am sorry to say that, as an employer. I am an resolution – remember it removes the whole thing out of employer – the Government – we employ civil servants – and the... It removes all the words after the first two words. people who raised it have been treated, in my view, quite What it does do, in my view, if the Civil Service wished shamefully. to inform the Court of where they were up to and what The idea that we have kissed and made up is not real, they were doing, they could have had it at this month. They either; but I think we are mature enough to know, even when could! There is nothing to stop them coming to the Court we have had disagreements, we have to work together, to and presenting a report. resolve the problem. So, I would accept that position. Somebody may say that that is duplication. I do not think I can tell this Hon. Court that the Government Officers’ it is. We are all agreed that we have a problem with pensions, Association wrote to me, about four weeks ago, and said they and we need to address it. Let us get some – I used the words would welcome a select committee to look into it. ‘evidence based’ – facts. Let us try, just for once, not to divide So, that is the answer, I thought, to my good friend, Mr this Court. We always do best when we are united, in this Waft, the former Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, Court, when we speak with the one voice. I wish the Council who said that they would not welcome it. Well, all I can say of Ministers would, just occasionally, come and walk towards is, from that side, they have indicated to me that they would us, instead of us having to walk towards them. welcome an inquiry into it. I am not being… Yesterday was fun, maybe, and today... Having said that, I have to say that the position of Forget that. It is too serious. It is too serious. pensions… it is a two-pronged attack. I hope people listened But we ought to be working at this together, because to what I said, in my opening remarks. I did, specifically, we can only resolve it together. Therefore, all the words relate to the Item on the Order Paper and, when I looked at that I... the resolution that I put down, it was wide enough to include First of all, I have thanked everybody. I could go through the pensions. chapter and verse, but I am sure most people have made their I do not think there is any difference between anybody, mind up, anyway, as to how they are going to vote. I hope Ministers included, that we need to address that. I did say, in that they will vote for the resolution as printed. my opening, it is an inclusive thing. It is not their problem. It I beg to move, sir. is not the Council of Ministers’ problem. It is not the Whitley Council’s problem. It is our problem. We are going to make The President: In that case, Hon. Members, the motion the decisions and, therefore, I think we should be getting that I put to the Court is that printed at Item 31, in the name ourselves in the information-gathering position. of the Hon. Member of Council, Mr Lowey. To that, Hon. I have, also, to say that, in getting that, the seconder of Members, you have had circulated to you the amendment the amendment said that I withdrew my resolution. It is not in the name of the Hon. Member for Douglas North, Mr a new one, of course. Remember, it was in weeks before the Houghton. other one. Why did I withdraw it? It was not to go and talk I will put, first, Hon. Members, to the Court the to the Civil Service Commission. It was the direct result of amendment in the name of the Hon. Member, Mr Houghton. a telephone call from the Chief Minister on the Monday of Those in favour of the amendment, please say aye; against that week. no. The noes have it. The Council of Ministers had a paper before them, on the Thursday of last month’s Tynwald, and they wished to A division was called for and voting resulted as consider it. He thought my resolution might impinge on that. follows: He did not demand. He said he thought – the Council of Ministers might have thought – I presume he was speaking on In the Keys – Ayes 10, Noes 9 behalf of the Council of Ministers – that it would give them a bit of room, if I withdrew it for a month, which I did. FOR AGAINST Again, I think the issue is far too important. I am not Mr Anderson Mr Cannan Mr Rodan Mr Teare here striking a pose, or being John the Baptist, and wanting a Mr Rimington Mr Gill head on a platter. I am concerned that, as a big employer, we Mr Gawne Mr Henderson should have got our position... Four years is not acceptable. It Mr Houghton Mrs Hannan is not acceptable to say that it has taken four years to resolve Mr Cretney Mrs Craine it – and, by the way, it is not resolved yet. It is not. Mr Duggan Mr Karran Mr Braidwood Capt. Douglas Only last week, I had one of the senior civil servants, who Mr Shimmin The Speaker has joined the Civil Service in the last three years, saying Mr Earnshaw that she – it was a lady, who wanted to be involved – has been unable to get involved, although having asked the Civil The Speaker: Service Commission months ago. Mr President, the amendment carries in the Keys, with 10 votes for and 9 votes against. The idea that, somehow, we are resolving the problem, I am afraid, does not bear examination with the information that I am getting, not from organised, but individuals in the... In the Council – Ayes 2, Noes 6 I am sure it is reflected to many Members in this Court. The thing is two-pronged. We have a direct problem FOR AGAINST with our own Pension Fund. That is undeniable and, again, Mr Waft The Lord Bishop I think it is accepted now that we did not do what we should Mr Downie Mr Lowey Mr Singer have done, which was consult in 2002. That is accepted. We Mr Butt move on from there. Mrs Christian The idea of the amendment as a substitute for the Mrs Crowe

Principal Civil Service Pension Schemes – Investigation by committee – Motion carried 1686 T123 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 Orders of the Day

The President: With 2 for, 6 against in the Council, Hon. Mr Singer and another Member: I second Mr Members, the branches are in disagreement. The amendment Lowey. fails to carry, Hon. Members. I put to you, now, the motion on the Order Paper. Those Mrs Crowe: Could I propose the Hon. Member, Mr in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. Butt.

A division was called for and voting resulted as Mrs Hannan: I second Mr Butt. follows: The President: Now, wait a minute, folks. Mr In the Keys – Ayes 19, Noes 0 Anderson.

FOR AGAINST Mr Anderson: I propose the Hon. Member, Mr Mr Anderson None Lowey. Mr Cannan Mr Teare Mr Rodan The President: I have already got Mr Lowey on my list, Mr Rimington sir. Mr Earnshaw. Mr Gill Mr Gawne Mr Earnshaw: I propose Mr Waft. Mr Houghton Mr Henderson Mr Cretney Mr Henderson: I propose the Hon. Member for Peel, Mr Duggan Mrs Hannan. Mr Braidwood Mr Shimmin Mrs Christian: I propose the Hon. Member, Mr Mrs Hannan Singer. Mrs Craine Mr Karran Mr Earnshaw Mr Cretney: I propose the vote be put. Capt. Douglas The Speaker Mrs Crowe: I second Mr Singer.

The Speaker: Mr President, the motion carries in the Mr Karran: I will second Mrs Hannan. House of Keys, with 19 votes for and no votes against. The President: Mr Karran, you seconded Mrs In the Council – Ayes 8, Noes 0 Hannan. Hon. Members, we need a Committee of three. Papers FOR AGAINST will be circulated. The Lord Bishop None Mr Lowey I would appreciate it, Hon. Members, if Members did Mr Waft not leave the Court during the time of the ballot. It makes it Mr Singer difficult to keep check on you all, when you are moving in Mr Butt and out. (A Member: Hear, hear.) Mrs Christian Hon. Members, according to my list, I have seven Mrs Crowe Mr Downie Members who were proposed and seconded and, when you all have your ballot papers, I will call upon the Clerk to read The President: All votes for in the Council, Hon. the names. You will be voting for three, Hon. Members. Member, none against. The motion, therefore, carries, Hon. Has everybody got their ballot paper? In that case, I call Members. upon the Clerk to read the names. We now call for nominations for the Committee, Hon. Members. Mr Cretney. The Clerk: The Members nominated, Mr President, are: Mr Butt; Mrs Crowe; Mr Lowey; Mr Singer; Mr Gill; Mrs Mr Cretney: I propose the Hon. Member of Council, Hannan; and Mr Teare. Mrs Crowe. The President: I think, in this instance, the Lord Bishop Mrs Hannan: I second Mrs Crowe. will act as teller for the Council.

Mr Henderson: I propose the Hon. Member, Mr Gill. The Speaker: The Member for Onchan, Mr Earnshaw, for the Keys. Capt. Douglas: I propose the Hon. Member, Mr Teare. A first ballot took place. Mr Lowey and another Member: I will second Mr Teare.

Mr Braidwood: I will second Mr Gill. Announcement re Martyn Quayle’s recovery

Mr Rimington: I propose the Hon. Member, Mr The President: Hon. Members, whilst we wait for the Lowey. result to come forward, I am sure you will all be very pleased

Principal Civil Service Pension Schemes – Investigation by committee – Motion carried Announcement re Martyn Quayle’s recovery Orders of the Day TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 1687 T123 to know that our colleague, Martyn Quayle, has returned the Manx economy calls on the Council of Ministers: home, (A Member: Brilliant!) and is back at home, at the (i) to give real meaning to e-commerce on the Island by present time, and recovering nicely. setting up an open working party to develop a standard form of internet contract based on Manx law, with Several Members: Hear, hear. arbitration with an international internet legal body where parties can sign up to a Manx Internet Treaty to Mrs Crowe: No peace any more now! resolve disputes in this sector; and (ii) to investigate the development of the same process The Speaker: All ring him up! (Laughter) for other areas, where a neutral base is required for resolving disputes to do with specialist areas. A Member: Put him on the Select Committee! (Laughter and interjections) The President: Item 32 has been withdrawn, Hon. Members.

Principal Civil Service Pension Schemes Committee of three appointed Manx National Heritage Lack of political accountability The President: Hon. Members, the result of the ballot Debate commenced is that: Mr Butt received 8 votes; Mrs Crowe received, 13; Mr Lowey, 19; Mr Singer, 5; Mr Gill, 15; Mrs Hannan, 7; 33. The Hon. Member for Peel (Mrs Hannan) to move: and Mr Teare, 8. The result of that is that Mr Lowey and Mr Gill are both That Tynwald views with concern the failure in practice elected. We are required to vote for the third place from the of Manx National Heritage to be politically accountable remaining candidates. for the conduct of its affairs. So, voting for one place, the candidature will be: Mr Butt; Mrs Crowe; Mr Singer; Mrs Hannan; and Mr Teare. The President: Hon. Members, having elected a As soon as the ballot papers are circulated, Hon. committee, we now turn to Item 33. I call upon the Hon. Members, the Clerk will, again, read the names, you will Member, Mrs Hannan. vote for one place and the same tellers will act to count. Mrs Hannan: Eaghtyrane, the motion on the Order Paper Mr Shimmin: Mr President, could you remind us the is that Tynwald views with concern the failure in practice number of votes each of the previous candidates received of Manx National Heritage to be politically accountable for please. the conduct of its affairs. I know, in moving this motion, today, that many The President: I can tell you exactly. Mr Butt received Members hold Manx Museum and National Trust, Manx 8; Mrs Crowe received 13; Mr Lowey 19; Mr Singer 5; Mr National Heritage, in high regard, and will consider that Gill 15; Mrs Hannan 7; Mr Teare 8. In counting up the votes, even suggesting that I am concerned about Manx National Hon. Members, there were two spoilt papers. Heritage is almost a heresy in itself, or that by moving this Clerk, read the names please. motion, I am in some way critical of the members of the trusteeship. I am not. The Clerk: Mr Butt; Mrs Crowe; Mr Singer; Mrs Hannan I have been there. It is an organisation that is well and Mr Teare. organised, runs its sites efficiently, especially those it wants to promote and, as we are forever being told, the Manx A second ballot took place. Museum and National Trust has the largest membership of anybody in Mann. The President: Thank you, Hon. Members. As we have, also, been told, in the response to a Question The result of the ballot was that: Mr Butt received 1; Mrs that I asked, in relation to: Crowe, 19; Mr Singer, 1; Mrs Hannan, 3; and Mr Teare, 3. So, in fact, Mrs Crowe has been elected. ‘What changes, if any, will you introduce to improve the existing policy Your Committee now consists of Mr Lowey, Mr Gill development process at Manx National Heritage?’ and Mrs Crowe. the response was: Mr Lowey: The Beautiful South! (Laughter and interjections) ‘the existing policy development process of MNH accords fully with the requirements of Executive Government and has, and continues to result in a series of very well planned and executed projects, all of which have been completed on time, on budget, and to the highest standard for the benefit of the community as a whole. Such a process E-commerce and the internet is revised as and when necessary.’ Motion withdrawn We are told that all the time. They must seem that they 32. The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to move: are the only organisation that can produce something on time, on budget and at high standards. But they do not say ‘with That Tynwald recognising the importance of diversifying the help of the taxpayer or the support of Tynwald’.

Announcement re Martyn Quayle’s recovery Principal Civil Service Pension Schemes – Committee of three appointed E-commerce and the internet – Motion withdrawn Manx National Heritage – Lack of political accountability – Debate commenced 1688 T123 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 Orders of the Day

Anyway, it is generally considered more efficient than member, or every three months, on the full Trustee board. any other organisation. I suppose it is the general maxim: if There are additional problems of application of the law, you want to run an organisation, you appoint a committee which concerns me and a number of my constituents – that is, of three, and it works best when one member is off sick and the treasure trove legislation and how it is administered. the other fails to attend. So, there is one left to make all the It is administratively dealt with – so much so, that at least decisions, and so, it runs like clockwork. one of my constituents… I have a number of constituents The Trustees are kept informed – that is, told who is who have voiced concerns to me, not just recently, but they doing what, when and how. There are meetings, minutes, have, also expressed concerns recently, but, also, in the agendas, some discussion, openings, when sometimes even previous couple of years, in that my constituents are losing the Chair or the Vice-Chair gets to do an opening, unveils total faith with the administration of the treasure trove a plaque or lays a foundation stone. So, the members of the legislation, which is, quite clearly, set out in the legislation, Trustees feel involved. There is, therefore, this impression and how it should operate. of inclusion. They are concerned that there is no policy, in relation to You will ask: why should the organisation not be able to treasure trove legislation, and there are no policy documents. operate the way that it wants to? The Trustees seem happy We all know that metal detecting is an extremely popular and content with the present situation. The membership are pastime. At any of the sites, there are no policy documents, paying their membership fees. The public are visiting the there is nothing telling metal detectors what they should and sites, and they seem happy or, at least, content. should not do, what they do if they find something, whether This organisation is a quango. It is a semi-public body, they should have the… with financial support from and senior appointments made All my constituents do have the relative agreement from by Government. You could, also, describe it as quasi- landowners to metal detect, and if there is any treasure trove autonomous, a non-governmental organisation (NGO). found, then the market value is supposed to be paid for that. Many will say it is funded by its membership and, Half of that goes to the landowner, anyway, so they know therefore, it should be left to its own devices. Well, that is not that. They are very keen on what they do, and they do it the case. Some funding does come from its membership, but properly. the day-to-day running of the Manx Museum and National But what they are concerned with is how it is dealt with Trust is paid for by the taxpayer, in ever-increasing sums. by the Manx Museum and National Trust, administratively, These are approved by this Hon. Court. and if this is only the one policy that should be dealt with Also, all the capital schemes are paid for by the taxpayer: by the Trustees, I am flagging that up now. But I believe some £5 million-plus each year, it takes, to run the Manx there are other policies that the Trustees should be allowed Museum and National Trust. to express concern about, should be allowed to develop and The branches elect, every five years, membership. This should be allowed to be dealt with. year it is Mr Gill in the Keys and Mr Gelling in Legislative The Vice-Chair of the Trust will respond to say that is Council and, by statute, Mr Speaker is a Trustee. the case. We have had the Answers to the Questions before Mr Downie sits on the Trust by invitation of the us. But I know, from being there, and I do not believe that Trustees – or of the Director – which in itself is part of the anything will have changed. problem – There were Trustees who were very keen on developing policies and developing issues. I know when I was there, Mr Downie: Point of order, Mr President. Mr Speaker Cain, who was there, was treated in the most I am elected onto the body by the Trustees, not by disrespectful way, because he tried to get to grips with issues the grace of the Director, and I just want to correct that within the Manx Museum and National Trust, and, also, other statement. people, until the bodies that they were representing were actually removed by the Trustees, so that they no longer The President: Thank you. Continue, Hon. Member were represented on the body of Trustees. for Peel. The legislation says that a number of organisations can be appointed, to put forward representatives, but if the Mrs Hannan: I have been there, and I know that it is at representatives get into any sort of discussion, those bodies the invitation of the Director. are then removed. That is something which, I think, we should all be concerned about. Mr Downie: Mr President, that remark, I think, is How can Manx National Heritage and the Manx Museum uncalled for. and National Trust, under the legislation, be made more I am democratically elected on, and there is a vote taken, accountable, politically, and with the public, in the face- as to whether I am allowed to sit on the body or not. to-face meetings it has with the public? It is not just my constituents that I have spoken about. It is other people that The President: I appreciate you were elected. The Hon. have come into contact with the Manx Museum and National Member for Peel is responsible for her own comment. Trust, and how the officers deal with people. I believe that somebody has got to get to grips with Mrs Hannan: Therefore, the Trustees, with the exception this, because what people say to me is that they have lost of the House of Keys and Legislative Council Members confidence in the Manx Museum and National Trust; ‘we and the Speaker, are virtually hand picked, not expected do not want the Manx Museum and National Trust to have to pose demanding questions, or express concerns over artefacts, because they no longer display them.’ They would policy, if there is a policy – or develop policy, when there is prefer to put something together which is, you could say, a lacuna – but just be grateful to be allowed to attend such artificial, in heritage centres, and those sorts of things, than a worthy gathering every month, if an executive committee display the actual artefacts themselves. People want to see

Manx National Heritage – Lack of political accountability – Debate commenced Orders of the Day TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 1689 T123 their finds displayed. They want to see them displayed in a as to the integrity and accountability of the way Manx proper way. National Heritage conducts its business, and to the valuable But, also, in land National Trust aspects, they want to be contribution it provides for Government and for the wider treated in a much more respectful way. Manx community. The reason why I am saying that is this is not a private This was brought to bear, some years ago, when, as organisation. It is not a private organisation; it is an a Member of the Department of Local Government and organisation funded by the taxpayer. That is why I have the Environment, I saw, first hand, the value of MNH’s brought this to this Hon. Court, at this particular time. work, particularly with their development of areas in the So, I would hope that Members will join with me in this countryside, looking at setting up national parks, acquisition very considered motion before the Court today, in that it of various sites around the Isle of Man, which really, without supports my view that Tynwald should be concerned about Manx National Heritage’s intervention, would have been lost the failure in practice of Manx National Heritage to be to the Manx nation forever. You only have to look at their politically accountable for the conduct of its affairs. I leave property portfolio and the extensive amounts of land that it to Members to decide how that further accountability they have, which are available freely to the Manx nation should be brought about. and people are encouraged to come in and enjoy the various It has, in recent years, been suggested that the Manx aspects that we have. Museum and National Trust comes under the auspices of, In my present role, as Minister for Trade and Industry, I say, the Department of Tourism and Leisure, in the same way am very much involved in working with people who want as the Arts Council and other organisations come under that; to be craft apprentices, to try and keep alive some of the old but maybe it should, also, come under Education, because skills. We support projects like stone-walling and thatching, it is educative. and so on. So, there is a continuity here, and I think there Those are just a couple of thoughts that I have, where are ways in which Government, in general, can benefit from I think it can be more responsive to the concerns of the having an organisation like this. people and, also, presenting and agreeing policies and the Now, I want to talk a little bit about the integrity of the like, instead of people being there purely by invitation, and Trustee operation. Throughout my time on the Trustees, I being allowed to feel that they are part of this wonderful can, also, confirm the conduct of MNH business has been organisation – which, as I have said, is run well, but I think exemplary. Indeed, many of the aspects of the newly agreed it is run at the expense of policy, and at the expense of Code for Corporate Government Governance have been in inclusion. place at Manx National Heritage for some time. Thank you. I beg to move. I can confirm that the four national politicians on the Trustees are all included as members of the executive The President: The Lord Bishop. committee and, therefore, have a very strong position to influence policy, and to ensure that any questions of The Lord Bishop: I beg to second and reserve my accountability are properly addressed. remarks. The level of political representation on the Trustees of Manx National Heritage, Hon. Members, is significant. The President: Mr Downie. Indeed, it is much stronger than some mainstream Government Departments. With Mr Speaker, myself and Mr Downie: Mr President, I am happy to contribute Members representing the Keys and Legislative Council, to this debate, both as a Minister of Government and as Members need have no fear as to Tynwald’s representation someone who has observed the workings of the Trustee on the Trustees of Manx National Heritage. body of Manx National Heritage closely, over a number of I cannot think there is a way of strengthening the years, as a Trustee. scrutiny and political accountability, which is at least as I have been asked if I would allow my name to go secure as that for other areas of Government. Any changes forward to be co-opted onto the Trustees, for the last four to strengthen such controls and scrutiny across Government and a half years. I see a great lot of value in the work that will automatically apply to Manx National Heritage. So, Manx National Heritage has managed to achieve over the Hon. Members need be in no doubt as to the secure level of last few years, and it seems to me sad that we are down to accountability which exists. an argument about individuals. I want to talk about the stimulation for private finance. I would suggest that, when you look at the make-up of I think this is important, because I do not think there is Manx National Heritage, and its representation right round any other Department in Government where people freely the Island – and included in that are people representing make contributions, they give donations, they give land, the UK National Trust, the RSPB, a number of other very they give artefacts and they also leave legacies. Apart from valuable organisations – I do think they have a superb role the Assessor of Income Tax getting money when somebody to play in the Isle of Man. has not left a will, I cannot think of any other situation in They, also, have statutes of their own which go back to the Government where that actually happens. 1850s and 1860s, where they have responsibility for ancient I think, because we have this unique situation, people monuments. They do, from time to time, act as guardians of have confidence in the way Manx National Heritage is run, the countryside, and they have interest in historic buildings, and they are quite prepared to leave their personal items and and so on. so on, for the good of the nation. In fact, the Trustee body is My political work within Government has involved me publicly recognised as an independent charitable trust. That with a number of different remits, and many of these remits means that we attract considerable private finance, through are closely related to aspects of the work of Manx National gifts and requests. Heritage. I, therefore, feel I am well qualified to comment Just recently, I have been involved in a project where a

Manx National Heritage – Lack of political accountability – Debate commenced 1690 T123 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 Orders of the Day sizeable fund was raised, to acquire important Manx material, that there is no openness and accountability about the work motorbikes and other equipment for Murray’s Motorcycle of the Manx National Heritage Trustees. Museum. No Government funding was available for this, An illustration of this, you might find… We have had but Manx National Heritage was able to attract charitable placed before us a Written Answer to Question 53. In that financial support from elsewhere, because of its unique and Question, there is a request: separate charitable status. I do not want to prolong this, Mr President, (A Member: ‘What is the Manx National Heritage policy with regard to Tynwald Hear, hear.) because I think, at the end of the day, Members Members and/or the public corresponding with its Trustees?’ will have their own views about Manx National Heritage. I would, openly, admit that there is a difference of opinion It goes on to ask about the names of the Trustees, and between some Members of Tynwald and some of the the approval of correspondence to Trustees – in fact, that is individuals in Manx National Heritage. I, honestly, believe on Question 54. that by bringing Manx National Heritage into a Government I am perplexed by the Answer that has come back to Department, you are not going to solve that. us, from Manx National Heritage, via the Vice-Chairman, I think there has to be another way to deal with that. I am because I would have thought, in an effort to provide a not against having a review of what Manx National Heritage fulsome reply, and there having been a query over the names does. I think it would be healthy. I have no concerns about of the Trustees, that it would not have been unreasonable who it is ultimately accountable to, in the overall review and for us to have actually been furnished with the names of scope of the structure of Government. the Trustees. I think that would have been, in any other I, therefore, have circulated, and now formally move, an circumstances, no less than we might have expected from amendment in my name, with the hope that Manx National any other Department. Heritage will not become a political football, and we can I think that we have a situation where, in fact, there is a keep some of the personalities out of the argument, and go system of two-tier Trustees within Manx National Heritage. forward with some degree of independent appraisal. The Trustee body, of which I was a member for a very short Mr President, the day is dragging on, so I would beg to time… in fact, I only managed to attend one meeting, which move the amendment standing in my name: happened to coincide with the three monthly meeting. That was when I was on the Board of Education, and prior to my Delete all the words after ‘Tynwald’ and replace with: time of election here. ‘requests the Council of Ministers to refer to the committee At that meeting, it became very clear that the larger looking into the Scope and Structure of Government the number of Trustees in attendance at that body were not a need for the statutes and constitution governing Manx policymaking body; they were there to receive policy that National Heritage to be updated in order that Manx had already been made by the executive. They were there National Heritage becomes more formally accountable to receive information, and to be made aware of decisions to this Hon. Court.’ that had been made. I say that, somewhat in hope, because I have, recently, The President: Now, Hon. Members, before we move had circumstances where we have asked Trustees about on – next to speak will be the Hon. Member for Ramsey, decisions that have been made by the executive and they Mrs Craine – but, at this stage, we will take a break for a have not been aware of those decisions. They have not few moments. In fact, we will resume our deliberations at been fed back to the major body of Trustees. Whilst this is a 5.30 p.m., Hon. Members. prestigious position to hold, to be on the body of Trustees – a Thank you. very nice position to be in – I do feel that they are not kept informed. They are not party to making decisions, and there The Court adjourned at 5.07 p.m. is not a sense of being accountable. and resumed its sitting at 5.30 p.m. Within these Questions that we have had this week, I think that we have had some surprising Answers. In one of them: there has been a Question here about the thatching of a roof. We are told that they do not know what the cost Manx National Heritage is of the thatching that took place. It was done by a private Debate continued benefactor – thatching of the cottage at Niarbyl – and they Amended motion carried do not have a record of the cost, or if they do, they have not told us what it is:

The President: Please be seated, Hon. Members. ‘The precise final cost of the restoration is therefore not known by Now, Hon. Members, Mr Downie asks me to make it clear MNH.’ that the word ‘affordably’, in the amendment which he has had circulated, should actually read ‘formally’. So, Manx Now, if we were talking about any normal body, we National Heritage becomes more ‘formally’ accountable to would have expected, I would have thought, for there to this Hon. Court, not ‘affordably’ as has been circulated to have been some process of tendering, quotations, estimates. you, Hon. Members. But, no, just by the whim of some benign benefactor, the With that clarification, I call on the Hon. Member, Mrs cost has been covered. Craine. Well, that is wonderful, but do we know it is value for money? Who knows it is value for money? Woe betide the Mrs Craine: Thank you, Mr President. poor benefactor! Was it value for money for him? Whether it is Mr President, I think that the feeling of many Members a beneficial process or not, it should still be accounted for. of this Court, and perhaps outside in the general public, is I was interested to hear the comments of the Trustee

Manx National Heritage – Lack of political accountability – Debate commenced Manx National Heritage – Debate continued – Amended motion carried Orders of the Day TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 1691 T123 and colleague on Council, Mr Downie, because, of course, and: initially, he said that he was democratically elected, but then he went on to say in his own address that he was actually At the end add – co-opted. I think very many of the Trustees are in a position ‘and requests the Council of Ministers to refer to the of being co-opted, either through positions that they hold… committee looking into the Scope and Structure of But I would like to see where that process is democratically Government the need for the statutes and constitution recorded, because I do not believe that it is. governing Manx National Heritage to be updated in order We are not diminishing the value of the work achieved, that Manx National Heritage becomes more formally here, but what we are saying is that it needs to be made more accountable to this Hon. Court.’ accountable. In one of the Questions that we had before us, there As Hon. Members will see, it is combining both the was a request about the Director’s appraisal. It says that the amendment by Mr Downie but leaves in the fact that Tynwald Director’s appraisal was done in a very fair manner, as one views with concern the failure of Manx National Heritage might expect, but then it is signed off by the Chairman of to be politically accountable for its affairs. the Trust. I would hope that Hon. Members would feel that they can Well, that might be fine, but there again, it might not be take this on board, because, whilst we have a good thing in fine. To me, it is all a little bit cosy. I think that it is time MNH, I believe there is great scope to make it even better. that MNH, along with every other body, was brought into a sense of accountability. The President: Hon. Member, Capt. Douglas. We have comments, too, that MNH is responsible for ancient monuments. Well, from personal experience of Capt. Douglas: Thank you, Mr President. late, I am not so sure that they are responsible for ancient Speaking to the amendment of Mrs Craine, I was monuments. In relation to a cairn in Maughold, they have actually – not taken responsibility. In fact, they have tried to shove off their responsibility. The President: No, sir, you cannot speak to it unless So, I am intrigued as to the property portfolio that the you are seconding it. previous speaker had referred to, to see, in fact, what ancient monuments and property they are responsible for. I think Capt. Douglas: I beg to second. that we need to be aware that very many of our ancient monuments are in private ownership and, perhaps, those The President: You are seconding, thank you. private owners want to check their own situations, because they may be liable to public liability insurance claims. Capt. Douglas: I was minded, sir, to second the Hon. I just illustrate that, because, on the one hand, we have Mr Downie’s amendment, but, Mrs Craine’s, I feel, has got this veneer of MNH performing well, doing a great job – more strength in it, because she has left the original motion which they are – but I have my own concerns. Those are, in, and carried on with her amendment afterwards. in particular, that we are very good at creating heritage, but I think there is some concern. Manx National Heritage we are choosing to overlook our ancient heritage, in terms is everybody’s favourite, but it is also everybody’s concern, of the crosses that were so well saved by P M C Kermode, in an almost perverse sort of way, sir. We know how good our ancient monuments – the real heritage, as I interpret it, they are, and we are quite sure they know how good they of the Isle of Man – in order to manufacture heritage. That are, as well. But I think there needs to be almost a softening is a personal criticism, and I accept that that is not, perhaps, of their attitude towards the Government. relevant to this debate. The Government are – along with some very well- But what I am trying to illustrate is that, in fact, we meaning people, who give them very handsome donations, I do have concern – many of us have concern – about am quite sure, from time to time – the paymasters. I think it is the accountability, particularly of the Trustees. I do not incumbent upon us to make sure, on behalf of the taxpayers, believe that the Trustees are truly understanding of the that that fact is recognised by Manx National Heritage. responsibilities that they hold. It is a little bit sad when you see certain actions. For I believe that the executive may have an inkling of the instance, Manx National Heritage do not believe that they responsibility, but I really do not think that the greater body should pay any part in the holiday guide to the Isle of Man. of Trustees are aware of what is going on, other than what They are in the guide, but they think they should be given they are told. that. There are a lot of things done, where they do not actually I have an amendment, Mr President; I do not know contribute. I think that upsets a few people. I have had a whether that is – number of comments. So, I do not think they should be in any way – I would The President: It has been circulated. hope they would not in any way – be concerned about facing perhaps an investigation of this nature, because it can only Mrs Craine: – ready for circulation yet. It is. Have we help. It is modernising their thinking. The rest of us have got it? (A Member: Yes.) had to get our heads round modernisation, and I would, Right, the amendment that I have, Mr President, leaves certainly, hope that they would not view it as somebody the main motion as given by Mrs Hannan. I will read it from Government poking their nose into it. out: I think they should appreciate what we are doing; I hope they do sir, and so, as I have already said, I beg to second. ‘That Tynwald views with concern the failure in practice of Manx National Heritage to be politically accountable for the conduct of its affairs.’ The President: Hon. Member, Mr Teare.

Manx National Heritage – Debate continued – Amended motion carried 1692 T123 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 Orders of the Day

Mr Teare: Thank you, Mr President. Mr Rodan: Thank you, Mr President. I do support the aims and objectives of Manx National When you look at the motion on the Order Paper, which Heritage, but I do feel, in common with other speakers, that requires political accountability from this particular body, it could be more open and transparent in their activities. At for the conduct of its affairs, that is an absolutely reasonable times, it is almost as if the cloak of Mannanan descends on thing to ask. The political interface, Mr President, is what we the affairs of Manx National Heritage, and we mere mortals have devised to reconcile the public policy – policies for the are not trusted to peer through the mist and see actually benefit of the public of the Isle of Man – with the tax revenues what is there. which that same public provides to fund those policies. I would say that the attitude that seems to be exhibited That is why we have a political system, prioritising by them creates what is probably the unfounded impression resources for the benefit of the public interest. Public that they have something to hide. I would like them to be accountability, certainly, applies in Departments of more accountable. Government. It is the reason we have Ministers, to take I think a good illustration of that is in the Answers to accountability for actions, justify those actions and be two Questions which were posed by the Hon. Member for accountable for them to Tynwald. So, it is a perfectly Ramsey, Mrs Craine, at this month’s sitting of this Hon. reasonable thing to ask. Court. Manx National Heritage need not be afraid of having to In answer to Question 62, which asks for an explanation of be accountable, in the way suggested. The question before the poor visitor figures across the board in all Manx National us is, Mr President: is the existing structure, is the existing Heritage sites, the Answer is quite bullish, I would suggest. statute by which this organisation operates – to quote quite It talks about a series of record rises in visitor figures to the a modern term – fit for purpose? Is it still fit for purpose, the Manx National Heritage sites, and despite tourist arrivals particular Act that was set up? falling, the visitor numbers to Manx National Heritage sites Now, since the 1959 Act was established, the public actually rose by 14 per cent. If you read that, you have a nice administration of the Isle of Man has changed out of all warm feeling, ‘Isn’t everything in the garden rosy!’ recognition. We have had, as we know, a ministerial system Let us get down to the figures. The figures are actually in to replace the Board system; but that is, in turn, grafted on response to the answer to Question 61. A prima facie check to a current system of Statutory Boards – of which MNH is indicates, yes, there has been steady growth from 1997 up not one, of course, but it is a public body spending a good to 2005, where the figures have gone up from 344,000 to deal of public money. 412,000. So, it seems to me, Mr President, very timely, considering Now, do what anybody else would do: strip out those that there is an exercise going on, at the moment, into the attractions which were not there in 1997, and use an appropriateness of the structures of Government, that that interesting industry benchmark – like-for-like sales. If you body, that Committee, actually looks into whether the strip out the old House of Keys, which was not around 1997, existing structure, under which MNH operates, is still fit for the Sound and Niarbyl and, also, Rushen Abbey, you take purpose or relevant today – which is why both amendments, off nearly 90,000 from that figure. of course, make reference to that Committee being charged, So, in fact, on a like-for-like sales basis, the figures are to see if there is a need for the statutes and constitution down 6 per cent. Well, what they say, on one hand, is not governing Manx National Heritage to be updated, in order supported by what they say in the other. If you are going that it become more formally accountable to this Hon. to tell a story, for Heaven’s sake, make sure that you get Court. your figures right! Overall it does not really help to create Now, whether it be updated for that purpose or for other any confidence in the organisation – an organisation which purposes, I would say there is a need for it to be updated, receives a consideration subvention from this Hon. Court. and there are other reasons, other than that of formal On a personal note, I am aware of a cottage, which accountability. is not too far away from me, which was gifted to Manx I will give, as a very small example of the need for National Heritage: a small thatched cottage. That property statute to be updated, the fact that the 1959 Act sets out the remained empty for a considerable number of years, the composition of the Trustees: who they are, or what interests thatching deteriorated, it has been re-thatched, in recent they represent, I should say, and the circumstances in which years, and it is now occupied. But I would suggest that the they can be replaced. There is, certainly, an element of lack of maintenance and, also, the fact that it was left empty inflexibility. for some years, will have increased the cost of making it The Trustees, for example, in statute contain habitable again. representatives from Douglas Corporation, from Ramsey, In some respects, we are not doing ourselves any credit from Peel, from Castletown and as the Hon. Member for at all. I think, really, that it should be brought back into the Ramsey has mentioned, the Board of Education. This may fold. This is no reflection on the present Chairman of Manx or may not still be relevant, 40 or 50 years on. It may be, National Heritage, whom I hold in high regard, but I think may not be. it is time that we had somebody from this Hon. Court acting But since that time, in that time of change, we have also as the Chairman of the Trustees. (Several Members: Hear, had the development throughout the land, a network almost, hear.) of local heritage trusts and the Laxey Heritage Trust was the Thank you, Mr President. first. The first chairman was the late Sir Charles Kerruish, former President of this Court, of course. That was set up, The President: Can I just remind Hon. Members that we the Laxey Heritage Trust, and has been joined by six or seven are on the homeward stretch in regard to our Order Paper. others, over the last 20 years. Keep an eye on the clock, Hon. Members. All the Trusts work very effectively with MNH and very Hon. Member for Garff, Mr Rodan. good working relationships are in place. The Laxey… or as

Manx National Heritage – Debate continued – Amended motion carried Orders of the Day TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 1693 T123 it is now, the Laxey and Lonan Heritage Trust made a case wonderful hospitality for a whole week, beautifully arranged to the Trustees. It, certainly, got quite a sympathetic hearing by Manx National Heritage. I commend them; they arranged from the executive committee and from the four political everything very well; it was well arranged. representatives, that, in fact, either Laxey Heritage Trust, But who picked up the bills? The Chief Secretary’s which is the centre of a good deal of activity, recreation of Office, I think, paid one third. I think the Department of various projects, recreation of the historic railway systems, Tourism paid another. I am not quite sure of the apportioning Snaefell Wheel and all the rest of it… of the actual funding, but I know for a fact that it had to How relevant it would be if, in their own right, they were be funded by Government. It was not arranged by them. It to have representation on the Trustees of MNH, joining was certainly not a policy, at that time, of the Council of Castletown and Peel, laid out in statute. Of course, the great Ministers, for this event to take place. difficulty was that it would need a change in statute to bring that about, such is the inflexibility of the statute. So, no matter The Speaker: Government arranged it. how sympathetic the hearing or, even if broadened out, that if not the Laxey Heritage Trust, there be a representative Mrs Crowe: No, that is not the case. of the local heritage trust interest on MNH, there was very little that could in fact be done about it, under the existing The Speaker: It is. structure. So, I cite this as another reason that would justify a Mrs Crowe: No, it is not. (Interjections) fresh consideration and an updated existing constitution. It I think this administration has had ample evidence of is perfectly right that this should happen. the concerns about Statutory Boards, about the way in So, Mr President, I am supportive, certainly of the which they work. It is not only Manx National Heritage. I amendment and the notion of political accountability of this will support the amendment, because I think the sooner we or any other body that spends public money and administers get something done about the way in which these Statutory policies on the part of the public. I think both the motion and Boards work, the better. the amendment, as exemplified by Mrs Craine, are certainly Now, I know it is going to go to the Scope of Government capable of support, and it will certainly get my support, Mr Review Committee that is sitting at present, so it goes off President. to another committee. I am quite sad about that, that in five, even ten years, we have not yet addressed what we are The President: Hon. Member, Mrs Crowe. going to do with Statutory Boards. We will leave it to the next administration. Mrs Crowe: Thank you. I would just like to say in finishing that I am very proud Well, I am brought to my feet by the Hon. Member for to be a life member of Manx National Heritage. (Interjection Garff, Mr Rodan, who has just explained that a member of by Mr Henderson) his local heritage trust could not be appointed or co-opted to the Manx National Heritage Trustees. I am quite intrigued, Mr Downie: You didn’t declare your interest. because we heard, to begin with, that my hon. colleague in Council was apparently co-opted, so I do not understand Mrs Crowe: I think they do a wonderful job. In the difference. particular, I would like to just mention, at this point, some We know that there are appointees from Tynwald: people who, perhaps, do not get a mention most of the time. Mr Speaker and I believe Mr Gill and Mr Gelling are all We have talked about the Trustees. I would like to talk appointed by Tynwald to the Trustees; but here we have a about the organiser for Friends of Manx National Heritage, Laxey Heritage Trust that cannot have a Trustee, but the Hon. Nicola Pemberton, who arranges some fantastic events, at Member of Council… This is no personal – the drop of a hat, with very little funding. I commend her and I commend a great deal of the work that Manx National Mr Downie: As an individual – not a heritage body. Heritage does. That does not allay any of my concerns about Statutory Mrs Crowe: But how and why and whom was he Boards – and I mean all of them: outwith Government, recommended by? My election agent might help in this regard. outwith the formal policy setting process and with a great I would quite like to be elected to the Manx National Heritage deal more power than, in fact, the Ministers have, because, Trust, if you could arrange that for me, sir, as effectively as of course, they are not constrained by the Council of you arranged my appointment to a Select Committee! Ministers.

Mrs Cannell: Never in a thousand years! (Interjections The President: Mrs Cannell, Hon. Member Douglas and laughter) East.

Mrs Crowe: I have, for many years, had concerns about Mrs Crowe: Mr President, point of order. Statutory Boards. I think my concerns about Statutory Boards I believe the Hon. Member for East Douglas declared an are well known. Certainly, I have made them known to at interest, earlier on, because her husband was an employee least three Chief Ministers. of the Civil Service. I hope that Mrs Cannell will declare We had a perfect example of being outwith Government, an interest that her husband is an actual employee of Manx outwith the policy setting process. I am sure many of us National Heritage. here remember it: the visit of Rogaland County Choir – a wonderful occasion – and it was a wonderful occasion: the The President: Hon. Member for Douglas East, Mrs most magnificent night’s banquet I have ever attended, and Cannell.

Manx National Heritage – Debate continued – Amended motion carried 1694 T123 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 Orders of the Day

Mrs Cannell: Thank you, Mr President. It almost looks as though it is a conspiracy. Mr President, just for point of clarification, and for the Then I looked at the Answers. I cannot see anything benefit and advice of the Hon. Member who has previously wrong with the Answers that were supplied to Hon. taken her seat, I did check before we embarked upon this Members. They are honest Answers. debate whether or not I did, in fact, have a pecuniary interest. I do not see any side in the Answers, in terms of attitude. The Clerk of Tynwald duly checked Standing Orders I do know who prepared the Answers. I know the Questions and informed and advised me that I was perfectly free to were put to the Vice-Chairman, but I do not know who remain in the Chamber, speak on the motion and vote. (Mr actually prepared the answers; like I do not know who Henderson: Hear, hear.) (Interjection by Mrs Crowe) We prepares the Answers for written reply when a Minister is are talking about Trustees, Mrs Crowe, not employees of asked a Question. I do not know if it is the Minister or if it MNH. is the Chief Executive, if it is the Deputy Chief Executive Now, Mr President, I get to my feet to second the or who it is. I take it on trust that what I am reading is the amendment in the name of the Hon. Mr Downie, Member Answer. for the Legislative Council. I do so, because I am sensing a I might disagree with it and, occasionally – not so much bit of a witch hunt going on here. in Written Answers – in Oral Answers, I sometimes wonder whether there is a bit of misleading of the truth, at times. Mr Henderson: Hear, hear. Absolutely right. But I revisited all of these and I have read them all again. I cannot see what the problem is. Mrs Cannell: There has always been an anti-MNH There is one problem here that does concern me, and that element within this place, for as long as I can remember; is in respect of the Rushen Abbey Hotel. Mr President, let always has been. The use of the words, ‘manufactured me just remind Hon. Members what the Answer was. The heritage’ has featured several times throughout this debate, Question was: and I think that is where the problem lies: that as soon as this hon. place, before I was elected, approved a business case ‘(1) Why has Manx National Heritage failed to find a new and and a proposal submitted by MNH to create visitor centres compatible use for Rushen Abbey Hotel, Ballasalla […] (2) to what extent have the Trustees and specifically, the “publicly to attract our tourists, and to boost tourism, and the money accountable” Tynwald representatives on Manx National Heritage had was approved, certain Members, who are still in this Hon. an impact on policy and progress?’ Court, protested. Now we have other Hon. Members joining that protest, and I think that is very sad. Straightaway, there is an inference there that MNH have I am not going to proclaim the wonders of MNH because failed because nothing has happened for seven years. The they are wonderful, and what they do for us is wonderful. I answer is very clear. The answers says: think most of us do appreciate that. But I want to focus on the Item on the Agenda, and ‘as reported in a number of recent parliamentary questions on this the amendments that are before us. Both amendments matter, MNH has made strenuous efforts to identify potential future are exactly the same wording. The difference is that Mrs tenants of this property who would provide a community service Craine’s amendment comes after the original motion, and commensurate with the nature of this national heritage site.’ Mr Downie’s amendment replaces the original motion. Now, I can live with Mr Downie’s amendment, and I They go on: will explain why. The motion says that, ‘Tynwald views ‘Sixteen approaches from potential tenants have been examined and with concern the failure in practice.’ I have not heard a encouraged, but none thus far have come to a viable final proposal. case, this evening, for a failure in practice. I would not Two are still currently being considered.’ jump on a bandwagon to say, as a Member of Tynwald, I am concerned at the failure of practice of Manx National It goes on, and it gives an explanation: Heritage to be politically accountable, because I know that we vote Members onto MNH, each and every time we have ‘The primary reason for a failure to find a suitable tenant for the property a new parliament. has been the extremely poor state of the building which MNH inherited as part of the acquisition of the Rushen Abbey site, and the inability, To my mind, they are politically responsible to this Hon. so far, of Manx National Heritage to obtain the approval of executive Court for MNH. We do have political representation on it. Government to include the appropriate funding to make the necessary MNH, like any other Division of Government, have to repairs to the building from the MNH Government budget.’ comply with all of the Regulations, financial Regulations and everything else. I know, for a fact, that they comply with Now, that is quite clear. They want to do it. They that very stringently, because compared with a lot of other must want to do it, because otherwise they would not Divisions within Government, they have a very tight budget have encouraged interested tenants to take it on. Sixteen and, my goodness me, the teams work very hard! approaches: two are still live; but they are all expressing Now, that is the problem I have got with the motion, concern at the state of the actual building. because it says, ‘views with concern the failure in practice Executive Government, so far, have not been able to of Manx National Heritage to be politically accountable for afford additional funds to help Manx National Heritage to the conduct of its affairs.’ I revisited all of the Questions put the building right, get the tenant in, get it open to the that were put down for written reply and there are many. public and find yet another visitor centre for our important This is why I am suggesting I believe it is a bit of a witch tourist industry. That is the sad thing. That is the thing that hunt, because not just one Member, two Members, three Hon. Members should be unhappy and concerned about, Members… We have got five Members asking Questions. not running a witch hunt after these people that are doing an Is that supposed to give the issue more validity, than it essential service. (Mr Henderson: Hear, hear.) (Interjection would if it were just one pursuing answers? I would say no! by Mrs Hannan) They do it, because they are interested.

Manx National Heritage – Debate continued – Amended motion carried Orders of the Day TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 1695 T123

(Mr Henderson: Hear, hear.) They do it because they are here tonight. As for the comments from the Hon. Member dedicated. for Ramsey, Mrs Craine, that ‘there must be something Now, I decided I would sit, I would keep an open mind. wrong here because of a thatched roof donation’ – I have I was concerned when I first got my Agenda and I saw the never heard such a trivial piece of information to be thrown wording here. I thought, ‘Well, the Hon. Member for Peel, in, (Mrs Cannell and the Speaker: Hear, hear.) to try and Mrs Hannan, is going to provide proof to us that there is a pour score over an organisation, full of hard working folk failure in practice. That is going to be provided.’ who try nothing but the best. Well, we have not had it, Hon. Members. We have not So, if somebody wants to make any further private heard it. We have heard all sorts of ‘MNH this, MNH that’. donation to Manx National Heritage for something, by It has broadened away from the actual bones of the intention, golly, they are going to have second thoughts about it now, I would suggest, to all sorts of peripheral areas. because they will be highlighted in public! What is illegal Let us do away with it. Let us focus on what is before about somebody wanting to make a donation, to help part of us. Do we, as a Court, assembled for the last time before the their property? If I asked somebody to come and fix my roof, summer recess, agree there is a failure in practice? Do we? I do not ask for three or four different quotes on it; you trust Do we agree that? Where is the proof? I have not heard the the person that is doing the work. (Interjections) proof. If Hon. Members are honest, they have not heard the proof, but if they have got a preconceived position in respect Mr Cretney: I wouldn’t! of this, then they are out to get the Trustees. I have seconded Mr Downie’s amendment. It is quite The Lord Bishop: I certainly wouldn’t! clear, from that, that it will be referred to the Committee looking into the scope and structure of Government. That Mr Henderson: I think it is shameful that it has come to Committee, I understand, we are expecting to report and we, this, Eaghtyrane, as I say, after all the hard work that these hopefully, expect them to report in October. What we will have put in. be doing here is extending their remit somewhat, to consider I am totally convinced that this is personal, and it should this. That is fine. I can live with that. It is to look at the statute not be. There is only one reason that this is here, and we and the constitution governing MNH, in order to update it. have all heard the mutterings, behind the closed doors. I That is fine. I can live with that, and I think everybody will would say to Mrs Hannan, in her winding up, I would be live with that. most interested to know how many meetings she has had They have nothing to hide. The hard working, dedicated with the Trustees and senior officials with Manx National people and the Trustees have nothing to hide. The sooner Heritage, when she has been raising her concerns, prior to Members accept that, the better. the lead-up to this motion? If she has had any meetings, how But, please, consider your position, when being asked to many have they been and what was the substance of them? support the motion together with the amendment, because if I would be most interested. you support that, you are saying they are failing in practice. The other thing, Eaghtyrane, that annoys me: it is great, if In other words, they say they are doing one thing, but, in other Members bring bits and pieces to this Court and issues practice, they are not doing it. Well, I cannot go along with of importance, such as the childcare, they are vilified till that. Kingdom come, for not going through the correct channels; yet, here tonight, we can launch this, and strip the good The President: Mr Henderson. reputation of Manx National Heritage away to nothing, in the perception that is going out. That is very sad and should Mr Henderson: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. not be allowed, Eaghtyrane. I am quite sickened here tonight, listening to this, Eaghtyrane. It is shocking, some of the comments and The President: Mrs Hannan to reply. statements that are being made here. We are dragging Manx National Heritage into the public arena, and stripping Mrs Hannan: Thank you, Eaghtyrane. it, bit by bit. Basically, the impression that is going out I thank Members for their comments. I thank Mr Downie tonight, from some of the contributors, is that it is an unfit for his comments. I think it quite clearly shows, by the organisation and it has not been doing its job very well. amendment that was moved by him… If it was moved for the No-one can deny that. Council of Ministers, then it certainly shows that this issue I think that is a terrible shame, and I support the sentiments can be looked at. I am quite happy to accept the amendment of the Hon. Member for East Douglas, Mrs Cannell, to that which includes my motion and, also, the amendment moved effect. This is the one body that. (Interjection by Mr Cretney) by Mrs Craine, because that includes the concern, but it, Would you like to speak for me, Hon. Member, Mr Cretney? also, includes the positive action that has been suggested, (Interjection by Mr Cretney) in looking at this particular issue. I have to say, Eaghtyrane, this is the one body that has In relation to Mrs Craine’s comments, I would thank continually tried to protect our heritage and promote it in her. I know a number of Members have been members of some way, in years gone by, when it was not in the forefront the Trust over the years, and have actually been aware of of the Government’s eye. It is still not, to all intents and the issues that I am expressing concern about. Things have purposes, in the forefront of the Government’s eye today, not changed over that period of time. even when Members move motions to ask for our national I thank Mrs Craine for moving the amendment, to reflect heritage and natural heritage to be jewels in the crown, it something positive. I am surprised by Mrs Craine mentioning does not appear prominent, at all, in the core Government the issues which were of concern with regard to ancient policies. monuments and the like and these are being pooh-poohed I think it is a shame that they should be hung out to dry by the Member for Douglas North, in relation to that. Surely,

Manx National Heritage – Debate continued – Amended motion carried 1696 T123 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 Orders of the Day we should be looking after our ancient monuments. We have Mrs Hannan: I think it is beholden on us all, to make people – we did have, when I was a Trustee – there were sure that the monies that we vote here are spent in the proper people who worked out in the field, who went out and they way, but there are, also, policies and issues. looked after ancient monuments. They looked after buildings I would take exception with one of the responses that I or shelters that were put up to shelter the crosses – which are have got, because I know, from information that I have got, absolutely unique and priceless, (Mr Lowey: Hear, hear.) that section 56… and cannot be produced from anywhere else. I would hope that the Trustees will look at this, and I was a Trustee when the shelter was being built at make sure that the Answer that is given on section 56… Lonan Old Church and they must be protected. We do have that they will look at this issue, and that they will deal with people out there. Government pays for these workers to go it in a constructive manner, and make sure that this Answer out and protect these monuments and, if they are not being is correct. If it is not, then I would suggest they come back protected, then I am sorry: that is something that we should and make sure that that Answer is corrected. voice concern about. The issue of Rushen Abbey mentioned by Mrs Cannell: We should be more than concerned, through a motion this building could have been handed over to another body. such as this. I would agree with the mover with the Member (Mr Lowey: Yes.) There are bodies within Government for Douglas East, in that this is quite an innocuous motion. that look after buildings, it could have been handed over to I think, by the comments that have been made, the issue another body… of accountability has actually been proved – failure in practice. Mrs Crowe: Course it could. I was quite concise about my concerns regarding the Manx Museum and National Trust, and others have put in Mrs Hannan: I do not see that the Manx Museum and their concerns, as well. I think unless we, actually… Maybe National Trust have to either run a hotel or operate a property we should have two: a Museum and a National Trust; and that is the size that Rushen Abbey Hotel is. then we should have another organisation, which is Manx They have already got an interpretation centre there, for National Heritage, which could look after the created visitors, but I do not see why the Rushen Abbey Hotel could heritage. But I am not putting that forward as a motion. not be used for homeless people, for housing under a local I thank Capt. Douglas for his comments. I thank, also, authority – (Interjections) Mr Teare. I thank Mr Rodan, but my reading of the legislation The Speaker: That’s not what Tynwald agreed. would say that Laxey and Lonan and any other heritage group could be pointed to the trusteeship, because under the Mr Singer: Homeless monks! 1959 Act, under section 3, ‘Constitution of Trust’, subsection (1)(k) states: Mrs Hannan: I am sorry, Eaghtyrane, the thing is that this organisation can come back to Tynwald, and ask for ‘one person to be appointed by each of the five societies or institutions anything to be varied. If they have not got the money for it, selected from time to time by the Trust as representatives of societies or all I am suggesting is that this is a property with a roof on, institutions engaged in scientific, artistic, historical or kindred pursuits within this Isle’. but it could be used for other purposes.

Then it goes on: Mrs Crowe: Of course.

‘seven persons to be co-opted by the Trust.’ Mrs Hannan: I do not see any reason why these other purposes cannot be investigated by the whole of Government, Then it goes on about the tenure. Now, my reading of if there is no money there, to do whatever it is that Manx this is that any society or institution with a scientific, artistic, Museum and National Trust wish to do. historical or kindred pursuits could be appointed. But not I would put it to this Hon. Court that we have proved only that, any of these heritage groups could be co-opted as the motion. When Mrs Cannell, the Member for Douglas the seven persons co-opted by the Trust. I would imagine East suggested that I have got a pre-conceived position, I that Mr Downie is one of the persons that is co-opted by would suggest that ‘you protest too much’, in relation to the Trust. your protestations regarding this organisation. So, my reading of that is… Those societies have changed If this organisation was open and above board, then there over the years. I know that for a fact, because I know one would not have been any need for a debate such as this. I of the organisations sent a member who was really asking think one of the concerns was expressed – Mrs Cannell questions and posing issues and the like. So, what did the raised this again – about the Niarbyl issue. I think we should Trustees do? They removed that society from the Trustees, be concerned, because if this building has been renovated so that they would not cause a problem. by a private owner – I know that private owner has got a Mrs Crowe, I thank her for her comments. Mrs Cannell lease – I assume that money has been spent in the whole extolled the virtues of Manx Museum and National Trust. of this area, and I do not know how visitors to Niarbyl are This is the very issue that I mentioned, when I was moving actually counted. the motion, that some would see this as heresy to even suggest But what concerns me is that this money was paid to that the Manx Museum and National Trust should be looked buy this area, to protect it, and now we have got a private at and should have some formal political accountability. individual who is virtually living within an area that is totally protected by Manx Museum and National Trust, at Mr Henderson: Like the TT. (Interjection by Mrs the expense of, you could say, anybody else. It is not being Cannell) occupied, as it quite clearly says, in the response that we have

Manx National Heritage – Debate continued – Amended motion carried Orders of the Day TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 1697 T123 to the Question that was asked about the refurbishment. A division was called for and voting resulted as Now, Mrs Cannell suggested that ‘Oh, all of these follows: Questions…!’ This Question has been raised before; the Question about Rushen Abbey has been raised before; the In the Keys – Ayes 12, Noes 7 Question about visitor numbers has been raised before. I think it was because issues such as this were being raised that FOR AGAINST the motion on the Order Paper was put down today. Mr Anderson Mr Cannan It is the accountability, and it is because I know the Mr Teare Mr Houghton workings… Mr Rodan Mr Henderson Mr Rimington Mr Duggan Now, Mr Henderson suggested ‘how many meetings have Mr Gill Mrs Cannell I had with the Manx Museum and National Trust?’ I have had Mr Gawne Mr Earnshaw no meetings with Manx Museum and National Trust. Mr Cretney The Speaker Mr Braidwood Mr Houghton: Oh, that’s good! Mr Shimmin Mrs Hannan Mr Houghton: Well, how do you know what’s going Mrs Craine on, then? Capt. Douglas Mrs Hannan: My constituents talk to me about what The Speaker: Mr President, the amendment carries, in is going on. I am representing my constituents as much as the House of Keys, with 12 votes for and 7 votes against. anyone else in this Hon. Court. I cannot take up an issue of ‘are you accountable?’ I am suggesting that the Manx In the Council – Ayes 5, Noes 3 Museum and National Trust are not accountable, Eaghtyrane. They are not accountable. FOR AGAINST I would hope that Members will support the amendment The Lord Bishop Mr Waft moved in the name of Mrs Craine, because I see this as a Mr Lowey Mr Singer guidance for this Committee, which is looking at, on behalf Mr Butt Mr Downie Mrs Christian of the Council of Ministers, the scope and structure of Mrs Crowe Government. They would also need to look at the Statutes and Constitution governing Manx National Heritage to be The President: With 5 for, 3 against in the Council, Hon. updated, in order that the Manx National Heritage becomes Members, that amendment, therefore, carries. more formally accountable to this Hon. Court. It becomes the substantive motion, Hon. Members, which But I would also go a little bit further, when this includes the words ‘that Tynwald views with concern’ and Committee is looking at this, because while this name has Mrs Craine’s amendment on the White Paper. been created from the Manx Museum and National Trust, I now, Hon. Members, put to you the amendment in the ‘Manx National Heritage’, the Manx Museum and National name of the Hon. Member, Mr Downie, that will delete all Trust, separately, has different responsibilities. That is an the words after ‘Tynwald’ and replace with. Hon. Members, area that, I think, we should be actually looking at: that the those in favour of Mr Downie’s amendment, please say aye; monuments out in the countryside, out in the fields, out with against no. trees growing round them, with walls maybe falling over, should have that protection. I am very pleased with the debate that we have had A division was called for and voting resulted as this evening, and I would hope Members will support the follows: amendment moved by Mrs Craine. I beg to move. In the Keys – Ayes 8, Noes 11

The President: Now, Hon. Members, the motion that FOR AGAINST I put to Court is that printed at 33 on your Order Paper. To Mr Anderson Mr Teare that, you have the two amendments, Hon. Members: the Mr Cannan Mr Rodan amendment in the name of the Hon. Member, Mrs Craine, Mr Houghton Mr Rimington seconded by Capt. Douglas; and the amendment in the name Mr Duggan Mr Gill Mrs Cannell Mr Gawne of Mr Downie, seconded by Mrs Cannell. Mr Shimmin Mr Henderson Both those amendments are exactly the same in words. Mr Earnshaw Mr Cretney However, Mrs Craine’s adds at the end of the motion on the The Speaker Mr Braidwood Order Paper, and Mr Downie’s replaces the motion on the Mrs Hannan Order Paper. Mrs Craine I will put to the Court, first, the amendment in the name of Capt. Douglas the Hon. Member, Mrs Craine, which will add at the end of the motion. You can take it or leave it, Hon. Members, whichever Mrs Cannell: A very strange voting pattern by the you decide, and then I will put Mr Downie’s amendment. Council of Ministers! So, first, Hon. Members, I put to the Court the amendment in the name of the Hon. Member for Ramsey, Mrs Craine. The Speaker: Mr President, the amendment fails to Those in favour, please say aye; against no. The ayes have carry, in the House of Keys, with 8 votes for and 11 votes it. against.

Manx National Heritage – Debate continued – Amended motion carried 1698 T123 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 Orders of the Day

In the Council – Ayes 3, Noes 5 Manx Radio ‘Mannin Line’. The Hon. Member for Michael, Mr Cannan, to move, please. FOR AGAINST Mr Waft The Lord Bishop Mr Cannan: Mr President, I will be very brief about Mr Singer Mr Lowey Mr Downie Mr Butt this motion. (Mr Houghton: Hear, hear.) This is about Mrs Christian the Election which is forthcoming, and the desire to give Mrs Crowe maximum public participation. We have now got legislation in place to give 16-year- The President: With 3 for, 5 against in the Council, olds the vote. We have increased the electoral hours and, I Hon. Members, Mr Downie’s amendment, therefore, fails believe, that the knowledge that people have, the exchange to carry. of views, is all part of the electoral process. Now, Hon. Members, I put to you the motion as amended. This is a very simple motion to recommend to Manx The amendment includes Mrs Craine’s wording at the end Radio, which has a public subvention, to provide a public of the motion on the Order Paper. Hon. Members, Item 33, service, of taxpayers’ money, which amounts to about £28 as amended. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. per household, to give the people the opportunity – that They ayes have it. is all it is – for those exchange of views over those two months: October and November. Nothing permanent; just A division was called for and voting resulted as follows: temporary. Now, it is up to Members to decide whether they want In the Keys – Ayes 12, Noes 7 maximum public participation in the Election, or whether they would prefer things to be as they are. FOR AGAINST I, personally, am of a view that the more people discuss Mr Anderson Mr Cannan the politics of this Island, particularly at Election time, the Mr Teare Mr Houghton Mr Rodan Mr Henderson better informed they will be. Alternatively, it may be the wish Mr Rimington Mr Duggan of some that there should be some restriction. Mr Gill Mrs Cannell You have had a circular from the Manx Radio management Mr Gawne Mr Earnshaw saying that they do enough already. Then, it is a matter for Mr Cretney The Speaker the view of Members of this Court. I am not particularly on a Mr Braidwood mission. I am here, simply, to give Members the opportunity Mr Shimmin Mrs Hannan of how they see the public should be able to participate. Mrs Craine The ‘Mannin Line’, during the week, during the lunch Capt. Douglas hour, when people have the opportunity to phone in or e-mail in, gives that express time when those exchange of views can take place. The Speaker: Mr President, the motion, as amended, To say they have ‘Talking Heads’ during the morning: carries in the House of Keys, with 12 votes for and 7 votes how many people have the opportunity, when they are at against. work, to participate? Certainly, Members here do not have the opportunity to participate, or to hear public expressions. In the Council – Ayes 6, Noes 2 We are otherwise engaged in our business. So, Mr President, as I say, I am not on a mission. It is, FOR AGAINST simply, a matter of choice of Members. Do you want the The Lord Bishop Mr Waft public to have the greater opportunity during those two Mr Lowey Mr Downie Mr Singer months, those seven or eight weeks, to the Election, or would Mr Butt you prefer to see the present status quo? Mrs Christian Mr President, I beg to move. Mrs Crowe The President: Hon. Member, Mrs Cannell. The President: With 6 for, 2 against in the Council, Hon. Members, the motion, therefore, carries. Mrs Cannell: Mr President, I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

A Member: Vote! Manx Radio ‘Mannin Line’ Re-introduction for General Election The President: Hon. Member, Mr Gawne. Motion lost Mr Gawne: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. 34. The Hon. Member for Michael (Mr Cannan) to move: There is an amendment that I would like to put, which I feel adds a bit of choice to the motion before us today: That Tynwald requests Manx Radio to re-introduce the weekday ‘Mannin Line’ for the period 1st October to After the words ‘That Tynwald’ insert ‘(i)’ and add at 30th November 2006 to enable public opinion to be freely the end – expressed during the period of the General Election. ‘and (ii) recognises the valuable role which Manx Radio’s The President: Now, Hon. Members, we turn to Item 34. public service programming, in particular the “Talking

Manx National Heritage – Debate continued – Amended motion carried Manx Radio ‘Mannin Line’ – Re-introduction for General Election –Motion lost Orders of the Day TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 1699 T123

Heads” programme, plays in enabling public opinion to opportunity to hear it, because I was always in meetings, and be freely expressed on a wide range of national issues.’ never got the chance to hear that. So, from my perspective, I actually hear more of what the public thinks, through Mr Cannan can decide for himself as to what he thinks the ‘Talking Heads’ programme, than I ever did through about this but, basically, there are some of us in this Hon. the ‘Mannin Line’, certainly when I was a Member of the Court that are very supportive of the work that Manx Radio House of Keys. is doing. Others of us feel that, perhaps, we would like to see I think Manx Radio has done an excellent job. They the ‘Mannin Line’ brought back in the way that Mr Cannan, have brought a number of very important and valuable the Hon. Member for Michael, suggests. programmes to the airways. I admit that the way in which My personal view on the motion, as it stands at the those programmes are managed by Manx Radio, certainly moment, on the Order Paper, however, is that it is probably by some people, is believed, perhaps, not to be quite as inappropriate, really, for politicians to interfere with the fair, in terms of access to the airways, as the ‘Mannin Line’ national media of the Isle of Man. (A Member: Hear, hear.) was. Really, that is down to Members to make their own I accept that we do interfere, in that we provide a subvention decisions. to the station, and it is entirely up to Members, obviously, I, personally, think that the issues that are covered by how they wish to respond. Manx Radio, the ‘Talking Heads’ programme, in particular, However, my amendment, basically, adds the following but, also, the arts programmes, the cultural programmes to Mr Cannan, Hon. Member for Michael’s motion: that Manx Radio delivers are good value. I think that there is a place for politics on the radio and that is answering the ‘and recognises the valuable role which Manx Radio’s public service questions of the Manx Radio broadcasting team. So, that is programming, in particularly the “Talking Heads” programme, plays the right place for politics, in relation to Manx Radio. in enabling public opinion to be freely expressed on a wide range of national issues.’ The wrong place for politics is for us to be, in some way, trying to direct the policy of the radio station. I do not think I think that gives Members an option to make their views that is appropriate. I think we need to keep that independent. known on the work of Manx Radio, without requiring or even Certainly, if my motion is successful, I would hope that the requesting Manx Radio to change its policy. amended motion would be taken in parts, so that people, I accept that the way in which the motion has been Members of this Hon. Court, will have the opportunity to worded, by Mr Cannan, is relatively modest. It is only a either support Mr Cannan’s part of the motion, to support request to Manx Radio, but I still feel that it is, in effect, the my amendment, to support both or to reject both. I think it Government or the parliament of the Isle of Man, Tynwald is, basically, just giving Members another option of how they Court, interfering to a certain extent in the operation of can express their views on this particular matter. the media. The media should be independent or, at least, I beg to move the amendment. as independent as possible, of Tynwald Court, I feel, notwithstanding the fact that we do agree a certain amount The President: Mr Rodan, Hon. Member for Garff. of money, through the subvention. Again, the very fact that the motion, in Mr Cannan’s Mr Rodan: Thank you, Mr President. name, requests something to be done, and the very fact I am happy to second the amendment. I share the that the subvention has been mentioned, in the mind of the reservations of the Hon. Member for Rushen. I do not think Managing Director and the Trustees at Manx Radio, I am anyone would disagree that it is critically important that the quite sure, they would then think, ‘Well, we have got this public be given the widest possible expression, in the run- subvention money. Tynwald has now formally requested up to the Election, to air views and to have informed debate that we do something. We will have to go along with the over real political issues. will of Tynwald.’ By that, I mean political issues as opposed to personalities, I would be a little bit concerned about that, because I do which is how elections in the Isle of Man, unfortunately, believe we should have complete impartiality of the media because of the structural reasons, are largely conducted. in the Isle of Man. I know some people believe that we do Anything that enhances the level of public understanding of not have that. I, personally, believe that we have as close the political issues, on which people are required to make a to an impartial media as we can get. Certainly, I know that choice, can only be a good thing. those who wish to oppose the work of Government believe I do not know, Mr President, if I am qualified to tell the that the media does not represent their views adequately on management and editorial professionals at Manx Radio, the all occasions. I, also, know that those that wish to promote best way to achieve that. (A Member: Hear, hear.) As an Government policy have a similar view. Quite clearly, individual, it may well be that I might well think, yes, they if both sides are complaining, the media must be getting should have ‘Mannin Line’ on. But it is one thing for us, something right. individually, to believe that. The amendment that I have, particularly recognises Whether, collectively, the national parliament of the Isle the ‘Talking Heads’ programme. I, actually, do get the of Man is entitled to… Yes, it is only expressing an opinion, opportunity, on occasions, when I am driving in to work, to but for the reasons given, an opinion that will surely be taken hear the beginning of the ‘Talking Heads’ programme. I tend very much on board. I am just wondering the extent to which to come in a little bit later and then work late. we are entitled to express an opinion over editorial policy, Mr President. That is what I am saying. Mrs Crowe: Middle of the day. As an individual, I happen to think, yes, the ‘Mannin Line’ should be brought on. But if it was up to me, I would Mr Gawne: I, certainly, never have had, when the be running it along somewhat different lines from the ‘Mannin Line’ was running at dinner times, I never had the open forum and the free-rein form of expression, and the

Manx Radio ‘Mannin Line’ – Re-introduction for General Election –Motion lost 1700 T123 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 Orders of the Day undisciplined manner in which it is conducted. That is my should do, in the run-up to the election, I think that would be personal view, but I am not a professional broadcaster. quite wrong. I do hope, though… and I am sure that they will Maybe it is the right way to do it; but I would have thought rise to the challenge and make sure that the election and the a programme controlled by subject matter – or in the various issues are highlighted, and the views of the potential case of an election, with candidates and different policies candidates are focused upon, because it is so important. being argued – with a very, very critical chair in charge, to challenge the members of the public who phone in, would The President: Mr Gill, Hon. Member for Rushen. enhance the level of the debate. But that is my view. I just do have a reservation that a national parliament Mr Gill: Thank you, Mr President. should make a request of a radio station, in terms of how it Again, just very briefly, I pretty much echo all the words should best carry out its job. of the previous speaker. I have changed my position, slightly, from when I first considered Manx Radio, in particular, when The President: Hon. Member, Mr Cretney. (Interjection I thought, hold on, if we are agreeing to invest the best part by Mr Karran) of a million pounds, we should have something to show for that. Of course, we do, but we should have something Mr Cretney: Yes, thank you, Mr President. tangible and that tangible something should be absolutely I will be brief, but I do think… We spoke earlier in non-contentious, public service items about awareness, about this session, in relation to what had happened after the last welfare rights, that kind of thing. election, where a select committee was established, and I have discussed this with friends who have more we looked at certain ways of encouraging participation of experience of these matters, and they convinced me I was elections, albeit it late in the day, but we have managed to wrong. It might be a tough call, but you pay the money, and bring a number of those through to fruition, which I am, then you leave it to the professional editorial judgement of obviously, pleased about. the programmers. Sometimes, hopefully, you will like it; At that time, Mr President, there were a number of things sometimes, certainly, you will not like it. Like the previous spoken about. The last election, in particular, one of the things speaker, when I listen to the ‘Mannin Line’ – I do not listen that was said was it was a bit of a low key affair, there were no religiously, I do not listen every week, but when I do – I particularly hot issues, as such. I was criticised by someone, invariably find myself shouting at the radio, and my wife who, sadly, is no longer with us, for putting so many posters says, ‘There is no need for language like that, in front of up all over the place. Well, all I was trying to do was try and the children!’ (Laughter) And she is probably quite right. encourage interest, and trying to encourage participation. (Laughter and interjections) I think that the radio stations, all of them – Manx Radio, She also says football is only a game, and there is no Energy and 3FM, I hope will rise to the challenge – need to swear, to put it in context, but…

Mrs Crowe: I’m sure they will. A Member: Depends whether it is blue.

Mr Cretney: – and will seek to involve the Manx Mr Gill: I just do think it, really, is a matter for the public in something which is a very important feature of professional programmers. They are not going to want to our national life. miss an opportunity. If the ‘Mannin Line’ was so demanded, I am pleased that Energy have, already, come up with… when it was withdrawn – and we heard the debate – Energy They have contacted existing Members, and I am sure they FM or 3FM would have jumped in like a shot. They would have contracted prospective new Members, in terms of have said, ‘Right, this is a slot that we can do; we do not need seeking any input that Members or potential Members may permission, agreement, requests, demands from Tynwald, have. So, I am glad that that has happened. we can just do it, and we will do it, because it will make I think Isle of Man Newspapers, also, has had, already, business sense.’ a number of leading articles, in terms of important issues of But they did not, so I just have to think that that is market the day. I believe that kind of thing is very valuable. I do forces. I do hope, however, that market forces are, now, hope that all the media sources will rise to the challenge, will particularly – and I support it – that we have 16-year-olds encourage debate on the most important issues, which are being given the vote, that Energy say – because they target going to challenge the Island in the years ahead. The people that market, quite rightly… I hope that they will become of the Isle of Man will have, in November, an opportunity more engaged in the democratic process, and they will to seek prospective candidates, who will be able to carry actually try and, in due course, engage their listeners. forward and face up to those challenges. I do have to… well, I will vote against the motion for So, I think it is wrong that we should be dictating to any those reasons. I take it, it is well intentioned, and it is about media source (Several Members: Hear, hear.) as to what engagement, but that, really, is a challenge for the stations. they should or what they should not do. I am a big proponent Equally, my colleague in Rushen, Mr Gawne’s motion, of the ‘Mannin Line’ – always have been, and I guess I always which adds on that we should recognise Manx public service will be. My wife thinks I am mad, because I listen to it, every programming: yes, we should, but, at the end of the day, we time it is on (A Member: Hear, hear!) (Laughter) – every do that when we vote the subvention, and when we review time. It is the same old people sadly, and I think that is one that subvention is the time that we decide whether we are of the reasons that, sadly, people have turned off, other than content or not with what they have done. We amend our me. (Mrs Crowe: Yes.) But I think it is important that people support, or otherwise, at that juncture. have a freedom of expression, and that is why I believe it is In the meantime, whatever the frustrations, and important that that forum is available. particularly in election year, we have to leave well alone, But in terms of us dictating to any of the media what they and trust the professional programmers.

Manx Radio ‘Mannin Line’ – Re-introduction for General Election –Motion lost Orders of the Day TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 1701 T123

The President: Mr Speaker. Radio? An ex-Government Minister. (Mrs Hannan: One!) (Laughter) One thing. The Speaker: Yes, thank you, Mr President. The second thing I would like to say: who gets hundreds Mr President, I was one who, openly – again, like the of thousands of pounds of public money? Manx Radio. Hon. Member for Douglas South – said I had no problem with The third thing is the point that the Hon. Member for the ‘Mannin Line’. The principle of it and what happened is Rushen said – the middle Member there, Mr Gill – about the fine, it gave people a voice; but the station itself made that other service providers, as far as radio stations. They have not determination to take it off the air. got public money. They know that the way to make money is I have to say that I think the motion before us today is, they get someone up there, throwing discs over the airways, really, one we should steer absolutely clear of. (Several with lots of advertising. There is no way, in the commercial Members: Hear, hear.) It is, in my opinion, blatantly, world, they could provide Manx Radio. political interference in a radio station to say, we want you So, let us stop the hypocrisy. The fact of the matter is what to do this. the Hon. Member is on about is that it was one of the biggest Okay, it says ‘requests’. Hon. Members, Tynwald can veins to the lot of us, by people getting on and complaining, only request even Government to do things; it never says, who are nothing to do with the cosy arrangement in here. ‘You shall do it’ – it requests something. But we know a I believe, Eaghtyrane, that the Hon. Member is not request from Tynwald carries a lot of weight, because then interfering in the Manx Radio; the interference was in, when it is taken on board, that that is what we want. they stopped the ‘Mannin Line’, in the first place. Let us be This would be like saying to Isle of Man Newspapers, perfectly honest about it. we want you to provide two pages in your papers every It is alright the likes of my good friend, Mr Cretney, week, and make sure you fill it with people who write in to saying, ‘I am a great supporter of it’, and then going on say what they think. to rubbish it, by saying, ‘Oh, there is only a half a dozen Mr President, we live in a democracy, the media has to people on it’. be free to do what it believes is right, and it might differ from what we think. (Mrs Crowe: Exactly.) But that is a Mrs Hannan: No he didn’t. democracy, and this is interfering in that, and saying to Manx Radio, we want you for the election period – not all the time; Mr Karran: This is a great way of doing the situation, just for the election period – to have these programmes so as far as it is concerned. people can ring in. I believe it is about public participation. There should We do not know what Manx Radio have already got be an area there. planned. We know it is absolute rubbish to expect the two other radio stations… One is aimed at the kids – and let us be Mrs Cannell: Yes, we do. perfectly honest with you, how many young people are really interested in politics, as the youngest person ever to stand for The Speaker: Well, I certainly do not. election? Alright it is 20-odd years ago, but there is still very few people in their 20s who are really interested in politics. Mrs Cannell: We had a memo from them. So, they are not going to do it on an economic basis. The 3FM lot are not going to do it on a commercial basis. The Speaker: Well, some may have; I have not. So, this idea that, somehow, it is all a level playing field The point is that is a matter for the radio station. One of is rubbish. I think the Hon. Member is trying to put back a bit the dangers is that, here we are, thinking, because we provide of balance. You put the ex-Minister who gave us the MEA, funds on behalf of the taxpayer, that we can also direct how IRIS and a few other things, as chairman of Manx Radio, we want the station to provide programmes. Sorry, that is and I think if we are talking about political… we really need not how it works. to get our own house in order. What matters is what the licence says. Manx Radio is the public broadcaster for the Isle of Man. It is, to use our term, The President: Hon. Member for Michael to reply – the national station. I would say to Hon. Members, this is one to steer clear of. Leave it to the management to do their Mrs Cannell: Mr President? job. That is why they are there. We might all have views about certain aspects of what The President: Hon. Member, Mrs Cannell. they do we do not like, and other bits we do like, but to actually start saying, ‘We want you to do this for the election Mrs Cannell: Mr President, I seconded and reserved period’, I believe is a dangerous issue. my remarks, sir. I shall be very brief. (Laughter and I would suggest, Hon. Members, if you really are interjections) democrats, vote out the amendment and vote out the Mr President, I was a little concerned when Mr Speaker motion, because it is not the way Tynwald Court should do said that he did not have the memorandum that was its business. circulated, because it was circulated to all Members. It was from the Managing Director of Manx Radio. Several Members: Hear, hear. For the benefit of clarity, I would just like to remind the Court that, in fact, the upshot is that Manx Radio are The President: Mr Karran. saying that they have invested in a new election website, for imminent launch, and they are, therefore, confident Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I have only got three things that public opinion can be freely expressed, both now and to say to this Hon. Court. Who is the chairman of Manx throughout the election period.

Manx Radio ‘Mannin Line’ – Re-introduction for General Election –Motion lost 1702 T123 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 Orders of the Day

Now, that is through the two opportunities: one is if to everybody here, I do not want political interference in you have a computer and you can go onto the website; and the radio station; but we pay – like we pay the BBC – a fee. the other one is if you either call, text or e-mail through to We pay £120 for the BBC, and through our taxes here, each ‘Talking Heads’. household pays approximately £30. Those are facts. Now, ‘Talking Heads’: yes, it can be quite lively. Mostly, All this motion is: it is not political interference to say you though, people are shy about phoning up, and they will send in have got to promote this or promote that. (Mr Henderson: through a text or an e-mail. The fellow that operates this – Hear, hear.) It is just simply to say, let the people speak. That is all – not to promote my policy or your policy, or Two Members: Dan Davis. your policy or your policy. It is just the freedom to let the electorate speak during the election. Mrs Cannell: Dan Davis, yes. He sounds very young to Now, Mr Speaker said, ‘Oh, well we could dictate to the me – I have never actually met him, but he sounds young. newspapers.’ Of course we cannot, because we do not pay But the young man who heads this up has to keep it going, any subvention – but there is a lot of music, as well. It is not really… If you are quick… You have got to be The Speaker: And we should not. quick, because it moves quite fast, and then it ends. I feel, yes, it is interesting, but I get to the end of the programme, if Mr Cannan: – and we should not. The papers are free. I am listening to it, and I think, ‘Oh, there is just something They are in a free market. missing from it!’, because there is not a proper discussion But I can assure you that the Government or the about the issue that is being floated that day. It is all over Parliament recommend to the BBC that there should be very quickly. It is a bit of a juggling-type programme. a coverage that is of a level playing field. Is that political It has its merits, so I am not complaining about it. It has interference, when the Parliament at Westminster says to the its merits. But I think that alone, together with just a website, BBC certain guidelines, at election time? I do not think is enough. This is only a guideline. It is not a dictatorial ‘you 3FM concentrate on music and they are going to set up shall’; it is a request. It is a guideline – no more than the a website. Websites are very interesting, there is one that guidelines the BBC get from Parliament at Westminster, is running at the moment called manxforums.com and that because all the people – including the Isle of Man, which is very interesting, so if one wants to learn about opinion has no representation at Westminster – pay the fee. We here, out there, in terms of politics, or anything else that has a in the Isle of Man, all of the households, are paying a fee political slant to it, then the views and opinions on there are of about £30. quite interesting. As I say, this is not political interference to promote But, again, one can get frustrated, because you have no me, you or anybody else; it is a guideline to let the people input, unless you become a member and log on. I doubt speak. if any Hon. Member would do that, because I think they Now, very often, and most times, the Hon. Member for would be crucified, if they did. But the actual forum of being Onchan, Mr Karran, is… well, not, perhaps, shouted down, able to phone up on a telephone, and be able to talk to an but not listened to. This time he was exceptionally brief – enlightened interviewer… and I am not saying that the young exceptionally brief. He said the Government appointed the man who does the talking is not, but I am referring now to chairman. Is that political interference? the very experienced broadcaster in David Callister – very And who did they appoint? The Member, who had been experienced (Several Members: Hear, hear.) (Interjections) a Member of the Council of Ministers – in political matters, chief political reporter and interviewer and, also, of course, he is ably assisted from time to time by Mr Shimmin: Mr President, a point of information. Roger Watterson, who was, also, a former Member of this The Government does not appoint the chairman; the hon. place, so he has political experience. trustees appoint the chairman. (Two Members: Hear, What I am saying is that the people miss that. What the hear.) motion on the Agenda is saying is that Tynwald requests This is, obviously, something which is designed to try and Manx Radio to reintroduce it to enable public opinion to undermine the credibility (Mrs Crowe: Vote.) of a former be freely expressed. I think, in essence, that is the most Member of this, for his own political reasons. important subject on this Agenda, with this Item, to ensure public opinion can be freely expressed. The President: Mr Cannan. If any Hon. Member is for freedom of information, freedom to speak, freedom of speech, then they will support Mr Karran: And who appoints the trustees? the Item on the Agenda. I do not see a problem with the amendment, if the amendment is attached onto it, but I Mr Cannan: Well, the Government appoint the would have a concern if, after our voting sequence, we end trustees. up with the amendment, and the whole motion gets voted out, because the amendment will go then and we will be no Mr Henderson: Same difference. further forward. So, I would ask Hon. Members to give the people a Mr Cannan: The subvention is not available to the voice. newspapers or any other –

The President: Mr Cannan to reply. Mrs Hannan: They do all the advertising.

Mr Cannan: Mr President, I want to make quite clear Mr Karran: Absolutely.

Manx Radio ‘Mannin Line’ – Re-introduction for General Election –Motion lost Orders of the Day TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 1703 T123

Mr Cannan: – or any other radio station. The third point In the Council – Ayes 2, Noes 6 he made was… Well, first of all, they pay a subvention to Manx Radio, FOR AGAINST and the other stations do not have it and the suggestion the Mr Singer The Lord Bishop Mr Butt Mr Lowey other stations should do it: we do not want to interfere with Mr Waft the other stations. They are not paid by the households, so Mrs Christian they are not provided with the funds. Mrs Crowe But, as I say, I will not labour the point. It is a matter Mr Downie for Members. If you believe that the people should have a choice and the freedom to express – and the Hon. Member, The President: With 2 for, 6 against in the Council, Hon. Mr Cretney was vehement, previously, that Manx Radio Members, the amendment, therefore, fails to carry. should go forth. We had this debate about two years ago. I now put to this Hon. Court the motion on the Order (Interjection by Mr Cretney) He was busy saying then, in Paper printed at 34. Those in favour, please say aye; against, Tynwald, and voting for a motion, that the ‘Mannin Line’ no. The noes have it. should be available to the people, not to promote – A division was called for and voting resulted as Mr Cretney: We weren’t trying to manipulate and elect follows: what the people want. In the Keys – Ayes 6, Noes 14 Mr Cannan: As I have already said, and I will not FOR AGAINST say anything further, the Parliament in Westminster gives Mr Cannan Mr Anderson guidelines to the BBC for the election coverage, to ensure Mr Houghton Mr Teare it is a complete level playing field and all opportunities are Mr Henderson Mr Rodan given. This is just a motion for you. I am not on a mission Mr Duggan Mr Rimington with this motion, it is an opportunity for Members to vote Mrs Cannell Mr Gill Mr Karran Mr Gawne and to express their opinion and, then, if the public do not Mr Cretney like what Members vote, well, Members are accountable Mr Braidwood to the public. Mr Shimmin This is not asking for a permanent ‘Mannin Line’; it is Mrs Hannan just asking for seven weeks during the election period. Mrs Craine Mr Earnshaw Capt. Douglas The President: Hon. Members, the motion that I put to The Speaker the Court is at Item 34 on your Order Paper. To that, you have got the amendment circulated to you, in the name of The Speaker: Mr President, the motion fails to carry, in the Hon. Member for Rushen, Mr Gawne. the House of Keys, with 6 votes for and 14 votes against. Putting to you, first, the amendment, Hon. Members: those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The noes have it. In the Council – Ayes 1, Noes 7

A division was called for and voting resulted as FOR AGAINST Mr Singer The Lord Bishop follows: Mr Lowey Mr Waft In the Keys – Ayes 5, Noes 15 Mr Butt Mrs Christian Mrs Crowe FOR AGAINST Mr Downie Mr Rodan Mr Anderson Mr Rimington Mr Cannan Mr Gawne Mr Teare The President: With 1 for, 7 against, Hon. Members, Mr Cretney Mr Gill the motion, therefore, fails to carry. Mrs Craine Mr Houghton Mr Henderson Mr Duggan Mr Braidwood Mrs Cannell Queen’s Pier, Ramsey Mr Shimmin DoLGE enforcement of listed building policy Mrs Hannan Motion lost Mr Karran Mr Earnshaw 35. The Hon. Member of the Council, Mr Singer, to move: Capt. Douglas The Speaker That as no definitive decision has yet been made on the restoration of the Queen’s Pier, Tynwald calls on the The Speaker: Mr President, the amendment fails to Department of Local Government and the Environment to carry, in the House of Keys, with 5 votes for and 15 votes apply its policy RB/9 with immediate effect to ensure that against. the Department of Transport restores, where necessary,

Manx Radio ‘Mannin Line’ – Re-introduction for General Election –Motion lost Queen’s Pier, Ramsey – DoLGE enforcement of listed building policy – Motion lost 1704 T123 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 Orders of the Day

and maintains the Queen’s Pier to a standard which overall refurbishment costs. would apply to a listed building in private ownership. Currently, Department of Transport policy does not give any indication that protection and maintenance work of any The President: Hon. Members, we now turn to our final true value will be undertaken by the Department. But that, Item, 35. I call on the Hon. Member of Council, Mr Singer, Mr President, is only one side of the story, and the reason to move. for this motion. I would now like to refer to the Department of Local Mr Singer: Thank you, Mr President. Government’s policy RB/9 which deals with registered I wish to move the motion printed at Item 35. It reads: buildings in Government ownership. Last month, during the debate, I asked the Question of the ‘As no definitive decision has yet been made on the restoration of the Minister for Local Government, what powers his Department Queen’s Pier, Tynwald calls on the Department of Local Government has invoked, to ensure the Queen’s Pier is returned to an and the Environment to apply its policy RB/9 with immediate effect to ensure that the Department of Transport restores, where necessary, acceptable standard, as expected of other listed buildings. and maintains the Queen’s Pier to a standard which would apply to a In my recollection of the Hon. Minister’s contribution listed building in private ownership.’ to the debate, he offered no answer to that straightforward question. So, whilst I received no answer, the silence At last month’s debate on the Queen’s Pier Report, I made appeared to indicate that either the Minister was not aware reference to the Department of Local Government policy of his Department’s policy or he was not prepared to enforce RB/9, which they were apparently ignoring and, certainly, it. not enforcing, to ensure that the Department of Transport Policy RB/9 says this: took care of the registered building in its ownership. Whether the Department of Transport likes it or not, the ‘Registered buildings in Government ownership will be subject to the Queen’s Pier is a DoT-owned structure. It is a listed building, same conditions as those which are in private ownership but there is the further implied requirement that such buildings should be dealt and there are rules which they have ignored, over several with in ways which will provide examples of good practice to other years, which have allowed the continuing deterioration of the owners. It is particularly important that every effort should be made Queen’s Pier. This would not have been allowed to happen, to maintain historic buildings in good condition.’ if the Department of Local Government had exercised its authority, when it has been quite clear that the DoT has So, we have registered buildings in Government ignored the responsibilities laid on it. ownership subject to the same conditions as those in private There seems to have been a view, within the Department ownership, but the further implied requirement that such of Local Government, that, rather than serve notice on buildings should be dealt with in ways which provide another Government Department, it was better to talk. examples of good practice to other owners. Quite obviously, now, talking has sterilised any action The policy cannot be clearer. The Department has made being taken by the DoT, and it appears that they have no this statement and it is the Department’s policy. intention of taking any action adequate enough to stop further But no building enforcement notice has ever been served deterioration, or to repair damage that has occurred from on the Department of Transport, because, if it had, then their lack of interest. section 31 of the Town and Country Planning Act 2001, Mr President, about 10 years ago, Tynwald did approve registered building enforcement notice, is quite specific, in the mothballing of the Pier, and the Department of Transport that it states: had £40,000 per annum, to ensure this mothballing policy prevented further deterioration, until a decision on the future ‘If at any time the owner of a building is in breach of a registered of the Pier was made. building enforcement notice he is guilty of an offence and the person may be convicted of a second or subsequent offence by reference to Hon. Members will have seen the Written Answer to a any period of time following the proceeding conviction for such an Question by the Hon. Member for Ramsey last month, which, offence’. clearly, indicated that, some years, only a small proportion of that available figure had been spent on the Pier, and other Within the same Act, section 33 states: years, none at all. The Department of Transport cannot say that the money did not need spending, as the Pier has ‘Schedule 7 shall have effect for the purpose of enabling the compulsory continued to deteriorate and, in recent years, due to safety acquisition of a registered building which is in need of repair.’ reasons, for example on the annual Pier Days, the public were no longer permitted to go on any part of the Pier. As No-one would imagine, Mr President, that the Department we also heard, the emergency services could not attend a fire will ignore taking action against a private owner who due to the inherent dangers. deliberately neglects his or her listed building. It appears, So, Mr President, where does this leave us now? After last however, that the Department is ignoring neglect to a month’s decision, and the subsequent announcement of the Government owned building, when the Department’s policy, Chief Minister, that the Council of Ministers would consider unquestionably, indicates that a stronger line must be taken in the future of the Pier, and assuming the report to this Hon. regard to Government owned buildings, to set an example. Court will be in February 2007, any positive decision – and, It is a simple question: why is there one rule for the public of the course, the decision may not be positive – and and one rule for Government? inclusion in the capital programme, the work commencing I hope Hon. Members, including the Council of on refurbishment might not be before the year 2008-09. Ministers, will support this motion, endorsing the fact that There will, therefore, be two winters before then. Lack of is surely a fundamental principle of good government, that any attempt to protect the structure of the Pier will, without the Government itself should not flout its own rules. doubt, see further deterioration and a further increase in I so move, Mr President.

Queen’s Pier, Ramsey – DoLGE enforcement of listed building policy – Motion lost Orders of the Day TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 1705 T123

The President: Hon. Member, Mrs Craine. Department of Transport has been given a huge amount of latitude, we believe it is time – the community which looks Mrs Craine: I rise to second this motion, Mr at the disgraceful condition, on a daily basis, believe that it President. is time – irrespective of the Chief Minister’s commitment The reason why lies in the evidence that was given to to come back after a review in February, that this structure the Select Committee on the Queen’s Pier on 26th January receive attention to make it safe – not just to guard it from this year by Mr Ian McCauley, Director of Planning and vandalism, but to protect it from becoming even more Building Control. unsafe. When asked what was the reason for registering the Pier, The fear lies very firmly in the belief that Government by the Hon. Member, Mr Butt, Hon. Member of Council, has neglected the Pier for so long that it is structurally Mr McCauley replied: unsound, and the view of the community is that that has been deliberately engineered, or engineered to become so unsound ‘It is registered as a way of recognising that it is a structure of special that it will have to be demolished. Government will turn architectural or historical interest, and, as a consequence is afforded around, they fear, and say, ‘Sorry, it is too far gone now – no a higher level of protection necessarily than other structures or buildings.’ option, just demolition.’ Well, that just will not do. If it was in private ownership, as has been said by the What obligations then, was the question, does that put hon. mover, the hue and cry would have been taken up long on the owner of the building or the structure? ago by Members of this Court. The feeling is that Government is not being even-handed ‘It puts an onus on the owner to maintain the property.’ in its dealings, and it is time it showed its true colours, and take action to retain the Pier, in safety, even during the time That was the reply from Mr McCauley – an onus on the it takes to reach a conclusion on its future. owner of the property. Then, Mr President, we have the crux of the matter. The question was put: The President: Hon. Member, Mr Rimington.

‘Should that level then be to preserve the structure as it was registered, Mr Rimington: Mr President, I realise I am, automatically, on the day it was registered, or is there some allowance for deterioration going to be vilified for standing up, and moving an amendment or ageing?’ on behalf of the Council of Ministers on this matter, but, obviously, it is requiring action by my Department and it is And the response was: appropriate that my Department should respond: ‘There is allowance for deterioration or ageing, but it is a matter of fact or degree as to whether or not it gets to the point where, in the Delete the words after ‘That’ and substitute – Department’s opinion, it may have to take some action. The action it ‘as the Chief Minister has announced recently that the can take in respect of any registered building is that if it considers the Council of Ministers intends to give further detailed building is being neglected to the extent that it is in danger…’ consideration to the recommendations of the Select Committee on the Queen’s Pier and report back to Now, there we have it, Mr President, at what point does Tynwald in February 2007, any action should be deferred the Department decide it is being neglected to the point until that time.’ that it is in danger? By that, we could question, is it that the structure is in danger or that the structure is in a position of I have listened to the comments of the mover and the becoming dangerous to others, or both? As has been said, seconder with interest. we know that in order to try and preserve the structure last Interestingly enough, whilst correctly describing the year, the Fire Service put themselves in danger, because it policy, correctly describing the way that that policy is is now a dangerous structure to go on. interpreted and applied, actually, what the hon. seconder Money recently has been expanded to erect a metal or the hon. mover did not demonstrate was that there was guarded entrance, to prevent the public going out onto the the need for immediate action at this point. That was not, Pier, presumably for their own safety. Therefore, it equates to actually, in evidence brought out. be dangerous, or in danger, for if it was not possible to safely preserve it, as was in the case of the fire, it is at risk. Mrs Craine: You can’t go on it! Mr McCauley went on to say: Mr Rimington: That is quite a telling issue, in relation ‘We have to decide at what point it is reasonable for the Department to that. They did not bring that to the point where you have to intervene in a situation, where the property is owned by somebody else. the point of purposeful neglect, i.e. by not insisting on quite In doing that, yes, the legislation gives us the powers, but, like any considerable works that might be required, at this point in statutory powers, we have to exercise them with discretion.’ time, that would then save it from a position where it could no longer be restored. And further: I think that is quite important, and that is, in fact, the nub of the issue before us. The Hon. Member of Council, quite ‘We only take action against owners where we consider that damage is rightly, has read out the policy, and how part 3 of the Act being done to the property and in a case where we consider that it has does apply to the Queen’s Pier, that it does come within the gone so far as purposeful neglect and is leading to a situation where definition of a building. the building may actually collapse or get to the point where it is so structurally unsound that it has to be demolished.’ My Department has been in consultation and collaboration with the Department of Transport, as owner of the structure Now, given that the matter has gone on so long, and the for a considerable period of time. The problems facing the

Queen’s Pier, Ramsey – DoLGE enforcement of listed building policy – Motion lost 1706 T123 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 Orders of the Day

Department of Transport in relation to the Queen’s Pier are I beg to move the amendment standing in my name. not easy to solve. It is not necessary, I am sure, for me to go into detail on that point, because Hon. Members are well The President: Hon. Member, Mr Braidwood. aware of those difficulties, and the issues around them. I can assure Hon. Members that my Department is Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr President. treating the Department of Transport no differently than it Mr President, I will be brief, because this was fully would any private owner of such a structure. It is satisfied that debated last month, with the Select Committee Report. I the Department of Transport has acted entirely reasonably, in am glad, this month, that Mr Singer, the Hon. Member of facing up to the problems over the Pier and its condition. Council, did not have to bring all his reports along for the last Clearly, the longer the Pier is left without any attention 15 years. However, I have to agree with my hon. colleague, being given to it, the more likely it is that the structure will the Minister for the Department of Local Government and deteriorate, but then that is finding that defining point of the Environment, that the Chief Minister gave an assurance, when that should be. That has not been demonstrated here, last month, that we would be reporting back to this Hon. this evening. Court, in February next year. However, it has to be recognised that the Department It has been mentioned about the £40,000 mothballing. of Transport cannot proceed with any programme of work, Yes, my Department, over the last years, have made secure, without the approval of this Hon. Court. The recent Report by ties, the superstructure, the cast iron footings, the girders of the Select Committee has given an indication of the likely there. Yes, the decking is in need of repair but, as we know, capital costs that would be involved in carrying out work to the cost at the present time, for even the restoration through the structure, and that Report was debated at some length, the Select Committee Report, is substantial. at the last sitting of this Hon. Court. All I am saying, now, is let this Hon. Court take the Hon. Members will be aware that, following the assurance of the Chief Minister, the amendment in the name conclusion of that debate, the Hon. Chief Minister made a of my colleague, in that we will report back by February Statement in this place on 22nd June 2006. In that Statement, 2007, on what the situation is with Ramsey Pier. he indicated that, in spite of the outcome of the vote, the previous day, he had reviewed the situation and confirmed The President: Mr Speaker. that the Council of Ministers would re-examine the Select Committee’s Report, and report back to this Hon. Court in The Speaker: Just a point of clarification, if I may, Mr February 2007, with their recommendations. President. Mr President, I believe there was a misunderstanding of I noticed in the amendment circulated in the Minister’s the purpose of the Chief Minister’s amendment, at the last name, where he says ‘delete the words after “that” and sitting. Some may have viewed it as a mechanism to avoid, substitute’: can I just have it clarified that the ‘That’ should yet again, a firm decision on the Queen’s Pier. This is not be a capital T, and he does not really mean ‘that’ as it appears the case, and there is a definite feeling, within the Council of for the first time in the motion. Ministers, that matters need to be resolved, and be brought to this Hon. Court for a clear decision. The President: I took it to be the ‘That’ with a capital The Council did have concerns on the Select Committee’s T, at the start. proposed mechanisms for funding, both in respect of the use of the Pier Company and the deployment of funds from Mr Rimington: Can I clarify, Mr President, that the the General Development Reserve. Therefore, the Council amendment, after the words ‘detailed consideration’, has wish to identify the full capital costs that would need to got ‘to the twice in it’ which, obviously, is… be deployed, the ongoing loan charge commitment, the ongoing maintenance costs, and where such costs should Mr Earnshaw: Attention to detail. rightly fall. In light of this necessary financial information, this The President: Mr Karran. Hon. Court will then be able to make an informed decision, knowing that money spent in one area means money not Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I think the important point, spent elsewhere. I believe it would be fair to comment that as far as I am concerned, is the situation that this motion is there was a reasonable degree of support for the restoration not about the Report which, hopefully, will be the sensible of the Queen’s Pier within the Council of Ministers, and way forward for the future, and a blueprint for a new way of the Chief Minister’s Statement, following the Queen’s Pier dealing with such long-term problems for Government. debate, should be viewed in that light. The issue is about the law. The law states that a registered In view of the foregoing, my Department cannot do building should have that protection, whether it is in private other than continue to monitor the situation and to work or public ownership. So, I think the point is, whilst the with the Department of Transport. It is, certainly, the view Minister’s amendment… and I am delighted that, after of my Department that it is not appropriate for it to take any having a chat with the Chief Minister in the car park, to say specific action, at this time. I could not believe… it was a gift horse in the mouth. The For this reason, I have circulated an amendment to the situation is that they are going to take it on board. motion that appears on today’s Order Paper. It would have But this motion is about the law, and the law is it is a the effect of acknowledging that any further action that may registered structure and has the protection of the law. be considered appropriate in relation to the Queen’s Pier The only other point that I would like to say, Eaghtyrane, should await the outcome of the review of this matter by on this debate, is the issue that it does highlight the fact the Council of Ministers, and the report on that review to of the independence of the registration legislation for Tynwald, in February 2007. buildings. That Private Member’s Bill which… admittedly,

Queen’s Pier, Ramsey – DoLGE enforcement of listed building policy – Motion lost Orders of the Day TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 1707 T123 the Hon. Member was not the Minister at the time, but the was Mr Rimington who used the term ‘purposeful neglect’. Minister of the time, throughout the Private Member’s Bill, If that money was not spent, and it was there, and the Pier to try and depoliticise the registration process of registered has gone worse, because of that reason, then that is, in my buildings.… I do hope that, maybe, on reflection, that will mind, the purposeful neglect. be thought about, in the future. We are told there has been collaboration with the DoT, Eaghtyrane, I believe that what we have got here is a but it has been permissive, in allowing no action and, in situation, the primary law is not being adhered to. To be fact, the DoT has not been treated as strictly as would a perfectly honest with you, it should not be a matter for a private owner. motion in this Hon. House it should be adhered to anyway, So, if I can just pick up briefly what Mr Braidwood said, as far as the issue is concerned, and I think that, really whatever the Chief Minister said – the Chief Minister has speaking, we have to support the motion on the Order Paper guaranteed that it will be looked at – he has not guaranteed as it stands. that there will be no further deterioration. As I said, it We hope that the under-resourced section of the DLGE is possible, even if the Chief Minister comes back and will be able to look at the issue, and I think all of us welcome says, yes, the money will be found – it has got to go into the report that is going to come in February, whether we are the capital programme – it will be at least two winters, here or we are not here, as far as the issue is concerned. It before any work is started. It is incumbent, I believe, on is about primary law. the Department of Transport to make sure that there is no further deterioration. The President: Now, Hon. Members, as a matter of good But they do not seem to want to do that, and the order, Mr Speaker has raised the question as to whether the Department of Local Government could make them do that. ‘that’ referred to in the amendment was the first ‘that’ with It appears, though, the Department of Local Government is the capital, at the start of the motion, or, in fact, following saying ‘don’t’. the ‘ensure that’. Mr Karran put his finger on the pulse, that it is the Having re-read the amendment, I can understand that, Department’s own policy, and it is not following its own in fact, it can read to follow both those. I want the Minister policy. If a Department does not follow its own policy, then for Local Government and the Environment to make it it lays itself open to a petition of doleance. absolutely plain to the Court which he does mean.

Mr Rimington: The first ‘that’. Mr Downie: Yes, from MNH, probably.

The President: Thank you, sir. Mr Singer to reply. Mr Singer: The amendment says that the Department can pick and choose, if and when it implements its own policy Mr Singer: Thank you, Mr President. against another Department. The public do not have input Can I thank Mrs Craine for seconding the motion. I think into the Department serving enforcement notices, allowing that the fact that she has picked out what Mr McCauley said years and years of deterioration at their properties. to the Select Committee seems to show that he has stepped I believe that this, as I said it might be beforehand, is back, to a certain extent, from seeing that his Department another hijack. It is a ‘do nothing’ amendment. We have implement their own policy. This is what I said, originally, had 14 reports, and we have done nothing, so let us have that they do not seem to want to take any action against another deferment. another Department, whereas I believe that, if the Pier had The two things are totally separate, but this has been been in private ownership, and this had been raised, they kicked into the long grass, and the sooner that the new would have implemented, immediately, their own policy. administration gets some very powerful lawn mowers, the As I said the policy, in fact, is – their own DoLGE better, because we cannot continue with things being kicked policy – saying they should be even more strict with a into the grass by the Council of Ministers, as has happened, Government-owned building; not less strict, which is what time and time again – and, at least, three times now in this is happening. particular session. (Interjection by Mr Downie) Now, I make it quite clear, I am not expecting – with this I hope, in February 2007, that Council of Ministers will motion, which is to implement policy – this motion then to be be positive. But I believe that we have to stick by the rules. translated into the fact that we are expecting the Department As I said, if Government does not stick by its own rules, what of Transport to totally refurbish the Pier, under the policy. do the public judge of that particular Government? We are not using this as an excuse. Mr President, I hope that the Members will support the I welcome the fact that the Chief Minister did, despite motion, as it is printed on the Order Paper. the goings on in here… and I think things went a bit awry in here, but the Chief Minister picked it up and I was very The President: Now, Hon. Members that motion is pleased about that. printed at 35 on your Order Paper. To that, you have had But what we are talking about here is keeping the Pier circulated the amendment in the name of the Hon. Member in the condition that it should have been kept in, as was said when it was originally listed. It is quite clear that has not for Rushen, Mr Rimington, seconded by Mr Braidwood. happened: £40,000 was available within the DoT budget to Hon. Members, I put to you, first, the amendment. Those in do this, and we know it is not being done. It is very clear favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. that there has been continuing deterioration, from the state that Pier was in, when it was originally listed. A division was called for and voting resulted as The mothballing money has not been spent. I think it follows:

Queen’s Pier, Ramsey – DoLGE enforcement of listed building policy – Motion lost 1708 T123 TYNWALD COURT, THURSDAY, 13th JULY 2006 House of Keys

In the Keys – Ayes 15, Noes 5 The President: With 6 for, 2 against, Hon. Members, in the Council, the branches in disagreement, the motion, FOR AGAINST therefore, fails to carry. Mr Anderson Mr Cannan Now, Hon. Members, that draws to a conclusion the Mr Rodan Mr Teare Mr Rimington Mrs Cannell Order Paper for this month’s sitting. Mr Gill Mrs Craine Mr Gawne Mr Karran Mr Houghton Mr Henderson President’s tribute to former Messenger, John Crooks Mr Cretney Mr Duggan Mr Braidwood The President: Before we do just retire, Hon. Members, Mr Shimmin can I, as I was not within this Court when Mr Speaker paid Mrs Hannan tribute to our late Messenger, Mr Crooks, ally myself to his Mr Earnshaw comments at the commencement of this sitting, and remind Capt. Douglas Members that the funeral is tomorrow morning, at 10.30. The Speaker

The Speaker: Mr President, the amendment carries, in the House of Keys, with 15 votes for and 5 votes against. Thanks from the President In the Council – Ayes 3, Noes 5 The President: Hon. Members, this is the last sitting of FOR AGAINST this Court, before the summer recess. I quite sincerely thank Mrs Christian The Lord Bishop all Members for the hard work which they have put in, not Mrs Crowe Mr Lowey only on this particular month, but throughout the last year, Mr Downie Mr Waft Hon. Members, for the work which you carry out here in Mr Singer Tynwald Court. Mr Butt At this particular time, also, I wish Hon. Members that you have, at least, some respite during what is known as the The President: With 3 for, 5 against, Hon. Members, it summer recess. therefore, fails to carry. Hon. Members, the Council will now withdraw and Hon. Members, I now put the motion, as on the Order leave Mr Speaker to such matters as he may wish to put Paper. Those in favour, please aye; against, no. before the Keys. Thank you. A division was called for and voting resulted as follows: The Council withdrew. In the Keys – Ayes 7, Noes 13

FOR AGAINST Mr Cannan Mr Anderson Mr Teare Mr Rodan The House of Keys Mr Henderson Mr Rimington Mr Duggan Mr Gill Mrs Cannell Mr Gawne Mrs Craine Mr Houghton Thanks from the Speaker Mr Karran Mr Cretney Mr Braidwood The Speaker: Hon. Members, can I just add my support Mr Shimmin to what the President said. Mrs Hannan I know it is going to be a busy summer for you all Mr Earnshaw Capt. Douglas and, also, put on record our thanks to the Clerk and to our The Speaker Messengers. (Members: Hear, hear.) I hope they have a nice break, as well. The Speaker: Mr President, the motion fails, in the Hon. Members, the House will now stand adjourned House of Keys, with 7 votes for and 13 votes against. until Tuesday, 17th October, at 10.30 a.m. here in Tynwald Court. In the Council – Ayes 6, Noes 2 Thank you, Hon. Members.

FOR AGAINST The Lord Bishop Mrs Crowe Mr Lowey Mr Downie Mr Waft Mr Singer Mr Butt Mrs Christian The House adjourned at 7.46 p.m.

Queen’s Pier, Ramsey – DoLGE enforcement of listed building policy – Motion lost President’s tribute to former Messenger, John Crooks Thanks from the President House of Keys – Thanks from the Speaker